FUEL AND POWER CUTS

HC Deb 10 February 1947 vol 433 cc62-146

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. William Whiteley.]

5.7 P.m.

Mr. R.S. Hudson (Southport)

I think I ought to start by saying that we on this side of the House appreciate the action of the acting Leader of the House in realising what I think everyone outside must realise by now, that the country is facing a situation of unparalleled gravity, and that this honourable House is., accordingly, entitled, at the earliest possible moment, not only to discuss it, but to hear a very much fuller account of the causes that have precipitated it, and the reasons for the lack of foresight and action on the part of His Majesty's Government in preventing it, than we have had up to now.

I think it will probably be common ground on all sides of the House that the experience of years proves that it is essential, if the country is to continue without a breakdown during the winter, to accumulate large stocks of coal during the summer. In the days when coal, as we know, was in ample supply —Members opposite were never tired of telling us that the difficulty was not a shortage of coal, but unemployment among miners —it was always recognised that during January, February and March the public utility companies, electricity and gas, had to "live on their own fat," that they could not get through the winter unless adequate supplies and stocks of coal had been accumulated during the summer. We all know the difficulties which faced this country during the war, and we all appreciate the difficulties which have faced it since VE-Day. But the fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power and his colleagues in the Government did fail singularly to accumulate anything like adequate stocks during last summer. He, indeed, would be the first to admit it. He admitted it during the Debate in the House on Friday, and in case any hon. Member was not present, or has not read the Debate, I quote what the right hon. Gentleman said: I will agree that it the stock position had been good in he last three or four months, we could have avoided any difficulties that are likely to emerge in the next few days But the stock position has been bad."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1947; Vol 132; c.2181] The gravamen of the charge we have to make against the right hon. Gentleman is this —that he was warned repeatedly about the inevitable results of allowing the stock position in the summer to be so bad and yet took no adequate steps to build up those stocks. He refused to admit that the situation was so serious —or I should say that, at one moment, he admitted that it was serious, and, at another, he became optimistic and contradicted the warnings which he had previously given. In spite of knowing, as he must have known, that stocks were perilously low, he made no adequate plans to meet the emergency that was almost bound to arise. What were the warnings that were given to the right hon. Gentleman? The warnings came from all quarters —they came from the industry, from all on this side of the House, and from his predecessor in office, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George). As long ago as 16th June, 1946, the electricity supply companies issued a statement that coal stocks for electricity undertakings stood at a "dangerous level." On 23rd June, the Chairman of the Midland Counties Electric Supply Co. said: Before the. war, eight weeks' supply —summer or winter —was considered the barest minimum by the gas and electricity supply industries. There are many companies today with less than two weeks' supply. That was in June. The results of a breakdown in coal supply will mean reduced railway operations, fewer bricks, less steel and a blow to the export trade. On 24th June, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke, speaking from these benches, gave a similar warning. On 13th September, the Preston borough electrical engineer issued a warning: The coal position is very serious indeed, and unless there is a very material improvement in the coal delivery situation, it may be necessary during the coming winter to reduce supplies. On 13th September, the Public Relations Committee of the electricity supply companies issued a statement: Our object is to warn the public of the gravity of the position as we see it. Since the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power is so confident about the coal position, the industry would be glad to be taken into his confidence as to how, when and where the additional coal required will be forthcoming. Speaking from these benches, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), on 20th November, said: Ministers must know the magnitude of the dangers which approach us, but their pronouncements alter with irritating inconsistency, from the most pessimistic to the most rosy tints.' — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th NOV., 1947; Vol.430, C, 876.] If any one wants proof of that, I would ask him to listen to the two statements made by the Minister of Fuel and Power —not at long separated intervals —but in the same month, the month of October. On 8th October, the right hon. Gentleman, in opening the Conference on "Fuel and the Future," is reported as having called for a voluntary cut of ten per cent., in order to avert a breakdown in supplies in the depth of winter. That did not prevent him from saying on 24th October: Every one knows that there is going to be a serious crisis in the coal industry, except the Minister of Fuel and Power. I want to tell you there is not going to be a crisis in coal, if, by crisis, you mean that industrial organisation is going to be seriously dislocated and that hundreds of factories are going to be closed down. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that hundreds of factories are going to be closed down, and that industry is being seriously dislocated at the present time. At least, he refrains from making that claim.[Interruption.] The country is faced with a state of affairs that transcends mere party points of view. I said that we admit that the right hon. Gentleman was faced with difficulties in the summer in building up stocks of coal. But admitting that there were those difficulties, and knowing the failure to build up stocks, surely the position that was likely to arise this winter could have been foreseen, and, if it had been foreseen, steps could have been taken to deal with it in advance, and plans prepared to deal with all the possible eventualities. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech excused himself on two grounds. First, he said, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), that we were consuming coal —let me give the exact quotation: The consumption of vital commodities in this country —and certainly in the sphere of fuel and power' — I call the attention of the House to this — is higher now"— let the right hon. Gentleman take note — than at any time in the history of this country The statement was untrue. It is not higher, and, if he doubts it, I will refer him to the statistics issued by his own Department. He will find that the annual tonnage of coal consumed in Great Britain, including shipments to Northern Ireland, expressed to the nearest millions of tons, was 185 in 1946 as against 196 in 1940; 198 in 1941; 197 in 1942. The first excuse of the right hon. Gentleman does not bear examination for one moment.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell)

When I made that statement, I expressly stated that I was referring to the peacetime consumption, and not the consumption during the war.

Mr. R.S. Hudson

I will read the whole statement from HANSARD: I repeat there are 19 million and more persons in this country engaged in gainful employment. The consumption of vital commodities in this country —and certainly in the sphere of fuel and power —is higher now —let the right hon. Gentleman take note —than at Any time in the history of this country". I am not being unfair, for I am quoting from HANSARD. That is the first excuse put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, as recorded by HANSARD. It is completely without foundation. I turn to the second excuse which the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is that consumption has gone up unexpectedly. Perhaps I had better quote the exact statement as recorded. The right hon. Gentleman said: We assumed that with the rising output —and it was a fair assumption —and provided consumption did not rise unduly, we should escape difficulty"— I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will not challenge that sentence — estimates that have been presented to me by the Central Electricity Board, which proceeded from 545,000 tons required for the electricity supply to 560,000.…'' — [0FFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1947; Vol.432, c.2171–5.] —and so on. The right hon. Gentleman implied that it was unreasonable to expect the Government and himself to have anticipated increased consumption, but why? Have not hon. Members opposite and Members of the Government been going up and down the country for the last 12 months saying, "Look how magnificently we have turned over from war to peace; look how many people are employed; look at the output of goods for home consumption "? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have boasted of the increased number of electric fires and other electrical appliances for the house-S hold sold. People do not buy electric fires in order to look at them cold, or to decorate their houses. They buy electric fires because they are afraid their houses will be cold. If the right hon. Gentleman had had any foresight, he would have known that there was bound to be increased consumption. Has his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade never told him there were more electric fires being made? Has the Minister of Supply, who boasted in July of the way in which people were getting to work again in peace time, never told him that if there was reconversion and if there were more people employed, the consumption of power would be bound to go up? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his excuses today, mentioned the fact that owing to the cessation of the blackout, the reconversion of industry, and the larger number of people at work in this country, consumption has gone up. Of course, it has, and it was to be foreseen. The gravamen of our charge today is that the right hon. Gentleman either did not foresee, or if he did foresee it, took no adequate steps to meet it.

I go further. The right hon. Gentleman talks about an increased consumption of electricity as though that were the whole of the trouble. Far from it. It was not only increased consumption; it was not only that in certain weeks the actual consumption of coal by the electricity companies rose above the average figure of 557,000 tons given by the Central Electricity Board. That was not the only trouble If it had been, and there had been adequate stocks, we should not have been in this mess. The trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman failed consistently throughout the summer and the winter to provide adequate supplies of coal, or even the minimum supplies of coal that were required. Let me give some figures, because it is as well that the country should realise where the blame for this state of affairs truly lies. I apologise to the House for dealing at length with this point, but it is important, because it meets and rebuts the excuse made by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it was wise of him to send out to have this checked by his officials. It will be interesting to see whether they are able to rebut it.

Electricity, coal and gas coal are what is known as "programmed." Estimates are given in April for the next six months to October, and later in the summer estimates are made for the six months October to April. Those estimates are furnished by the electricity and gas industries to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that. Electricity estimates given in May, 1946, for the six summer months showed that, to build up a stock of only 4.3 weeks consumption —I pause to remind the House that in peacetime a minimum of eight weeks in the winter was regarded as necessary for real safety —to build up only 4.3 weeks supply at the end of the summer, it would be necessary to deliver to the electricity industry 507,000 tons of coal a week. It was estimated then that, by reason of the increasing demand in the summer and the anticipated increasing demand in the winter —because even though the Minister did not realise there was likely to be an increased demand, the electricity industry and the companies budgeted for an increased demand —the new programme, translated into what would be required as weekly deliveries to the, electricity industry, would collie to 559,000 tons a week during the winter. Of the 507,000 tons a week in the summer required to build up a stock of 4.3 weeks supply, in only four weeks out of 26 weeks was this delivery surpassed. In all the other 22 weeks, deliveries ranged from 372,000 to 435,000 tons, against a requirement of 507,000 tons.

The House will realise, and the right hon. Gentleman could or should have known from the statistics available in his Department, that all through the summer the deliveries of coal to build up the 4.3 weeks stock were falling short. The right hon. Gentleman and his officials could not have been under any illusion as to what the country would be faced with this winter. Therefore, we started the winter of 1946, on 1st October, with only 3.6 weeks coal supplies in stock, but since 1st October —this was a point also which the right hon. Gentleman talked about —the increased demand by the electricity industry rose from 559,00o tons to 575,000 tons, then to 600,000 tons, and finally to 700,00o tons a week. But the Minister was told at the beginning of the winter that the electricity industry would require 559,000 tons a week, and only in five weeks out of 16 to date has this delivery been exceeded, and in the remaining weeks it has been from 425,000 tons to 557,000. The House and the country will realise that not only during 22 weeks out of 26 weeks in the summer was coal short delivered to build up stocks, but also that, since October, in only five weeks has the estimated minimum requirement of the electricity industry been met.

It is clear, therefore, that this excuse which the right hon. Gentleman put forward on Friday, that the crisis has come about as a result of an unexpected demand since October, will not bear examination for one moment. The fact of the matter is that even had there not been this bad weather, it is almost certain from the figures I have given that a similar crisis to that with which we are faced today would have come upon us some time either at the end of this month, or early in March. The right hon. Gentleman and many of his friends and his supporters in the Press are trying to blame this on the weather. This is not the first severe winter we have experienced in our history, but it is the first winter that has brought us to disaster. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman knew from the intake figures of the electricity industry, that a crisis was imminent. The particular week in which it was going to break does not matter.

What has the right hon. Gentleman done to meet this crisis? His first plan was the plan of a voluntary cut. That failed, and then we had the plan of allocations. Thirdly, we had the plan associated with the name of the President of the Board of Trade, which was called realistic allocations. Now we come to the present plan. I should like the House to recall for one moment the history of this plan. Last Thursday the acting Leader of the House poured scorn on a request from this side of the House for a Debate on coal. He talked about the new-found zeal of the Opposition, and but for the insistence of Members on this side of the House arising out of a Question by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) we should not have had the Debate last Friday. What I should like one of the right hon. Gentlemen who is to reply to tell us is whether on Thursday, at 3.30 p.m., when the acting Leader of the House of Commons was resisting our demand, he was aware of the critical position that faced the industry of this country.

The prime Minister in his statement today in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that the Government only came to their decision on Friday morning. They may only have come to their decision on Friday morning, but what I should like to know is, what was the advice given by the Central Electricity Board and by the Electricity Commissioners? Was it only on Thursday night that the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board told the right hon. Gentleman how desperately serious the position was? If, on the contrary, it was known to members of the Government on Wednesday, how can the right hon. Gentleman account for what I can only describe as the levity with which the acting Leader of the House dealt on Thursday with the request for a Debate?

I come now to the behaviour of the Minister of Fuel and Power himself. We learnt to our surprise, and I am sure too, the general surprise, that when my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Prestcott) had written to the Minister of Fuel and Power saying that he had got the Adjournment for Friday, and proposed raising this matter, the Minister attached so little importance to it that he was not even going to bother to be present. It was only after considerable urging by this side of the House that he consented to attend on Friday. When he did come, what did he do? One is entitled to assume that, but for the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen in calling the Minister's attention to this Debate on the Adjournment, this vital announcement, affecting the whole country, would have been made in some hole and corner way, and not to this House.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman want to wait as long as he did on Friday to announce the details? It is perfectly true that according to the Rules of the House it was for the hon. Member for Darwen to open the Debate, which he did. However, there was nothing to stop the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power getting up and saying, "I have a serious announcement to make to the House. Here it is." Instead, what did the right hon. Gentleman do? Again I turn to HANSARD. It was 2.31 before the right hon. Gentleman got up to speak. He went through a long rigmarole attacking my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), and it was not until 3.10 that he disclosed to the House this vital information and the decision of the Government, which the Prime Minister told us today had been reached on Friday morning. Why did he want to wait? Quite obviously because he did not want to face a full discussion. I venture to suggest that it was gross contempt of the High Court of Parliament, but it compares with the other things which he has done. I now pass to the present plan. I should like to know what consultations the Government had with the people who are mainly concerned in carrying out this plan.

Mr. Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

Before the right hon. Gentleman passes to the present plan, would he tell the House how he would raise the coal stocks?

Mr.R. S. Hudson

At a more appropriate moment. It so happens that my job now is to be the interrogator, not to be interrogated.[Interruption.] I am very glad indeed that hon. Members opposite dislike so intensely the interrogation I am making. What I want to know about this plan is: Was the industry consulted? After all, it is not the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners who have actually the detailed job of translating this plan into action but the power companies. I have information on the subject, and I give this information, which has reached me, as an illustration of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to make any plans beforehand.

I said earlier that they ought to have known that an emergency of this kind was likely to come about. One would have thought that ordinary prudence would have dictated that they should make preparations beforehand. They should have anticipated and foreseen the possibility of increased consumption, and laid their plans accordingly. They should have worked out some scheme to come into operation either in October, November, or December as the case might be, according to the extra consumption that was anticipated. As I said, one would have thought common prudence, owing to the low stocks of coal in the country, would have compelled them to make some plans to ensure that what stocks there were diverted to electricity rather than to other industries. One would have imagined that, having been warned on all sides that an emergency, with which we are now faced, was if not probable at all events possible, plans to meet this emergency would have been worked out beforehand. So that all that would be required would be to put them into immediate operation.

My information is that so far from that being the case, in fact, on the operating level —that is to say the level of the unfortunate engineers and so forth who have actually to run the generating stations —the first intimation they got was on Friday evening through the Press. It was not until Saturday morning that the power companies, who, after all, own the generating plants with I believe one exception, were called in and told, "Here is the Minister's decision. What are you going to do about it? How are you going to translate it into effect?"

Quite clearly it was impossible to take any effective action even to translate the Government's decision into effect, unless one knew which were the industries and the essential services that were to be preserved in operation. That information was not available until the Minister met a Press conference on Saturday afternoon, and the companies concerned were not, in fact, informed until after nine o'clock on Saturday night, because the full list was not available even to the B.B.C., who were anxious to broadcast it if they could. Can anyone conceive a greater dereliction of duty first to have let us get into this mess, and secondly to have made no preparations at all for meeting it?

I pass over what is going to happen in the future, or how long it is going to last; that will be bad enough when we have to meet it. The main thing we have to face today is that, although planning may be all right, if we want to plan then, for Heaven's sake, have a plan to meet the different emergencies. What this planning Government has done is to interfere with private plans to get on with industry, and, as far as their own duty was concerned, not merely to fail to make plans for an emergency, but also to refuse to believe that an emergency was likely to arise.

5.42 P.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell)

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R.S. Hudson) has, quite properly, claimed the right of the Opposition to interrogate the Government, and it is the Government's responsibility to answer. Last Friday, in the course of a brief Debate, hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen opposite interrogated the Government. Within the recollection of hon. Members who were present, they interrogated the Government in violent and abusive tones. What did they expect? If, as apparently was the case, the Opposition got more than they bargained for, they must not complain. This afternoon, however, the right hon. Gentleman has interrogated the Government in moderate terms, and I shall respond by addressing myself to these interrogations in language as temperate as the circumstances demand.

The last thing I would seek to do is to minimise the gravity of the situation. However brief in duration this disturbance may be, it is bound, in the very nature of the case, to impair our industrial economy at any rate to some extent, and that we are all anxious to avoid. Let us address ourselves to the vital and integral elements of the situation with which we have been confronted, not for the last few weeks, the last few months, or, for that matter, since the advent of this Government, but for several years past. The right hon. Gentleman directed the attention of the House to the inadequate stock position. That is fundamental, and it is the pivot on which the whole of our economic system must turn. But this inadequate stock position is by no means new. The inadequacy of our coal stocks as a cardinal factor in relation to our national economy began to emerge after the French disaster in the war in 1940. No one is more conversant with that fact than the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). What happened on that occasion? A vast amount of coal, produced in this country and designed for French operations, military and civil, was held hack. There was obviously no purpose in sending the coal to France in view of the collapse.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That was the opinion of the experts at the time —let there be no mistake.

Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

It was also the opinion of some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

Mr. Shinwell

The right hon. Gentleman has just confirmed what I have stated by saying that it was also the opinion of some of my colleagues who were then in the Coalition Government, so we are on common ground. Obviously, the Coalition Government were blameless in the matter, but what emerged from that situation? Men were allowed to drift from the pits to go into the Forces and into munition factories, and elsewhere, and the pits were denuded of the lusty, vigorous labour that is so essential in coal production. Then, when coal stocks had dwindled, as they were bound to in the circumstances, because of excessive consumption, men were sought for but were not to be found. The Government of the day, quite rightly, refused to bring men back from the Forces except in small numbers, and men themselves were averse from being directed back into the pits from the munition factories where they had gone. At that time the wage situation in the coalfields was far from satisfactory. How often in this House did we hear the argument, "How can you expect men earning £10 a week in munitions to come back into the pits for £3 or £4 a week? "So, the Bevin boys were brought in. Although willing to assist to increase the production of coal, they were unsuited to the pits, they naturally became discontented, and indeed they created more trouble than they were worth.

So towards the end of the war we had emerging a situation of inadequate stocks accompanied by dwindling manpower. Those were the twin features of the situation. The Labour Government were returned and had to grapple with that situation. It was impossible, in spite of intense propaganda and exhortation and, over and above that, the Essential Work Order which was then in operation, to retain men in the pits. On every kind of pretext they were leaving. Medical certificates were granted in great volume. When I came to the Ministry of Fuel and Power the number of persons on tit:, colliery books was over 700,000, but in the course of a few months it had dwindled to 694,000. That was not the worst of it. The trouble was that we were left with many men who were aged —more than 40 per cent. of the men in the pits at the time were over 45 years of age and were tired out.

That was the situation facing us. So we sought to deal with the situation and prepared a plan. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) asked on Friday whether we had a plan. I reminded him of our plan, and I repeat it now. Our plan was to create the right atmosphere in the mining industry to induce men to come in willingly—not under direction—particularly as we knew that sooner or later we should have to abandon the Essential Work Order, because one cannot go on directing miners if one does not direct other classes of workers. That was our plan. I claim that we succeeded, at any rate, so far as that plan was concerned, because in spite of the unwillingness, the resistance and the reluctance of the men to come in, we attracted 76,000 men and boys into the industry in 1946. Does any one pretend that that was due to exhortations alone? Of course not It was attributable—I ask hon. Members to note this because it is so vital in this matter of production—to the new atmosphere that was emerging because the men were being assured of reforms for which they had long asked.

Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern)

rose —

Mr. Shinwell

I cannot give way. Many reforms still remain to be conceded, and I want to tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that unless reforms for the miners in this unattractive industry are conceded, we shall not get the volume of coal which is essential.

That was the situation. The right hon. Member for Southport has now told the House what is the gravamen of the charge against us—inadequate stocks. Is it any use pretending one can build up stocks unless one has the men to produce the stocks? There is something even more difficult—one may have the men but one may not have the right men. There is something more to be added. It is that we must have the right organisation in the pits. There has been far too much talk of introducing thousands of additional men into the pits without regard to the conditions in the pits. It has been known that the mines of this country require large-scale and long-term reorganisation, but it cannot be done in 18 months. Indeed, I have to tell hon. Members that the National Coal Board may find themselves in this difficulty—they may have to arrest their long-term plan in order to speed up production in the short run. They are addressing themselves to that subject. But will hon. Members understand that the National Coal Board have only taken over in recent months?

If I am told—I have no doubt that is the intention—that there has been Government control for quite a long time, that is perfectly true, but what kind of Government control? Government control that means that the Government or some corporation run the mines of the country? Nothing of the sort. The owners were in possession; the mine managers were under their direction. Great difficulties have been encountered in this matter. I do not desire to dilate on these matters which by now are familiar to hon. Members, but I am bound to point out that it is no use pretending that stocks can be built up to a higher level unless we have not only the volume of labour but the right kind of labour and the right kind of organisation. I have said in the country—I will not seek to deny that I have made the statement over and over again, and I stand by it—that if we had 700,000 willing and able miners in the pits and if we had the right organisation, we could get all the coal we want. I am fortified in that statement by experts from the mining industry such as the President of the Yorkshire Miners' Association and others who were associated with the other side of the in- dustry We have to get those conditions, and it has been most difficult to secure those conditions in the last 18 months.

Now I come to the question of the coal stocks at our disposal—and I am stating the facts and no more and no less. At the beginning of the coal year in 1946— for the benefit of hon. Members, the coal year is not a calendar year but begins on 1st May—all I had was 6,800,000 in stock. That was not a Government dump. That represented distributed stocks of coal for household, gas, electricity and industrial purposes. It was because of the inadequacy of that stock position that I came to the House in June, a few weeks later, and presented what was known as the "Coal Budget." Hon. Members will recall the occasion when I disclosed the serious gap between production and estimated consumption. It amounted to rip million tons. I also disclosed to the House that we intended to bridge at least five million tons of that gap by oil conversion, by stepping up opencast production and by adopting other devices. The right hon. Member for Southport says that no warnings were given. I would remind him of the statements I made in that coal budget speech, which is available to hon. Members.

We built up that stock position from 6,800,000 tons at the beginning of May to almost 11 million tons at the beginning of the coal winter in October in spite of the fact that the miners—I will certainly make no complaint of this—had more and, I hope, better holidays in 1946 than ever in their history. They were entitled to it, but every week of holiday meant less production, and I confessed to the House that I was apprehensive about the dwindling production due to the extended holidays. At the same time, I hoped that the recuperation which resulted from those holidays would lead to higher production later on, and I was right in that assumption, because we started with almost 11 million tons of stock in October and, in spite of rising consumption, we held our ground to the end of the year. Why? Because the miners put their backs into it and produced more, and they were producing more coal by 150,000 tons and sometimes 200,000 tons a week with fewer men than they had done in the same period in the previous year. I say to hon. Members that, in all the circumstances, that plan succeeded. It was an achievement. But the right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to say that I should have been far from satisfied with the position. That is his contention. I agree unreservedly.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

No, I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. Shinwell

I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said—and this was the gravamen of the charge—that I had not taken adequate steps to build up the stock position in advance. Therefore, he must have suspected that I must have been satisfied with the position. Well, I was not satisfied with the position; on the contrary, I repeated my warnings in almost every speech I made.[HON. MEMBERS:"NO"] If hon. Members want me to put in the OFFICIAL REPORT all the reports of the speeches I made week after week at miners' gatherings, exhorting them to produce more, I should be very glad to do so, but I am afraid it would rather overwhelm them. But when we came to October, the beginning of the coal winter, with about 11 million tons of stock, in view of the estimated consumption I made a speech, of which the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, at the Fuel Efficiency Conference. If hon. Members will bear with me, in the circumstances, I think I am entitled to quote what I said. It will be noted that this was a conference designed to promote fuel efficiency. We were concerned with getting more manpower, stepping up the output, promoting economy measures and, so far as it was possible, inducing consumers of coal to exercise proper efficiency in the use of fuel. I was referring to a shortage of manpower and materials and I said: Meanwhile, we cannot escape the difficulties of transition from war to peace.… We have to address ourselves to the problem of how we can get through the coming winter, without dislocation of our national life—how we are to avoid a shortage of domestic fuel and the curtailment of industrial production. Then I said: Making every allowance for possible increases in production, and after arranging to reduce our distributed stocks to the, lowest limit that we dare, we run a very grave danger of breakdown. In the public utilities, there is one additional danger arising from lack of plant. Then I went on to say: We must seek for a reduction in consumption. The alternatives are to step-up at once our efforts to economise, or to face, in the depths of the coming winter, a breakdown in supplies.… I am obliged to set a target for this effort, and to ask for an all-round voluntary saving in consumption of at least so per cent. This saving of 10 per cent. is needed in coal, gas and electricity, and must apply to all consumers, not only in industry, but al3o in the home and in public and commercial undertakings. Then I added this: At the moment it is clear that although production is rising, consumption is outstripping it by far. There was a warning if ever there was one.[An HON. MEMBER: "When was it? "] On 8th October. That was at the beginning of the coal winter. The right hon. Gentleman asked why nothing was done to safeguard the position in view of dwindling production and rising consumption. I understand that the charge against the Government is this—it has been made by the Press, and about the Press I will not comment at this stage; perhaps on a future occasion I may be allowed a little latitude on another platform on that very interesting topic, but, for the moment, I say nothing. However, it has been suggested in the Press, in speeches of hon. Members last Friday and in the right hon. Gentleman's speech today, that we should have rationed, should have prepared a scheme long before now. In face of the change in the atmosphere in the industry, and in face of estimates we received from the public utility undertakings' experts, we were justified in proceeding on the assumption that if we could secure economies—and we were seeking to promote economies—and with the rising trend in production during the winter, we could manage to scrape through. But suppose we had formulated a rationing scheme at that time, what kind of scheme would it have been? It would have been, in the circumstances, the fuel allocation scheme that the Government have just embarked upon. That is the only kind of rationing scheme you can have if there is a shortfall in a particular commodity and you have to spread it over a great field. Obviously, if there is inadequacy, some people have to go short, and it would have meant that at that time, in the summer and in the early winter, a rationing scheme which would have led to short time in almost every industry.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

And unemployment.

Mr. Shinwell

Unemployment, I agree, and impeding our export efforts which were vital at that time. Over and above that, if we had adopted such a scheme at that time, and if by chance we had avoided this severe spell during the winter, we should have been told that it was a mistake to adopt a scheme of that kind promoting intermittent employment when all the facts were against it. If it comes to a question of rationing, I am bound to say this: the Coalition Government—I excuse them for not doing what some asked they should do—could have adopted a rationing scheme in 1942. We might have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. Probably they had very good reasons. I can tell one reason. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that this question of rationing, particularly of electricity and gas, has obsessed my mind almost from the time I went to the Department, but there are practical difficulties in the way, one being this: we have to be exceedingly careful that we do not promote too much austerity. The right hon. Member for Woodford would have had something to say about that, and I can imagine what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if we had promoted a rationing scheme in the autumn. He would have said: "After six years of war, to give the people of the country more austerity!"

Now I come to the question of consumption. I listened with attention to the right hon. Gentleman's statistical observation on this matter. I can only give him the statistics that are derived from expert accumulation. It does not matter which Government happen to be in power, they have to rely on expert opinion and on estimates provided by experts. The fact is that I have consulted the experts, the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners. When the electricity undertakings, both municipal and private, seek guidance, they do not come to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. They go to the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board. They have furnished estimates, and I ask the House to note what they were. In the summer, the original estimate for taking us through was 417,000 tons a week. The estimates for the whole of the winter were 575,000 tons a week, compared with 529,000 tons in the winter of 1945–6.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

Can we have the date?

Mr. Shinwell

I have given the date.

Mr. Pickthorn

The date when the estimate was made?

Mr. Shinwell

I am sorry; I cannot give that actual date.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

The basis.

Mr. Shinwell

I am asked about the basis of the estimate.I am not in a position to say how the technical experts arrived at these estimates, except on the assumption that a certain amount of electricity would be used by industrial undertakings and a certain amount by domestic consumers. I expect they have great difficulties in arriving at any conclusion about the matter. I can imagine what difficulties they have, because of my difficulty in arriving at a conclusion.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

I quoted the figure given to me of 507,000 tons per week in the summer. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the figure of 417,000 tons per week. I think probably I had in mind consumption, and what he meant was stocking up.

Mr. Shinwell

It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman is right. It is not merely an estimate based on the actual consumption during a given period, but for increasing the stock. But it does not affect the position.

Mr. Hudson

It does.

Mr. Shinwell

Up to Christmas, 1946, it was expected that we would consume 557,000 tons a week. I have already given the estimate for the whole winter of 575,000 tons per week, but up to Christmas it was 557,000 tons. These estimates had to be revised in November, and we discovered that they wanted 648,000 tons a week to the end of January, 1947. That was a vast difference. Actual consumption rose in the summer of 1946 from 474,000 tons in May, to 513,000 tons in October. It had risen to 584,000 tons in November, and by the week before Christmas there was an increase of 140,000 tons more than in the corresponding week of 1945. The highest point was the week ended 31st January, 1947, when it was 727,000 tons, as compared with 576,000 tons a year before—an increase of 26 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we ought to have anticipated this rise in consumption. I quoted from my speech at the Fuel Efficiency Conference. We expected that the jump would be high, but did not expect that it would be so high.

Now I come to the question of a plan. As I have reminded hon. Members, at the Fuel Efficiency Conference I asked for a voluntary saving of 10 per cent., but, in the course of a few weeks it was clear that we were not going to get that saving. So we decided to adopt other measures—

Mr. R.S. Hudson

To improvise?

Mr. Shinwell

Not to improvise; the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We decided to adopt a scheme which would mean a reduction not only in solid fuel, but in electricity and gas. We were in course of preparing the scheme, and the intention was to put it into operation on 1st December, 1946, but the employers did not consider that it went far enough. As a result, the scheme had to be revised. Therefore there was delay, and it could not come into operation on 1st December. Then the intention was to introduce it on 1st January, but eventually, because of the difficulties which emerged—all kinds of industrial organisations querying the plan itself—it was decided that it should operate from 20th January. That was the fuel allocation plan. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that one can have a plan without consulting anyone.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

The right hon. Gentleman did not consult them—

Mr. Shinwell

The right hon. Gentleman has made an observation that we did not consult them—

Mr. R. S. Hudson

—in time.

Mr. Shinwell

The right hon. Gentleman says we did not consult them in time. The right hon. Gentleman is quite unaware of the facts. There is an Advisory joint Production Council associated with the Board of Trade which is in almost continuous session. It offers advice and guidance to the Board of Trade and, no doubt, to other Departments concerned in production matters of this kind. The intention was to put this plan into operation. On Friday the right hon. Member for Warwick and Learning-ton referred to the "gravest disaster in the last 20 years." He did so before I had made my statement on the present position. He made the statement about it being the gravest disaster for 20 years on the basis of the fuel allocation plan, which meant short time in certain industries. I challenge hon. Members opposite, I challenge the right hon. Member for Woodford, if he is going to reply, to say whether it is possible to put any plan into operation, provided the stocks are inadequate, that does not lead to short time.

Mr. Churchill

I hope to be able to say a few words in the course of the evening's discussion. The gravamen of the charge the right hon. Gentleman has to meet is not the general difficulties of the coal situation, but his precise conduct in not having a practical plan for dealing with the electricity supplies of the country when a serious emergency arose.

Mr. Shinwell

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have the highest respect, and a great admiration, for his qualities, but honestly I am bound to say that that is about the weakest observation that has ever fallen from his lips.[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it."] Hon. Members are well aware that if I am challenged I respond. I am asked to answer Notice what the right hon. Gentleman says—he cannot help that—the stock position, the manpower position, that is in the past—the gravamen of the charge is that we did not prepare a considered plan in view of the increasing consumption of electricity.

Mr. Churchill

No, I did not say that. I said, in view of the possibility of an emergency arising through weather conditions— [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] —in view of an emergency arising. I do not think that that varies my statement at all. Obviously, an emergency would be most likely to arise through a change in the weather.

Mr. Shinwell

If it is possible, I should like to clarify this. As hon. Members are aware, it was intended that the fuel allocation plan, agreed to by the industrialists and the trade unions on the National Joint Advisory Production Council, should come into operation on 20th January. Even with the best will in the world, that plan would have led to some short time in industry. Before the scheme could come into operation this country was struck by a blizzard unexampled for the last 50 years.

Hon. Members

Nonsense.

Mr. Shinwell

I can tell hon. Members that we have consulted the experts on this subject, and we are informed that not only as regards severity, but as regards universality, this is the worst blizzard since 1894— [Interruption.] Hon. Members can challenge that if they like. If they like the winter they can have it. I can assure them that the sooner we escape from it the better it will be for all concerned. The general severity of the weather broke before this scheme could come into operation. Obviously it had a profound effect on the whole situation. What has been the effect of the weather? We have had ships held up in the North, as the Prime Minister told the House when he made his factual statement in reply to the right. hon. Gentleman. The electricity and gas undertakings in the London area, for the most part, depend on 'seaborne coal coming round from the Tyne. Blyth was blocked, Seaham Harbour was blocked, and is still blocked, ships could not get out. The Tyne was invisible for miles. Skippers of vessels refused to take their ships out. Many of them are flat-bottomed craft which could not be taken to sea, and we have had great difficulty in that regard. They are still held up. Unfortunately, my latest information on the subject is that up to 12 noon yesterday only six colliers had arrived in the Thames. I am bound to confess that that is a rather serious position, and this morning there was fog in the Thames, and there are greater difficulties.

Mr. Pickthorn

rose—

Mr. Shinwell

I am hoping—

Mr. Pickthorn

I thought that when the right hon. Gentleman was challenged, he responded.

Mr. Shinwell

—that the weather conditions will improve and enable us to keep the electricity stations in the London area—

Mr. Churchill

For the information of the House, could the right hon. Gentleman state what is the practical difficulty which prevents the ships from leaving the port of Blyth, or the Tyne? What is the physical difficulty?

Mr. Shinwell

One of the difficulties is the severe weather. I queried that myself, and indeed we have asked whether the Admiralty could assist us in the matter.

Mr. Churchill

Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to have known that months ago.

Mr. Shinwell

What is the actual position as regards the electricity undertakings in the London area? We are concentrating on the eight main stations, the largest stations and we require to provide for a consumption of 18,000 tons daily at those stations. The average stock at the present time, as the Prime Minister told the House, is about 6½ days—some have to days' stock, some 3½. If we can hold down consumption for four or five days, perhaps a week at most, and build up the stock pile —get another week out of it—in addition to the stocks available to the undertakings at the present time, we can get through, and that is what our aim is.

I come finally to the charge made against me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that we did not last Friday acquaint the House early enough about this scheme to enable the House to debate it.

Mr. Churchill

We would not have been debating it at all if we had not asked for it.

Mr. Shinwell

The right hon. Gentleman is quite inaccurate, and I will tell hon. Members why. To begin with, the reason for last Friday's Debate was because the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) had intimated that he would raise the Lancashire position on the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Southport said that I had told the hon. Member for Darwen that I would not be present. The reason was, as the hon. Member knew, that as it was a question affecting industry, I had told him that I was not responsible for the actual allocation, and that he must go to the Department concerned.

Mr. Stanley Prescott (Darwen)

Is it not a fact that I twice wrote to the right hon Gentleman and spoke to him twice about the matter, that I indicated that I should have to raise a matter affecting his administration over a long period, that he was vitally concerned, and that I requested him particularly to be in his place?

Mr. Shinwell

I do not intend to ride off on the fact that I was actually in my place, in view of what transpired, but when the hon. Gentleman spoke to me, and after I had read his letters, I came to the conclusion that it was not a matter for my Department, and I advised him to go to the appropriate Department.

Mr. Prescott

Yes.

Mr. Shinwell

Let us consider the chronology of the situation that emerged last week. On Wednesday we were informed that the situation was serious in respect of the stock position. Because of the weather the ships were not coming round. We were trying to get coal in by rail from South Wales to Battersea Power Station and to others. Ships were held up in the Bristol Channel and could not come round with the usual stock. Therefore we decided that drastic action would require to be taken. We considered that matter on Thursday, but in view of statements made to us about a possible clearing up of the weather situation in the north—55 ships had been held up the previous night, 20 had got away—we considered that we might wait a little while, to see if sufficient stocks would come in.

I put the matter frankly before the House, and will hon. Members please understand that we do not take action of that kind without consulting the experts in the electricity undertakings? The right hon. Gentleman said that we have not consulted the electricity undertakings. We always consult the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners. They speak for the undertakings, as far as they can. I know there have been some representatives of electricity undertakings who have spoken during the last couple of days and said that the scheme is unworkable. Some have even gone so far as to say that they would not work it. I think they are a little more subdued now than they were. On Friday we came to the final decision that this scheme must be put into operation.

Mr. Prescott

At what time?

Mr. Shinwell

In the morning. If it is of any advantage to the hon. Gentleman, it was in the morning before 12 o'clock.

Mr. Prescott

Before I spoke.

Mr. Shinwell

Hon. Members who were present last Friday will recall that the hon. Member for Darwen was taking advantage, quite properly, of the Adjournment Motion when I arrived in the House. The Debate had begun. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) had intimated the previous day that this was an urgent matter, the general position was urgent, and he intended to speak. Naturally, I wanted to hear what the House had to say. Then the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington leapt to his feet and traduced me in the most vile fashion for which, of course, I readily forgive him. As a result, I had to reply to what he said. I could not allow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as it was an argument, to go by default. People would have said that I was yellow if I had failed to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I referred immediately to what he had said about a grave situation. I said this to him, and HANSARD will verify what I am saying: I shall have something to say in a few moments about a grave crisis."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1947; Vol.432, c.2177.] I also said that in all the circumstances, in view of the emergency which had been thrust upon us at the last moment, in view of the severity of weather conditions, and the inability to get stocks at the last moment, we had no alternative but to take the action we took.

Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

I would like to say a few words on this subject. I would only say that if the right hon. Gentleman had made an intimation to me, to my right hon. Friends, or to the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that he had a statement of importance to make, we on this side of the House would have been only too glad to hear it before passing to a general discussion.

Mr. Shinwell

Well, I will not join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. It may well be that instead of having a general Debate I could have intervened and said, "I have a grave statement to make." But the hon. Member for Darwen and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke had already intervened.[Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] Also the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) had raised a vital issue, and in those circumstances we had a general Debate. Finally, the right hon. Member for Southport tells us that what we ought to have done in face of that grave emergency was to have had detailed discussions with the people concerned, with the industrial undertakings, the newspapers and with everybody concerned in this cut. That is what he argued. That was his case. I say we have—

Mr. R. S. Hudson

I never mentioned the word "newspapers." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more accurate in his statements.

Mr. Shinwell

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. He did not mention newspapers, but he referred to those who were affected by the cuts and, as certain periodicals are affected by the cuts, I included them in my general statement. At any rate, it would have been a dereliction of duty if we had not responded to the emergency of the situation and acted accordingly. That we did. I have dealt with the stock position and the manpower position. I say to the House that it may well be that although this is a grave crisis in our national life, that although our industrial economy is imperilled, it may prove to be a blessing in disguise because it will focus the attention of all the people in this country on our vulnerability—not the vulnerability of the Government, but the vulnerability of this country—unless we can promote in the mining industry the atmosphere that will bring in willing men to produce the coal. That is what we are endeavouring to do. That is why we promoted nationalisation. Out of that new beginning we hope to produce a chapter without blemish in the history of this country.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I am sure that the country will be glad that the Government acceded to our request this afternoon for this Debate. I regret that there should be these political challenges and counter-challenges across the Floor of the House. There can be no doubt that the country is passing through a grave crisis. From the attitude which has been adopted during this Debate one would think that hon. and right hon. Members have forgotten that here, in midwinter, a great number of industries have stopped work, and that, there are, without exaggeration, some millions of people out of work In addition, many householders are experiencing difficulty. I hope that before the end of this Debate we shall get a more definite statement of the position and of the measures that will be taken to meet the difficulties, as well as an estimate of how long it will be before we get back to normality.

The main portion of the Minister's speech was confined to the measures taken for the production of coal. That is quite proper, because he is the Minister responsible. I go a long way in agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman's recital of the history which has led up to our present position. I mentioned some figures as recently as last Friday. There is not the slightest doubt that the production of coal in this country had been decreasing steadily before the war broke out in 1939. At that time there were 800,000 miners at work. By May, 1940, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, in spite of protests which he and I made at that time—we were pretty nearly lone voices—the figures were allowed to fall until there were only about 740,000 miners at work. Down went the figures until, at the end of 1940, there were only about 700,000 people at work. Furthermore, those who were at work were getting older; new and younger men were riot entering the industry, and that position has continued until the introduction of that very bad scheme of the Bevin boys.

I admit that this was the position when the right hon. Gentleman took over in July, 1945, but what happened afterwards? Did the right hon. Gentleman realise then, as did others in the coal industry, the great difficulty of increasing production in view of those figures, and the great difficulty of getting men to enter the mining industry? It had been common talk for a great number of years that, if the Essential Work Order was removed, a large proportion of the miners would leave the mines never to return. We were up against the enormous difficulty of increasing the number of men who would enter the industry, and of increasing the production of men who were already getting older. That was one of the main reasons why I and my colleagues were in favour of the nationalisation of the coalmines. The Government, straight away in the Speech from the Throne, said they were going to do that. They said they would see to it, that they gained the psychological advantage of being able to say to the miners that nationalisation for which they had been asking for generations, was about to come to pass. Thanks to the efforts then made, there was an amazing recruitment to the labour force, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to be satisfied with the entry of 76,000.

But the right hon. Gentleman knew that, until we have a more complete reorganisation, until we got more mechanisation, which was bound to take a considerable time, it would be a long time before he could make his production figures satisfactory. I have always felt that the least that was really required here, was something in the neighbour hood of 225,000 tons. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman will remember it, but I believe he joined with me, during those war years, in urging upon the Government that they should take all necessary steps to see that production should not fall below 200,000 tons, but they did fall below that point. That was the situation that existed then, and it is more or less the position today. There has been a slight increase, it is true, and here let me pay my tribute again to the amazing work done by the miners. There is need for this country to focus attention on the debt which it owes to the miners, and of the need for making that industry more attractive to younger men.

So far, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But I wish he had turned his attention more to the employment of foreign labour. I do not merely mean the Poles. It is a very extraordinary story that Belgium has to tell us. They have recruited from Germany, from Poland and also from Italy, and they have made a bargain with Italy, that, in return for several hundreds of Italians who will go to help them, they will send much more coal to Italy. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had paid some attention to that, because, in time of national emergency, one should not be guided too much by possible difficulties by the leaders of the trade unions. One has to face the situation and have the courage to do what is necessary for the sake of the nation.

I have dealt with the production side. I now turn to consumption and distribution. The Government knew what the situation was. What were the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman? One of the things that worries me is this. After the Minister had seen to it that the coal had been produced, who was responsible for its allocation and distribution? We know now, from the way in which Questions have been answered and action taken, with regard to industry, that the President of the Board of Trade had a great deal to say. The Minister of Supply had a great deal to say, and also the Minister of Transport, who told us this afternoon of the serious position of our rolling stock and engines and of the dangers of a breakdown there. Who will collate all that information in one Department and see that proper action is taken to meet the situation? Knowing, as the Government should have known, that there was an increased consumption of coal in this country; remembering that, during the war, there was a cut in coal for household consumption of about 13 million tons; remembering, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, that, during the war, we had the blackout and two hours' extension of daylight saving, so that there was an increased call on coal for household consumption—remembering all these things, why did not the Government take adequate steps to see that there was the right distribution? That is the gravamen of the charge against them.

The right hon. Gentleman used words and quoted figures showing that he had come down to the House in October and warned the House of the difficulties ahead, but the words he used today were "We hoped that we should scrape through." We have not scraped through. The country today is in a situation in which it has never been before. There was a gamble on scraping through, and the Government are not entitled to gamble with the country—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was responsible, I think, he is mainly responsible for the production side, while somebody else is responsible for the rest. But although it would have been an unpopular thing to do why did he not introduce the scheme which met with the approval of the President of the Board of Trade in 1942? Those of us who were in the House at that time remember how the President of the Board of Trade came down to the House and stood at that Box and warned us that there might be disaster and irretrievable crisis in this country if the rationing scheme which he then proposed, was not accepted by this House. For some reason or other, pressure was brought to bear, and they withdrew that scheme. I should have thought that if they felt strongly that that was the way to save the country, it would have been better to have resigned, and to have given the House their reasons for so doing.

Mr. Cobb (Elland)

Would the right hon. and learned 'Gentleman give way for a moment?

Mr. Davies

No, I will not. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech very carefully. He said that under the scheme which the Government are introducing, there will be shorter working time, and that people will not be employed to the full capacity to which they should be employed. I honestly fail to understand why this was left, first, to exhortation; and then to a voluntary request; why the scheme was left over till 1st December, when winter was upon us, before it was even put before the industrialists; why it was withdrawn because they disagreed; introduced against on 1st January, and then, finally, reintroduced on 22nd January in the very middle of winter with, all the time, danger looming above the heads of the industrialists and the people of this country, because we could not possibly increase the amount of coal being produced. It is in that respect the Government have failed.

We now want to know who is to be responsible and what Department will be answerable for the proper distribution. We also want to know what is to be the position during this week; what are the proposals for the next fortnight or for however long may be necessary, before we get back to semi-normality, and how the Government are then going to work this plan for the rest of the period. Not only industrialists are entitled to this information; every one of us is entitled to know. This situation would be serious at any time, but it is doubly serious at a time when we are not only short of goods for home consumption, but in dire need of goods to send abroad to produce the exchange with which to buy our food and raw materials. I hope that whoever replies for the Government will go into the matter of the great need for proper distribution and allocation, so that we may know where we are.

6.53 P.m.

Mr. Bing (Hornchurch)

In opening this Debate, the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) said that this matter transcended party lines. I listened to his speech to see what else he said to justify this. But let us suppose for a moment that what he said is correct, and let us put one or two questions to hon. Members opposite on the assumption that they are going to do something about it. What suggestions have they to offer? The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) in the course of Friday's Debate—I notice that there is now some suggestion that we should shift from that ground—was that the Government should have got more men into the mines and produced more coal. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said that hon. Members on his side of the House knew all the time that this was the great difficulty. That being so, I thought it would be very interesting to see what was the first recruiting speech for miners made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Perhaps the House will excuse me if I quote from it, because a certain number of the tenants of the Front Bench opposite had not, at that time, arranged for their return to this Parliament.

Quite early in the Session, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) made his final appeal for further men to work in the mines knowing, as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington had said, the seriousness of the manpower position. Speaking of volunteers, he said that these young men will be wrecking their lives.[HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] The hon. Member for Brighton.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

Which one, the senior or the junior Member?

Mr. Bing

I am not quite certain which hon. Member actually takes precedence, but, if I may, I will identify him by saying that he was the hon. Member for whom the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) pressed so strongly against another candidate. I should now like to tell the House what the right hon. Member for Wood ford's special candidate thought of this matter of crisis. He said: These young men will be wrecking their lives. There is a possibility in years to come that they will be the first to be on the dole and will also be physically wrecked He then said, after, apparently, making a very thorough tour of the area just to see what the mining conditions were like: Do not let us ever imagine that they intend to stay in the mines longer than necessary. I have been talking and traveling with hem during the last month in Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumberland and South Wales, and 1 can say without exaggeration that I did not meet more than I per cent. who had any intention whatever of going on with mining. What was his suggestion? What ought we to do for these boys? How were we to persuade them to carry on? He had one simple plan, not that they should be forced by regulations, but that we should pay them a gratuity. He said: Men in the three Services are to get gratuities. Arc there to be gratuities for the Bevin boys when they come out of the mines?"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1945: Vol.4r4, c 1922, 1923, 1924.] When we recruit for one of the most skilled and most dangerous professions in the country, we should not treat the matter in the same way as hon. Members opposite treated Australia 100 years ago —as a sort of place where nice people do not go.

I will now come to the question of more men for the mines, and I should like to have an answer to the following question from the party opposite. Do they think that, had the mines remained in private hands, we should have had more men going into the industry and more coal?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)

Certainly.

Mr. Bing

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "Certainly." Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends give us an undertaking that, when next they go to the country, one of the planks in the Conservative programme will be to return the mines to private ownership?

Mr. Speaker

That, I am 'afraid, is a subject which would involve legislation.

Mr. Bing

If I may say so with the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, even if that proposal were included in their election programme, there would be very little chance of its resulting in legislation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

On a point of Order. Do I understand that the suggestion which my hon. Friend is making about the Conservative Party in the next election would require legislation in this House?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot rule on that. We must wait and see.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)

Further to that point of Order. Is it not out of Order in an Adjournment Debate to refer to subjects which are not covered by some Ministerial responsibility? Is not what the hon. Member is saying in his hustings speech something which is out of Order?

Mr. Speaker

Of course, that is so; one ought to confine oneself to what the Minister is responsible for, although one does allow the expression of ex gratia remarks on such occasions.

Mr. Bing

On Friday, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said that we should regard the Debate as a Council of State. There are a number of councillors on the other side of the House, and I hope that we shall secure one or two suggestions from them. I was hoping that by making various suggestions hon. Members might assist the House. In view of what you said, Mr. Speaker, I will just read an extract dealing with the right hon. Member for Woodford, entitled "Wise Man," which appeared in the "Sunday Express," and which said: The wisdom of Mr. Winston Churchill in resisting the demands of the Tory hot-heads over the past 18 months becomes daily more apparent. They pressed him hard to formulate a detailed policy. Mr. Churchill has consistently replied that you cannot solve the nation's problems until you know what they are. We were hoping on this occasion that they would tell us what they are.

Certainly a detailed programme formulated 18 months ago would look rather stupid today. The second argument which has been put forward is that my right hon. Friend should have conferred with the electricity chiefs. I do not want to make any attack upon anyone or to say anything of any person not in the House which is not justified, but I would like to know with which electricity chief it is suggested my right hon. Friend should consult. There is one electricity chief, whose name I will not mention, but if the right hon. Member for Woodford were here he would know to whom I am referring, because he is the individual who was chosen by the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain to visit Jutland three days before the outbreak of the war to confer with Goering. He is the same gentleman who, so far as I as I can see, is engaged in a campaign against my right hon. Friend at the moment. Is it suggested that my right hon. Friend should go to a man who is engaged in a campaign against him and giving private Press conferences, and disclose his plans to him? Is that the practical suggestion we have from the other side?

Let us come to the third argument, which was that the real mistake was that we on this side of the House ought to have foreseen the situation and, in particular, that the Minister is not suitable for his job—and this is the extraordinary part of the argument—because it is alleged he once said something which has turned out not to be so. That is the point on which hon. Members opposite have based their argument, and it was even put forward by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). If I may take an expression from his own mouth, it is a rather "fishy argument," because at one time practically the only criterion, or an essential criterion, for office in the party opposite was that one should previously have made some severe misjudgment of events. Perhaps I may be allowed to give one illustration? There was a curious miscalculation which appeared in the "Daily Express "immediately prior to the war when it was said, "There will be no war." One might suppose, on those grounds, that Lord Beaverbrook should have been removed from the control of this sheet of information, but the first thing the right hon. Member for Woodford did was to take him into his Cabinet. On the basis of the argument adopted by hon. Members opposite, if my right hon. Friend had made a mistake we should have welcomed him on those very grounds. But, merely defeating the argument of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham does not dispose of the question, any more than it does by saying that if we had had coal rationing in 1945 or 1946 we should have had exactly the same unreasonable arguments that we had against bread rationing from hon. Members opposite.

The argument in which we on this side of the House are interested rests on the real basic facts of the situation. I propose to say a few words on what I think is the basis of the whole position. What is the argument against rationing on its merits? The long-term view of the coal position is that it is a crisis of production. If one regards it from a short-term view, then it is a crisis of transport. To get over that crisis of transport we were entitled to take risks. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that no Government should take risks. But where would the Government of the right hon. Member for Woodford have been if it had not taken risks during the war? Is not the situation now as serious as it was then? I would remind the party opposite that the election slogan "Safety First" was not one which commended itself to the people of this country. These coal difficulties, as my right hon. Friend has said, had their origin in the war situation, in the closing of the mines in 1940. It is worth noting—and paying a tribute in doing so to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) —that it was no one on the opposite side of the House who first thought of the idea of building central stocks of coal which have been a tremendous advantage to us. It was the bold action of a miner, the hon. Member for Gower, at a moment when there was universal chaos, and who, when France was falling, bought up all the coal that was going to France and founded those central dumps upon which so much of the industrial balance has depended. We have a crisis at this moment only because we have expanding employment.

The right hon. Member for Southport, who I regret is not here, quoted a number of figures. It is, of course, quite true that the war period is a time when even right hon. Gentlemen opposite are able, by one means or another, ultimately to secure full employment. The figures he refrained from quoting, and which I shall quote, showed that his argument was incorrect. It is not a bad plan to take the arguments of hon. Members opposite and see exactly where they would have led us and how they would have dealt with this coal situation. It is fair to say that they have a solution of some sort. Let me explain what that solution is. If I wish to obtain the views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am always inclined to take for my example the views of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for the City of London. I always look at it in this way: The people who vote in the City of London have two votes. One they cast in a residential suburb, if one may be permitted the expression, for some general Conservative purpose or, to snatch a metaphor from the poultry fancier, for a White Sussex or a Buff Orpington. But for their business purposes they cast their vote for someone— [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you think you are?"] I am sorry I did not understand whether the remark was addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, or whether, by some breach of the Rules of the House, it was intended for me. If it was addressed to you, Sir, no doubt you will reply to it. If, on the other hand, it was addressed to me, it was so clearly out of Order that I ought to ignore it. Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. I thought I would see what words of wisdom I could find. I have tried to keep a little index of what the two right hon. Gentlemen say from time to time.

I would just like to interrupt my argument for a moment to deal with one point which has been made with regard to my right hon. Friend not replying to the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott), and saying he would not be at the Debate. The previous week I had the good fortune to have an exactly similar Adjournment Debate, at just about the same time. There, however, the contestant, the real party concerned, was the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan). In exactly the same way, I gave him notice that there was a very serious question for the people of this country. The Iron and Steel Federation had promised 30,000 houses, but had in fact produced only 70.I gave him notice that I was raising the matter, and pressed him to be here. I have never mentioned this or anything about it until now, but in view of the attacks made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite I would say that absenteeism is practiced among those who have perhaps less responsibility than my right hon. Friend.

To return to the point I was about to make in regard to my search for the words of wisdom which fell from the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). In the little index I found this heading, "Power." I thought I had there something which would lead me to some plan of the right hon. Gentleman, because under that heading I found a note, "Hidden reserves of". So I turned the matter up, but I found the right hon. Gentleman was dealing, not as I had hoped with fuel and power, but with unemployment. However, I mention the matter because it gives a clue to the problem with which we are dealing. We have here the kernel of their resolution. The right hon. Gentleman said: Our unemployed, such as they are "— and there were a million of them at that time— are hidden reserves of strength and power for this country. That reserve does not exist in those countries where employment has already reached full capacity."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 56th April, 194o; Vol.339, c.935.] Obviously—and I just mention this in passing—such words of political wisdom could not pass by without adequate reward. The House will appreciate that very shortly afterwards the right hon. Gentleman was elevated to the chairmanship of the Conservative Party. But that is by the way. I merely introduce it as a clue to the crisis with which we are dealing. It shows how completely wrong is the whole conception of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. He said—if I may say so, with that studied moderation which so often serves him in place of argument or policy—that this crisis was too serious to be treated in a party spirit. That is exactly the opposite of the real situation. This crisis is just so serious because it was not possible during the Coalition to treat it in a party spirit.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) once said about hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Conservative Party was proceeding on the theory that after the war everything would return to the "chaos quo." That was the underlying conception of the Tory Members of the Coalition. They expected that they would develop a good hidden reserve, but it would not be of fuel and power but of unemployed. Of course, unemployed do not need coal. They planned to have peace. Yes, peace to make a desert and call it peace, or better still, rationalisation. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord the Member for Horsham was so worried at the possibility of ships being held up for a week, but I have searched in vain for any reference to his ever being worried about National Shipbuilders' Securities Limited. They did not hold up shipbuilding for a week, or a year. They destroyed shipbuilding yards; they prohibited ships being built for 60 years. Of course, if one believes in a policy like that, coal is not needed, and there is the solution. Why worry about miners? They are not needed. In the same way it was very gratifying to hear the hon. Member for Darwen speaking so feelingly about the closing down of the textile mills. But I have not heard anything from the other side about the work of the Wool Cambers' Mutual Association. The Wool Combers' Mutual Association did not plan to close works for a week or a year. They planned to destroy the very machinery of which they were composed. Of course, if a policy of that sort is pursued one can get all the coal that is needed, because not very much is needed.

Let me follow this out by giving the figures which the right hon. Member for Southport did not think worth while quoting in his opening remarks. Surely the real year with which to make a comparison is 1938? Though even there the comparison is not fair, because we were engaged—or so right hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us—with a policy of rearmament, and it was not an age in which there was any restriction in domestic consumption. The actual figures for 1938 are I78½ million tons, inland consumption. The consumption for last year was, as the right hon. Gentleman said,184½ million tons. So there, where we have domestic coal rationed to the bone, we yet have an increase of six million tons. Of course, that increase of six million tons is just one of the factors which puts us in this present difficulty.

But what do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest we should do about it? Let us have this straight; let us have an answer when an hon. Gentleman opposite replies. Do they suggest the mines shall go back to private ownership? Do they suggest that what we should do is to stir into activity again National Shipbuilders' Securities Limited and the Wool Combers' Mutual Association? Do they suggest we should permanently cut down our need for coal? Or have they been converted, and do they no longer believe in these things? There is no two party solution to this matter—or, rather, there is no all party solution to this matter. There are party solutions. There is the solution of the party opposite, and there is the solution which I hope the party on this side will follow; that we should attempt to obtain the maximum production, and that we should not be afraid of running risks in so doing. We should not pursue a timorous safety-first policy, but should accept the difficulties of risks when we come up against them. We should not try to save our coal by creating unemployment, by refusing to distribute to those in need. I believe that, not on the basis of drawing back, not on the basis of Coalition, but on the basis of going on consulting our own people, we will solve this crisis and any other crisis that comes before us.

7.19 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster (Fylde)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) opened the Debate this afternoon with a well-detailed and specific appraisal of the situation. The Minister replied in a restrained manner, which was not unworthy of the occasion. This is a moment, I suggest, when we must consider this very grave situation above and beyond party politics. If, therefore, I do not follow the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), it is because I do not consider that he furnished us with a speech wholly worthy of the occasion. I believe we are a little apt to confuse the issue today, by restricting ourselves entirely to the matter of electricity cuts, or indeed by bringing the matter of the weather too closely into the situation. I believe that if we are to constitute ourselves a grand jury of the nation on industrial matters, it is essential that we should view these questions, not only objectively, but as accurately as we are able. The Minister, in his somewhat mercurial manner, is apt to mislead the nation, through no fault or intention on his part, but because, I think, he is too frequently swayed by temporary signs of improvement, or, on other occasions, is depressed by a situation which occasionally appears to be overwhelming. As a result, he does, in the course of time, say pretty well everything, so that it is possible for hon. Members to catch him out on one point or another.

If I mention one or two figures it is only because I think we should hold a sense of proportion in this matter, and see things as they actually are. Where I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister made his mistake was in assuming that the year 1946 would in any way approximate to the year 1945. In fact, 1946 has been nearly exactly similar to 1944. If we take the last three months of 1946, we find that consumption was 50,000 tons—a mere bagatelle—greater than it was in 1944. What occurred was, that in 1945, with the change-over from war production to peace production, there was a sharp decline of over 2,000,000 tons in the final quarter. In assuming, as, I think, the right hon. Gentleman did assume from time to time, that he might scrape through this winter I do not think he had full regard to the fact that consumption would not only rise, but that it would rise on a curve, which we were nearly able to predict accurately. I made a suggestion in October which was an understatement of the situation. Basing my view on past experience, I was of opinion that consumption would rise to a figure of about 4,250,000 tons a week by March of this year. In fact, we have not attained that figure yet, but, the gap which was appearing, and inevitably appearing, has brought about the situation with which we are confronted today. If there had not been a cut in electricity, there would have been a cut in steam power, the generating power of industry throughout the country.

The Minister on Friday said that, so far, 200 or 300 works had been affected out of a grand total of 45,000. The situation is that, by the month of March, it will have affected the whole range of our industry, if that gap is not closed; and production has not, in fact, been rising by anything like the amount the Minister has been leading the country to believe. I do not want to depreciate the results which have been obtained. The last months of 1946 were satisfactory. There was a gradual and an expected increase in production. It was not, as a matter of fact, as the Minister constantly claimed, achieved with a lower manpower. I would challenge the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Minister, if he were here, to tell me that there were fewer men employed on coal getting during that period than there were twelve months previously. It is not so. What, in fact, happened was this. With the wastage of about 70,000 or 80,000 during that twelve months, and with what is referred to as recruitment—it was not recruitment: it was the return to the mines in a great proportion of ex-Servicemen—with the recruitment which occurred, there was a big change over in the types employed, so that there were more men employed in coal getting in the latter period than in the former period.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell)

The figures published in the Statistical Digest are as follow: For the three months in the autumn of 1945 the numbers on colliery books were 699,000, 697,000, 698,000; for the corresponding months in 1946, there were 693,000, 692,000, 692,000.

Colonel Lancaster

That is precisely the point. What I challenge the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to say is, were there, in fact, less man employed in coal getting during that period?

Mr. Gaitskell

They were on the colliery books this morning.

Colonel Lancaster

The whole point of what I am trying to explain to the Parliamentary Secretary is, that the type of men who have come into the pits during the twelve months, and have taken the place of those who retired during that twelve months, are the younger type, the coal-getting type; and I think that when this matter is probed to its depths, he will find that there was a greater number of men employed on coal-getting in that period than previously.

We heard that during the first week of this year there was a big improvement in tonnage, but no one, neither the right- hon. Gentleman nor any of his supporters, has mentioned the fact that New Year's Day, which is an occasion, occurred on a Wednesday this year, and on a Tuesday last year. It makes all the difference. If New Year's Day is on a Tuesday, the men simply do not turn up on the Monday. This year, however, it occurred on a Wednesday, and the men turned up on the day before, the Tuesday, and on the day before that. It is only a small point, but I think it essential that we should see the picture, wholly and accurately. I do not say that the Minister willfully misleads the House on these matters, but 1 think he does over a period, produce such conflicting statements, with regard to facts and figures, that, not unnaturally, not only this House but the country is confused.

As I said, the cold weather has brought on a crisis which, in my opinion, was inevitable. Whether or not the steps taken at this moment are sufficient, is now in question. I am not sure that, in fact, the Government at this moment have gone far enough. I believe that the only solution at this moment would be to close down power for everything except coalmining, traction and essential services, and agriculture. Unless we do that, I do not believe that the steps which are being taken will enable the power stations to build up a sufficient reserve to guarantee a constant supply of power to industry, and I believe that industry will be left in a position of uncertainty until well into the month of April. The wiser course may very well be—and I should like the Government to consider it again—to take an even more drastic view of the situation, to recognise that, unless they do build up stocks within the next fortnight, they are going to have a condition of uncertainty lasting, not only through the Winter, but through the early spring.

One could have wished that a Debate on coal had come a little later in the year. It is early to come to any conclusion in regard to nationalisation, or the work of the Coal Board, and I should be very wrong if I gave a hasty opinion at this moment. I am in the unique position, temporarily, of being a member of the Coal Board in an advisory capacity. I am not happy about the general administration that is being set up. If I refer to it now, I do so with some diffidence, because, as I say, these are very early days to come to any conclusion. Nevertheless certain tendencies are showing themselves which are germane to this issue, because after all, what are we debating today? We are not only debating the crisis but we are attempting severally to give some solution, or some help to the Government, in the problem with which they are confronted.

I believe a mistake has been made by the Coal Board in their general administration. Speaking by and large, the control of the industry is being passed into the hands of the technicians. That is not necessarily a sound thing to do; whatever attributes the average technician has, they frequently do not include administrative ability, and the fact remains that with that control and authority passing to those men, far too much of their time is at present being taken up with administrative detail rather than the job for which they are most fitted, the technical development of the industry. By and large, the great mass of administrators in the industry are being swept away. Whatever hon. and right hon. Members opposite may think about the coal owners, there were among them a great many men of public spirit, experience and knowledge, who, at this moment, would and could have been giving great help to the industry. Most of them have been lost to the industry because of the decision that executive control should be in the hands of the technicians. I believe that to be a mistake, and I believe it will have to be put right if we are to get the best results from the efforts of the Coal Board. None of us, and I say this in all sincerity, wants to see the failure of this great industry. If it must be under this system of nationalisation, we want it to have the best chance in those circumstances, and I do not believe that the Coal Board, in its present approach to the problem, is necessarily giving the industry its best chance.

I want to take the Parliamentary Secretary up on one point he made the other evening, because it seemed to me to indicate an attitude of mind about the problems of industry, which did less than justice to the type of thing with which industrialists are concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary, in replying to the Debate on electricity, said that all the talk about the take-over had been so much eye-wash and, in fact, it could not have been smoother. It seemed to me that that was a very shallow remark, and I will give him a very simple military analogy. Take a battalion of soldiers under a good commanding officer. The commanding officer leaves for one reason or another, and is succeeded by a bad commanding officer. If that battalion is a good battalion, I defy anyone to say within two or three months that he is able to see any difference in the moral, discipline or general training of that battalion. It will not show itself then. But it will show months later, possibly the first time the unit goes into action, and it is precisely the same in this industry. I believe that what happened during the autumn of last year—the decision to push forward the vesting date against, I believe, the advice of everybody in the industry—will be to the ultimate detriment of the industry.

I know, as one concerned with the job of administering coal mines, that I found last autumn one of the most difficult periods with which I had ever been confronted. My senior executives were being taken away at a moment's notice and placed in fresh jobs in other parts of the country, and as a result the whole administrative problem became more complicated and a great deal of hard work which should have been put into development problems—work which would have shown itself within six months or a year —had to go by the board. That has happened throughout the industry, and I believe it was a great mistake to have the vesting date when we had it. However, we are where we are at this moment; we are faced with this great crisis, and even bolder methods than those which the Government have indicated are required. Even in these early days, I believe it would well repay the Government to look into the administrative approach of the Coal Board to the problems of this industry. It is something with which they are concerned. They cannot say it is a matter for the Coal Board; it is a direct responsibility of the Government and of the party opposite, and I think they would be wise to look into it.

Finally, I think the Minister has the overwhelming mass of the House on his side in dealing with this problem if he is prepared at long last to face the facts of the case and act not only with promptness, vigour and courage but in a manner which enables the country to see the thing as it is, and not as he would, from time to time, have us see it. If he will take us daily and weekly into his confidence, if the Government will take the country into their confidence and will be frank, we shall all be behind him; and although this will set back our industrial recovery by months and months, we shall be able to hope to get out of it as quickly as possible.

7.37 P.m.

Mr. Crossman (Coventry, East)

I think we all appreciate contributions from the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) because he speaks about something which he really knows. I must say, however, that today his still, small and extremely well-informed voice, discussing this matter with a sober coolness worthy of this House, contrasted strongly with the strident Press campaign which preceded and led in this Debate. Judging from the tone of the Press, there was a major scandal, the Government were wholly to blame for gambling with the weather. Judging from the tone of the Press, the Minister of Fuel and Power was an obvious and abject criminal, but the hon. and gallant Member got down to discussing the subject soberly. We find that there is universal agreement on both sides of the House that the gap between production and consumption—which was known last June, was debated at length in two Debates and was stated at length first by back benchers, then by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary —was a gap which remained unfilled. Every speech underlined that that gap must, inevitably, lead to a crisis; even the dates were given—between 10th January and the end of March—a period in which production could not keep up with consumption.

All that was perfectly well known by hon. Members of this House, whether it is known by the Press lords or not, and that, I think, is why this Debate took on a certain unreal quality when the Opposition attempted to make it look as if anybody had ever really disputed the fact that if really bad weather conditions came in late January, February or March there would be a temporary economic crisis in this country. As far as I know that was never disputed in this House. Whether or not the Minister of Fuel and Power was right in every public statement he made is not my concern, but in this House, in the Debates to which I listened, I never heard it disputed by anyone on either side that unless we had as clement a winter as we had last year we were certain, in January, February, or March, depending on the degree of badness of the weather, to have a slowing up of industry, with part-time employment or even possibly whole time unemployment. When hon. Members opposite talk about the Government gambling on the weather, I think they would be correct if they said that the Government certainly did gamble on the weather not being as bad as it was in 1894. But any Government which last June had taken precautions in anticipation of the conditions of the last ten days, since the chances were 50 to 1 against their being fulfilled, would have been held up to ridicule and odium by the Opposition for the fantastic rigidity of the austerity which they were imposing on the nation and on its economy by taking such stringent measures to deal with the very worst that could possibly happen. In that sense, we can say that the Government did gamble on the weather not being as bad as it has turned out to be. Any other Government, above all a Tory Government, faced with similar circumstances, would have made a far bigger gamble. Nothing, therefore, could have prevented this crisis which has occurred.

I do not believe the people of the country are interested in working out, in detail, exactly what happened last Friday, and who spoke first and who spoke last. The country is profoundly disturbed because this crisis, which is the symptom of a long-term crisis, has for the first time brought home what the propaganda of the Minister of Fuel and Power entirely failed to do. Here I speak with some knowledge of propaganda, especially during the war, knowing that there is nothing like a bomb to teach people to be afraid of bombs, just as there is nothing like a crisis to make the people realise that there is a crisis. The people of this country want to hear a discussion of the actual situation as a symptom of a long-term crisis; and we should ask ourselves not how we can deal with it, today, tomorrow, or in a fortnight, but how we are to prevent it happening again next January, and the January after that. That is the real problem which confronts the Government and this House.

Before dealing with my suggestions, I should like to say one thing about what happened last year. It is literally true that if the miners had not "upped" stocks from 6 million to 10 million tons, there would have been total paralysis of industry, and if we are faced with nothing worse than that which now faces us, it is due to the effort put in by the few miners we have. The few men in the mines have done a very big job, and they have set a standard which I hope will be followed by the other nationalised industries. They worked hard before they got the concrete benefit of the five-day week. They have set a standard, and they have worked hard as was their duty. They have not taken up the attitude that they must get their cake before they work hard, and what they have achieved is to prevent a total paralysis of industry in this country. We hear criticisms from the other side of the House against the Government, and it is well to remember how much coal we should have had under a Tory administration.

Colonel Lancaster

The hon. Member is falling into precisely the same error as his right hon. Friend on this question of the "upping" of production, as he calls it. If we take the winter quarter for 1944, or any other comparable quarter, it will be seen that production has not gone bounding up, and it is misleading to suggest that it has. It has not; it is only a fractional increase.

Mr. Crossman

My point did not concern the hon. and gallant Member. My point was that production had increased in the course of the year, and I doubt whether that would have happened under a Tory Government.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Many Members on this side of the House know something about the relations between the miners and the Tories, and even fair-minded Members opposite will admit that there would have been even more strikes and more industrial unrest had not this Government been in power.

I turn now to a reasonable criticism which was made with regard to the period of the 1930's in regard to the Labour Opposition. It has often been put to me that it was the spreading of the spirit of pacifism by the Opposition before the war which made it impossible for the Tories to rearm. I used to reply to that criticism by saying that I would do what I could to fight pacifism because I did not like pacifism. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should now draw the moral of their criticism, because if there is one thing which has made it difficult for the Government to impose the stringent measures which are still necessary to get this country through, it has been the light-hearted talk and anti-control propaganda by the Tory Press and by Members on the Tory Front Bench. Members on the Tory Front Bench have accused the Government of not taking drastic measures with regard to coal. What about the attitude which they adopted towards bread rationing? Look at the day-to-day output of the Tory Press, which every day teaches the people to disbelieve in any form of restrictions, which pretends that if the Tories were in power there would be no restrictions, no rationing and no bureaucracy. Public opinion is being taught by the Tory Press to be reluctant to accept the necessities which have to be accepted today. I say to the Opposition, if the Labour movement made it difficult before the war for the Government of the day, let them criticise themselves now, for their attitude towards this Government, which is faced with infinitely more difficulties than any Government between 1930 and 1940. In the period before the war, we were far more powerful and far stronger than we are today. And if we are to come through now, we shall only do it because we have husbanded our resources, and because we have undergone an extremely unpleasant and drastic period of stringency to avoid a greater crisis.

The Minister admitted that there was a vast increase in coal consumption. He made it clear that he was unwilling to accept the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for FyIde, and that he was not prepared drastically to impose short-time or unemployment in other industries to maintain essential production. If we are not prepared to impose rationing and say to industry that there are too many industries, and that because we have not got enough coal we must therefore trim production, it surely follows that we require a vastly increased supply of labour in the mines—a greater increase than we can possibly get by present methods of recruitment. On the other hand, if the Minister says that industry will have part-time work in certain cases because we have insufficient coal, I can understand the statement that the labour force in the mines is sufficient. But if there is to be a steady increase in consumption, are not the Government faced with the alternative, either of rationing, or of increasing the labour force throughout the mines? I believe this is the central question which faces us in coal production today.

It is a terrible thing that it should be thought fantastic to speak of coal exports today. I believe that coal is more valuable as an export to, say, Sweden, than any form of goods which we have got; that if we can get more men to dig coal and get that export trade back that will be worth more in diplomatic, as well as cash, value than many of the other exports which need coal to produce. Coal has the most vital diplomatic value in Europe today. Can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that, in assessing the size of the labour force which the Ministry requires, he will do so, not merely in terms of our own consumption, but in the light of a large-scale revival of our export trade? Can we get enough men to win back these coal exports, on which so much of British diplomatic strength in Europe greatly depends today?

The second concern I have is whether the Minister has really studied the example of France. It is worth considering the fact that France is a country which is sometimes dismissed as inefficient, and as knowing nothing about business or organisation. It is also dismissed because its trade unions are run by Communists. But it remains true, despite these irrelevant considerations, that the French production of coal, and the success of the French in reorganising their coal mines, has been remarkable. French production in the Saar, compared with our production in the Ruhr, is a staggering commentary upon French success. Has the Minister fully consulted his Socialist and trade union colleagues in France, to find why the French have managed to increase their production so much more successfully than we have?

Mr. Boothby (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us to what extent foreign labour has played a part in this development in France?

Mr. Crossman

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my speech to its natural conclusion. I have talked this over with French colleagues, and I suggest that there are three reasons why the French have succeeded. First, the French have given to coal production an absolute priority. That means that they are doing something which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was doing during the war. We should regard coal production, in the same spirit as we regarded the U-boat campaign in the war. I was reading, recently, the volume of speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman during the Secret Sessions of the House during the war, and in them I saw the actual texts of the directives issued by him, and which were laid down in categorical language. There were certain essential priorities. The French have decided that coal is important enough to be given a series of priorities in France. If there is a big steel job to be done in the mines then there is no question of the mines not getting the steel they require. They get the first chop on the block. That is essential for us if we are to re-create our coal mining industry in this country.

Secondly, the French have decided to give absolute priority to housing and the real wages of the coal miners. I stress the words "real wages," because I mean, by that phrase, food, shoes, and even sweets for their children. I believe that a little has been done in this matter in this country, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that in future, absolute priority, so far as s possible, in housing and consumer goods will be given to miners during. the next two years. I was told by a Ministry of Fuel and Power official that it was inadvisable to do this because the rest of the country might be jealous. But I want the Minister to tell the country that the miners will get this better food and more shoes, and other things in the shops, because the country wants more miners.

There is a third reason why the French have succeeded. Apart from getting every possible French ex-miner back to their mines, they have increased the bulk of their labour force by the vast exploitation of German prisoners and Polish labour. I am not minimising the difference between Britain and France, because I know that there is a long-standing tradition in the French Labour movement that the dirty jobs should not be done by Frenchmen, but by foreigners. We do not want to create a class system in the Labour movement here, with the low-grade work being done by the foreigner and the high-grade work being done by the Englishman. But what the French have done proves that it is possible to introduce into our mines a large amount of extra labour. I am told that only 231 Polish ex-miners, who speak perfect English, are available for work in our mines. Well, I might find only one Welshman who spoke perfect Polish. But would this mean that no Welsh miner could ever work in a Polish pit if the thing was reversed?

I ask the Government to reconsider their attitude on the question of Poles in the Polish Army. We are spending £4 to £ million a year on maintaining a fantastic organisation, semi-military in character, under which Poles are released as slowly as possible from the clutches of their commanding officers. Instead of that, cannot they be made useful to us? Cannot we take some of these men for the mines? Cannot we persuade the National Union of Mineworkers—I am certain they will agree if it is presented to them that in the national cause it will be necessary to engage Poles on a two or three year contract— that large numbers of Polish soldiers should be given a trial in our mines?

I believe that the lesson of this week may be a merciful deliverance for this country if it makes us realise that we have to do that. Maybe if the weather had been nicer, we should not have had this Debate. We should have just slipped through the crisis, and the country would never have been faced with the fundamental issue we are facing today, which has nothing to do, of course, with the Weather—[HON Members: "yes] I Agree that position has only become acute enough to debate because of the weather—acute enough today for it to be raised as an urgent issue because most people in the country are short of coal and work. We should consider the possibility of turning this crisis into a grand deliverance. Otherwise, we shall have an economic catastrophe.

I mentioned the French use of priorities. I believe that is essential where you have to get things done, where you are not working in ordinary, normal, peacetime conditions then you cannot do everything simultaneously. You cannot rebuild the schools, replan the mines, and build up every industry simultaneously, because you have not got the labour. So we have to select. If there is to be any economic plan, coal is No.1. Coal is at the base. In any economic plan the Government put forward coal must be the basis, and should be given clear priority. We should have before us each week, the efforts being made on behalf of that priority. I agree that it is magnificent that 76,000 extra men have come into the mines. But we must consider the other figures. There was a net loss last year of 3,000. We have not yet caught up with the wastage, and that is a fact which this House has to face. A year ago, there were soldiers coming back, and many extra recruits were obtained from those returning soldiers, whom we shall not be able to get again.

How are we to get this extra labour? Surely, it would be possible, to promote once again a system of option, so that men now being called up could volunteer for the mines or the Forces? I believe that if the young men of this country showed a preference to go into the mines rather than the Forces, they should have the right of choice. An appeal should also go out that any soldier who is willing now to go back to the mines will be allowed to do so within two months. I believe that an appeal of that kind should be coupled with the information to the people of this country, that in this grave crisis we have to do all we can, even if the task is unpleasant. How are we to get the miners, and how are we to meet the increased consumption? How will it be possible to prevent these two graphs from becoming lopsided? If we can obtain as a result of the disaster which has bean happening this week the miners who are necessary, then we can go forward on a basis of planned economy. I address that remark to the Opposition, for this will mean not mollycoddling and muddling along, but more drastic Socialist planning. My criticism of the Government is that they pay too much attention to complaints about rationing and austerity, which have been raised from the other side of the House, and which do not express the will of the people. I hope that the Government will carry all Socialist measures through in defiance of the kind of people who bleated at bread rationing. Then they will be doing the right thing.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

We have listened to a very interesting political excursion from one of the high intelligentsia of the Socialist Party. I should be ungrateful if I did not express the satisfaction with which I heard his tributes to the vigour with which great problems, like the U-boat war, were coped with under other leadership than now prevails. The hon. Member seems to me to be deploying his criticism of the Government upon a fairly wide ground. Hitherto, he has dealt particularly with the sphere of foreign affairs, and his counsels have been addressed, with great pertinacity and vigour, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and those who are so misguided as to lend him their support Tonight, he has opened up in the home field—perhaps his fighting on the foreign front was not very successful—but now he has turned upon the Government and has criticised them. The worst criticisms very often are those which are only by implication, and he has criticised them for "messing and molly-coddling," I think were his words, and has given them a great deal of good advice as to the way in which they should reform their policy; how they should imitate the French in many things which they are doing in coalmining; how they should have greater numbers of Poles sent down our pits, not worrying about the ignorant trade unions who may have objection; brushing out of the way any difference of language or anything like that. He has pressed upon the Government a vigorous policy in respect of coal production, and has used a great many arguments which did not receive the hostile reception he might have expected from the Tory Benches.

Mr. Crossman

They did not understand me.

Mr. Churchill

If the hon. Member is to retain his reputation as one of the intelligentsia, he ought to endeavour to develop more apt and refined fauns of repartee. The whole of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was a serious criticism of the Government. Whether the measures which he advocates are sound or not, I do not attempt to decide and discuss, but his criticism is that they have not been adopted by the Government, and that that is one of the reasons why we have come to our present pass. He now says that the bad weather, on which the Administration repose so much of their defence, is a merciful deliverance. I think that he said that it was a "blessing in disguise." It is certainly a very effective disguise to many of us. All over the country, hard working wage-earners will be shut out of their factories for the next few days, or even for a week, and householders will be put to a great deal of inconvenience. He regarded that as a merciful deliverance. If, of course—although I should not predict such an outcome of events—but if the anger of the country at the ordeals to which it has been subjected leads. us, as the hon. Gentleman argues—

Mr. Crussman

No.

Mr. Churchill

If it should result in the expulsion from power of our present rulers, it would, indeed, be a merciful deliverance.[HON. MEMBERS: "For whom?"] I leave the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Grossman) where he properly belongs.

I should like to say that I did not rise tonight for the purpose of making a prolonged and detailed examination of the coal problem. We shall have other opportunities; and I may make it clear that, in view of the fact that absolutely no answer has been given to the statements which we have made, and for many reasons outside the scope of this emergency Debate, we shall seek other opportunities. I trust that they will lead to a very thorough consideration of the whole coal position, to the means of providing the necessary manpower, and, what is, in my opinion, still more efficacious. the best machinery. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Poles. We all know the difficulty there is about getting them to work in the mines. I have no hesitation in saying to the House that, personally, had I been responsible, I had always intended that the 18o,000 Poles and their dependants should go to Germany as part of the Army of Occupation, far from the Russian or Polish frontiers, and we might then have had 150,000 or 18o,000 Englishmen at home with their families and working in our industries; but this was brushed aside by what I think were superficial and shortsighted criticisms.

Presently in this Session we will ask for a further opportunity of discussing the coal problem, but today we have nothing before us except the speech of the Minister of Fuel and Power. I listened to his speech with attention, and I felt sure he was going to reach a thoroughly complacent conclusion. It reminded me of what I think Burke said of the Governments he was attacking in a former century: We have a very good Government, but we have a very bad people. As a subsection of this argument, we were told of all the achievements with which the right hon. Gentleman had adorned his Ministerial career. That part really amounted to saying, "How Bill Adams did not win the Battle of Waterloo." I have followed very closely the right hon. Gentleman in war and in peace. He was a bitter critic of any errors we made in the times that are gone, in the years of struggle, but he was infinitely glad whenever we won. In that respect his attitude was differentiated markedly from that of some other colleagues who sit with him now upon that Front Bench. I, for my part, will follow his example, and, though critical, I would like to say how very glad I am whenever I read of a better output from the mines as a result of better work and more regular timekeeping by the miners. Whatever one may think about political considerations, one must always rejoice at anything which helps our country in its perils and harsh times. There is very little doubt in my mind that things are going to get worse.I do net mean that this particular emergency is going to lay us low, but the country is going to suffer. It is going to suffer increasingly, and it will learn by its sufferings. We hope and pray that this period of tribulation may be abridged and mitigated as far as possible.

We have a long way to look back in this coal problem, and the right hon. Gentleman, foreseeing perhaps that he might be deprived of his igloo of bad weather by some of his critics below the Gangway, went right back to 1940. That is a long way back—

Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

Go back to 1926.

Mr. Churchill

Was that the year when the Labour Party, having been defeated at the General Election, endeavoured to regain by a General Strike what they had lost? We have gone a long way in the seven years since 1940. The war has been won and there have been all the election promises of the brave new world and the great advantages to come. All these promises have been made. There was a widespread belief a year and a half ago, or even a year ago, that some quite definite reward in the shape of a mitigation of basic conditions would come to our people as a consequence of victory, and the fact that it has not come, in spite of all the expectations which were dangled before them, vaunted before them—all the baits which were held out—is a deep and bitter disappointment to all. I am not going to put all the blame upon the Minister of Fuel and Power.[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I do not hunt harassed or falling Ministers. I prefer to go for the more blatant figures that are rising, or seeking to rise, to the summit of their ambition. The cause of our troubles is wider and deeper than the shortcomings or foolish speeches or contradictory forecasts of any Minister.

I do not—and here I share the feelings which have been expressed on the other side—I do not blame the Government for the weather. Still, there is always a weather danger in the winter in this country, and this is the first winter, as was well said, which has brought us to disaster. Every year from 1940 onwards I had to look forward, until I was relieved of my responsibilities, to this fear of a coal shortage in the winter, and two or three times, with the advice on which I relied, I discounted some of the gloomy prophecies which were made; but this is the first time, in time of peace, when we have come to such a collapse as we have at the present time. Again, I say we need not exaggerate the degree of the disaster, but neither must we underestimate its very serious nature, in view of our financial position and our economic position. It is very serious to our country. This is not a week's loss of production. It will dislocate industry for at least a month one way and another, with serious financial results, and this at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his finely chosen language, tells the world that we are living "on tick." I say that we are in the presence of an inexcusable breakdown, and it is not to be escaped by a general academic discussion upon the coal position arid upon the difficulties of finding sufficient manpower.

What I wish to do this evening—and this is the purpose of this specific Debate which we should otherwise have asked for on the Adjournment as relating to a matter of definite and urgent importance —is to focus on the statement of the Minister of Fuel and Power. He has given no explanation of his tactics on Friday. He ought to have seen the danger long ago, and he ought to have provided against it, or at least he ought to have told us what was coming, or what might come. Is that very much to ask? He ought to have had an emergency plan made months ago, for regulating electricity supplies on the basis of the known coal shortage and of the danger which is ever present of a hard winter spell. In war, many misfortunes happened which could not be prevented, and, God knows, we went through some frightful disappointments and miscalculations in the war.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke)

Yes, and we all stood by the Government in their difficulties during the war.

Mr. Churchill

Certainly, and it is not our fault that the nation is facing all these grave difficulties divided as it is. As I said, we went through many misfortunes which could not be prevented, but any efficient Administration has always worked out beforehand a number of alternative emergency plans. One opens a drawer, and pulls out a plan made perhaps a year before by long and patient study. I might mention to the Government—the planners—that that is done in an efficient Administration. There ought to have been a plan for regulating electricity supplies during hard weather should it come in January or February. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman for all the troubles of the coal shortage, and I much applaud the efforts he has made to encourage greater output in the coal industry, but he ought to have had a well worked out plan for regulating electricity supplies. In peacetime he could have done what could not be done in wartime—he could have told the people about it, saying, "If trouble comes, this is what you will have to do." He could even have had a dress rehearsal. With all the facilities of modern government including the radio of which the party opposite take such great advantages, spouting forth their party nostrums, we might have had a little drill in preparation for what might happen, if bad weather came in January and February, and we had to have severe contraction and regulation of electricity as a result.

I am reminded that the Prime Minister is very shortly to address us on the radio, and though I am 10th to criticise the right hon. Gentleman in his absence, I must say that he might have reinforced the efforts of the Minister of Fuel and Power, in teaching the people the outlines of the kind of thing that would happen to our industries and to our domestic consumers, in the event of an unusual spell of hard weather falling upon us during the months of January and February. Why was such a plan not made? If we had not forced a Debate on Friday, I wonder how this House of Commons would have heard about these sudden cuts. We forced the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) had the Motion for the Adjournment, and we pressed that it should be taken practically as a whole day's Debate. After the usual tussle the matter was conceded. If it had not been—

Mr. Shinwell

I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was not the Opposition Members who pressed for the Debate. Mr. Speaker suggested that the Debate would emerge from the Adjournment Motion.

Mr. Churchill

We can go a little further back in this matter. The Minister can look behind him to the third Bench above the Gangway where he will see a member of his own party—a miner.[HON. MEMBERS:"NO"] What would hon. Members like me to call him? Not long ago, he was a Member of the Socialist Administration. He himself tried to obtain the Adjournment for a Debate. I will not take credit for this side of the House which does not properly belong to us, but we heartily supported the hon. Member, and we were rather disappointed when, evidently after some conversation through the usual channels, he seemed to mitigate the vigour and the ferocity of his attack.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Had the right hon. Gentleman been present at the Debate on Friday, he would not have said that.

Mr. Churchill

I certainly do not wish to discourage the hon. Gentleman in any way from attacking the Government, and if I had known he was going to do so effectively, I should have made exertions to be in my usual place.

Mr. Ellis Smith

If the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to read HANSARD, he would have seen that the responsibility was put at the door where it properly belongs.

Mr. Churchill

The responsible Minister, the Minister of Fuel and Power, has a dwelling of which we have seen photographs in the newspapers. There is the door at which alone the responsibility can be placed. I do not wish however to be drawn away into an argument as to who had the credit of forcing a Debate on Friday on the coal question upon a reluctant Government I was wishing to get to the point that, if it had not been for that Debate, I do not know how the House would have been informed of these cuts. At the end of the Debate or when it was well advanced, in the last part of his speech, to the astonishment of everybody the right hon Gentleman made this formidable announcement.

We have been told by the Prime Minister today that we could hardly have been told earlier because the decision was taken only that morning. Is there to be no foresight? Is there to be no preparation for emergencies of this kind? The decision is taken in the morning, and the Minister, at the end of his speech, tells us of these grave and far-reaching measures of administration, which now have to be forced, not only upon the domestic consumers, but upon all the industries of the country. Why was this decision only taken that morning? I say that there could have been a thoroughly well worked out plan. Was the plan which was announced a good one? Here I cannot pronounce, because I have not access to the resources of the right hon. Gentleman, but was it a good plan for regulating electricity?

Is it a workable and useful scheme? Many great electrical supply centres and authorities assure us that it is impossible to enforce this particular plan, and that it enforced it would be ineffectual. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would have dealt with this matter in the course of his speech. I am told—and perhaps the Chancellor will deal with this point if he is to reply—that cutting domestic consumers for three hours and for two hours, will not result in saving much coal because the furnaces have to be kept going all the time. They are very hot when the cut begins, and, in view of the banking up and the accumulated demand which will come upon them the moment the supply is resumed, they cannot be let down, so that the saving et coal is not actually appreciable. Whether this is true or not, I cannot tell, but I should be glad to hear. If foresight had been used it seems to me that a system of staggered use by consumers might have been devised and drilled into them with all the facilities of modern government, and if the Government had convinced us, the Opposition, of the necessity for these measures we would have aided them in the same way as we have aided them in the National Savings Movement.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham)

What about bread rationing?

Mr. Churchill

I still think that bread rationing could easily have been averted by good administration. It may well be that before this Session is concluded, it will be possible to submit a convincing argument to the House on that subject.

It foresight had been used, and the consumers had been taught to spread their use of electricity—if you like by alphabetical groups over the different hours of the day, there might have been an average reduction of tension, rather than this not very helpful gap of three hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. As for industry, there was what is called the Shinwell plan. Presently, that plan was superseded by what is called—a term of art—the Cripps plan.

Presumably the Cripps plan was adopted by the Government because it was thought to be better than the Shinwell plan. We can hardly believe it was adopted because it was known to he worse. Why was this so-called Cripps plan not made effective earlier? Clearly there was a departmental breakdown. We heard a pathetic lament from an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite last wee k about his journeys from one Department to another in a matter connected with the fuel supply of the companies in his constituency.

Why was not the Cripps plan adopted earlier if it was a better plan? Apart from the distribution of electricity, if the industry has been consulted earlier this plan of allocation of coal, or whatever was the best plan, would have been operative long before the weather crisis was likely to arise. It would have been operative and not just ready in January—when just as it was going to come into operation down came the shocking blizzard. It could perfectly well have been operated two or three months before, and there would have been no shock such as has been administered to our industry. We should have had the best allocation of coal, if it is the best allocation—and I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had any doctrinaire motive for not making it the best allocation of coal. It seems to me one of the cases where his theories and his duties flowed into one channel. In addition, we should have had an exactly worked out scheme for curtailing electricity supplies and administering them in a period of emergency should it come.

Here are two grave faults and administrative collapses by the Socialist planning Government First, they did not adopt the right allocation plan in good time. That is admitted. Secondly, they did not draw up a carefully worked out scheme, which could be put into operation by a simple order for the effective rationing of electric current throughout the 24 hours. I must tell you the truth, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. They are all so busy with doctrinaire nationalisation, and so ardently involved in the class war, that they have no time, or strength or brains for making the ordinary administrative arrangements which common prudence demands. This is characteristic of our affairs at this time at home and abroad. What we are experiencing now is a sample of Socialism or, if you will, of half-baked Socialism.

I notice that the Attorney-General is not here. He is probably busy making some speech for which he will afterwards have to apologise. I am not attacking the right hon. and learned Gentleman because, as a matter of fact, I welcome his admission, with great frankness, as rightly linking this breakdown with the fortunes of the Socialist experiment. He made a remarkable admission. The whole fortunes of Socialism apparently depend on whether we can get out of this crisis or not. He should have a little more confidence in the theoretical foundations of a great movement, or—I notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just come in and I will finish with him—a more careful study of Karl Marx, if he can spare the time from his many activities, will perhaps refresh his flagging fortitude and faith.

The brute fact is that Socialism means mismanagement. It means mismanagement, bad housekeeping, incompetence in high places and progressive degeneration of our island life. We now have a vast increase of civil servants looking after our affairs. I have some figures here. In June,1939, there were 539,000 civil servants engaged in national government; in November,1946 there were 1,007,000, or almost double. In local government there was a rise from 846,000 to 1,025,000—a great increase.

Wing-Commander Millington (Chelmsford)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for midsummer 1945?

Mr. Churchill

The point I am going to make is of great importance. Here we have almost doubled the staff required to manage the country. This increase of those who do not add directly to the production of the country is an enormous one, and yet with all the assistance of this 400,000 or 500,000 additional civil servants, we have not even got the capacity or the organising force to work out this simple plan for the distribution of electricity or to find the best means of allocating coal to the industries until it is admittedly too late. All this burden is cast upon us through the increase of the civil servants looking after our affairs—hundreds of thousands living on the sweat of the toilers, hampering energy, enterprise and ingenuity at every stage. Yet, with this vast increase, they are not even capable of taking the simplest administrative precautions against dangers which must have been, or ought to have been, apprehended as very likely to occur in the present season of the year. I have spoken about these matters, and I shall take other opportunities of speaking in the country upon them. There is no need for us on this side of the House to hesitate to point the moral. There is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe he will reply.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Tributes will be more welcome when they are the result of a fine performance, but not when they are merely the ebullition of perfervid loyalty.

I am astonished at the levity with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with his tremendous task. The other day he made a speech at Gateshead which I can only characterise as odious and disgraceful. It was most unsuited to the position which he holds where from time to time some feeling of being a national trustee ought to break in upon his party factions. This is what he said, speaking. of the coal shortage: The wretched private coalowners before they flitted "— not a particularly accurate word to describe the transaction— left us with stocks of coal lower than ever before in our history. This winter we have had coal cuts and sheddings of electricity loads. That is entirely the responsibility of private enterprise… It is perfectly vain to suppose that by unthinking cheers, however warmly they may express partisanship, any change was made in the basis facts as known to the bulk of the nation. For at least seven years, the entire control of the coal industry, the regulation of its staffs and the provision against winter shortages have been regulated by the Government of the country, first of all for five years under the national Coalition, and since then by those who now have the power. And yet although everything has been directed under this control to the necessary stocks to get us through the winter and to tide over the year, and although this control has been absolute and complete throughout the industry for seven years, it is considered a clever thing to say: The wretched coalowners flitted… Is it worth cheering that statement that this was "one of the great breakdowns of private enterprise"? Time alone will show whether this country will submit indefinitely to arguments so fallacious and absurd. It has well been said that one can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time. I have every hope, under the mercy of Providence, of living to see a very great awakening in our country, and that false arguments animated by harsh malicious jealousies and spites will be condemned in England, as they have been condemned in the past. I hope, indeed, that the crisis will soon pass, but the marks will remain for a long time in our economy and finance. We should all do our best to comply with such Government instructions as reach us, and let us hope that the nation will realise, from this flagrant example, the downward stairway upon which they are now thrust, and of which they have only descended the first few steps.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham)

I am sure the whole House will join in congratulating the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on a contribution to this Debate which was in his old accustomed vein. He has appeared a little lonely and moody during the illness of the Lord President of the Council, and this minor crisis seems to have given him new vigour and a new opportunity of exercising those very special talents which we all admire but which are primarily talents for invective. He said in the opening of his speech that he did not intend to make a prolonged and detailed examination of the coal problem. We must congratulate him on carrying out that undertaking in the spirit and the letter. He referred to general strikes and to election promises. I share the representation of Oldham, which he used to represent many years ago. The only thing which comes between his repre- sentation and mine is a couple of wars and long years of unemployment. I promised many things, but they have all been achieved, and I can report to my constituents today and say that the things that I promised at election time have now been achieved and we are marching on to the future—[An HON. MEMBER: "During the coal shortage?"] I will deal with the coal position because I think the lime has come when someone should deal with it. It has never been dealt with from the Opposition Benches. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) opened his speech by saving that this was a serious occasion, and all of us on these lenches realise that it is a serious occasion. Could he have turned round and seen the smirks of joy and amusement on the faces of his followers behind him, he would have realised that they came here in a totally different spirit. The right hon. Member for Southport spoke for 31 minutes. He spent 30 minutes attacking the Minister of Fuel and Power and one minute talking about coal, of which he appears to have a somewhat elementary knowledge. Throughout that speech the cheers were rolling out from the cohorts assembled behind him, many of whom I do not think have heard a speech in the House of Commons for a long time. They had all the appearance of baseball fans responding to their cheer leader. Benjamin Disraeli in one of his famous speeches talked of the vision of the Front Bench which he had to survey. He said it appeared like some South American marine landscape: A row of exhausted volcanoes with not a flicker of light on any pallid crest. Here and there there was an occasional earthquake or the dark rumbling of the sea In the absence of the right hon. Member for Woodford, whom I certainly do not put in that class, we have had the misfortune to survey constantly a row of deserted mole hills. But to-day, and indeed since Friday, there has been a certain amount of activity amongst the fauna on the Opposition Benches. I am not sufficiently a zoologist to have identified them completely, and I hope I am not unflattering if I say that the movements have reminded me much more of the movements one might expect, on the knowledge given us by mariners, when the ship of State, however ably it is piloted, and with how- ever brilliant a crew, sails for a moment into stormy waters and we then see these movements of the fauna deep down in the depths of the hold.

The right hon. Member for Woodford said we had gone back a little far. I want to agree with one thing that has been said. There have been warnings in this matter and the warnings have been ignored. The first warning was made in 1919 when the Sankey Report on the condition of the coal industry recommended immediate nationalisation and insisted on a widespread measure of reorganisation, with social welfare work for the miners who had listened to the speeches that the right hon. Gentleman was making in that war. Those warnings were ignored and we came to 1926, when the right hon. Gentleman added to his triumphs in many other fields by working as a journalist, and became the editor of the "British Gazette". The right hon. Gentleman referred to the General Strike. I want to refer to six months of bitterly relentless coal lock-out when our men were "clemmed" into submission, and the men amongst whom I live, some of the finest men in this country, starved on three days' work a week which they got only when they heard the whistle blow in the mornings, and did not know until the buzzer blew whether they were going to work that day.

Mr. Churchill

I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that we delayed this crisis for a whole year at a cost of fi6 million in the hope of arriving at a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Hale

I think the right hon. Gentleman is in error in his recollections. What was done, by a piece of political adroitness, was to postpone the lock-out until the hot weather, when the men could be starved into submission, and a subsidy was given which enabled the colliery owners, who were intelligent enough to take advantage of it, to do a certain amount of financial adjustment, and that involved an expenditure of £16 million. There was the Reid Report, the greatest condemnation of an industry prepared by its own industrialists, by men not on our benches but on their benches, which tell us that this great industry has been allowed to go into such desuetude and into such distress and such economic chaos that nothing but a widescale operation, conducted on nationally organised lines, can get coal production going again. Milestone after milestone of warning has been ignored.

There has been reference today to the stock position which has followed in the same manner. In 1943 it was 20 million tons. In 1944 it was 18 million tons, in 1945 it was 14 million tons, and in 1946 it was 10 million tons. It was the same process of worn out machines, of shortage of wagons, of lack of transport, of the clogging of the haulage roads, and of the taking away of the essential manpower to keep the industry alive. Hon. Gentlemen talk about warnings. In 1940 the Tories were told that if they took young men away from the mines, they were taking away our vital support and vital organisation. They took no notice of the expert advice, and the men were taken. Since then our men have been exhorted shift after shift to work harder, week after week to produce more. Throughout the war they were called upon to make superhuman efforts and then, at the end, from the Tory benches hon. Members ask why do they not increase output? They ask why do not these men of 55, 56 and 57 go on turning out the coal that they turned out under the exhortations of statesmen in this country during a great world war?

I say that there has been a bitter, a relentless criticism and attack on the miners from those benches which has gone far to create disorganisation and lack of confidence in the mining areas. In 1942 the figures were known. They have not had regard to the essential wastage that has gone on year by year. In 1942 the Government recommended the rationing of fuel and power. What happened? The power that dominated the Tory benches throughout the war and throughout the years of peace, the power that was behind Munich and the power that set the Munich to Dunkirk express on its way, said, "We will not consent to this; it affects our vested interests" So rationing was not not adopted. Warning after warning has been given.

What have we had in the way of hope from the Tory benches in this matter? There have been three Debates on this question. The first, in July, was opened by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), and after he had spent half an hour being rude to the Minister, which is a favourite Conservative hobby, somebody said, "Have you any suggestions to make?" The right hon. Gentleman was amazed at such a suggestion. He said, "This is a Supply Day. I am not allowed to make suggestions on a Supply Day; it would not be right" The next one in, October was opened by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank), and nobody expects him to make a constructive suggestion. He is always entertaining and facetious, and pokes the Minister of Fuel in the pit of his stomach with his rapier without doing any permanent harm. No, no one on these benches would be sufficiently foolish to suggest that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough would make a suggestion of any kind. Then we come to today, and the right hon. Member for Southport was interrupted by one of the pressing people on our benches who asked, "Why not say what you would have done?" "Oh," said the right hon. Gentleman, just like a young counsel taking his first case, "I am not here to answer questions, I am here to ask them. You must not expect me to answer anything." The result is, that except for a short constructive statement by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), who always talks on matters of coal with a sense of responsibility and ability, this Debate, in this grave situation, has consisted of a frivolous, foolish, irresponsible attack upon the Minister and has had no reference to the real facts of the situation.

I have looked up the records of HANSARD to see what other contributions have been made from those benches. I find that question after question has been asked of the Minister, "Why do you not export more coal?" Time after time the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), and other more able of the Tory Members have been pressing for increased exports. Other hon. Members have been pressing for additional allowances. One hon. Member asked, "Why not give agricultural labourers the full allowance which the miner gets in the way of allowance coal and so on?" They were all pressing, but when we came to a little concrete example a la Wentworth Woodhouse, the Minister said," I am sorry to destroy the beauty spot, which will take a year or two to rebuild. But there are masses of coal under this that must be got." When it became a question of coal or pansies hon. Members opposite were on the side of the pansies.

This is a grave situation; we know it. We will go to our constituencies this week with a certain heaviness of heart, but knowing that we represent people who understand and who have suffered so much under Tory Governments in the past that they will willingly endure a few days of discomfort until this little storm passes. I live in one mining village and practice as a solicitor in two other mining areas. I am solicitor for two mining unions and I am the Member of a constituency on the edge of a fourth large mining area. There is a spirit in those districts today which has never been there before. My local pit last week produced more coal than ever in its history. The miner looks forward to the visions from which Tory ineptitude has so long precluded him. He is looking forward to new methods, new organisation, new opportunity of life and new terms of employment. An hon. Member has asked if nationalisation had produced a ton of coal. The answer is that it produced a million tons of coal in the first fortnight—a million more than the average.

That is the response the miner is making to the activities of the Minister of Fuel and Power. The whole of the miners are behind the Minister today and they realise that the decision he had to make in December—which might mean immediate and uneconomic rationing—was a decision which could reasonably and properly be made on a basis of trying to get through an average winter. The miners realise that but for the worst weather for 5o years it would have been a success. It is going to mean some days of stress and difficulty and will bring our people face to face with the real problem. But it will not by one iota relax the miners' determination to support the National Coal Board and the Minister. They will produce the coal and help to put us back on the road to prosperity.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay (Solihull)

I hope the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his extremely entertaining speech, because I want to confine my remarks strictly to the position in which the country is placed at the moment, and the personal responsibility of the Minister of Fuel and Power. The announcement which was made by the Minister on Friday afternoon was one of the most momentous ever made in this House in time of peace. I want to examine the way in which it was made. Today the Minister told us that the decision to impose these power cuts was taken before midday. Why did he not realise the importance of making the announcement in time for it to be broadcast on the one o'clock news, and to have reached the managers of industrial undertakings in the early editions of evening newspapers? Because the Minister held back that announcement until 10 minutes past three that afternoon for the sake of a petty advantage in debate, industrialists did not get that information until they got home in the evening, having closed their works until this morning. Do hon. Members opposite realise that this morning hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of workers journeyed to their places of employment to be told that there was no work for them. I say that that is a monstrous way for a responsible Minister to have treated the men and women who work in industry.

The Minister's announcement was not only timed to create the maximum industrial disorder; but it was not a carefully planned scheme to meet a situation such as this, but was, in fact, a hasty improvisation. That was shown at the Minister's Press conference that evening, when he was not able to answer the most obvious questions, such as the position of the doctors and dentists, of the weekly periodicals and newspapers, whether dye-cleaners came in the same category as laundries, etc., nor, indeed, what was the position of coffin makers, although one might have thought that that was one article for which His Majesty's Government might have thought fit to have made provision. The Minister admitted that those details were still being worked out, which showed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said, that there was no prepared plan. Indeed, that part of it which dealt with the imposed cuts has been said to be impracticable. The great electricity undertakings which cover Birmingham and Coventry have announced that it is quite unworkable to attempt to impose power cuts at the source.

It is obvious that we are in the position in which we are today because realistic steps were not taken 12 months or more ago, in order to build up stocks during the spring and summer of last year. The Minister taunted us on this side about how we would have built up stocks. Surely there is an obvious solution? We know quite well, as the hon. Member for Oldham told us, that the miners today are doing a very good job of work. But surely the reason we are in this position now is that we have not got enough miners, for we have today 90,000 fewer than in 1938. But we are not the only nation which has found itself in such a position. France found herself in exactly the same position, and what did she do? She put 54,000 German miners to work in the pits. The result is that France's coal output today exceeds what it was in 1938. We have not a single German miner working in the pits today; we have not a single Pole, nor have we yet any workers from U.N.R.R.A.'s displaced persons in Germany. The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) reminded us how much it is costing us to keep the Poles in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last week that, expressed in terms of Income Tax, our contributions to U.N.R.R.A. are costing us 9d in the £. Why do we not get value for the money, and do as Belgium is doing, that is to say recruit 15,000 or 20,000 miners from this source. Sooner or later we shall have to do this. What shall we then find? That France, Belgium and other nations will have taken the pick of the labour available.

The Minister has had plenty of warnings, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has told us. Not only has he had warnings from this side of the House, but also from no less a person than the miners' leader, Mr. Arthur Horner. On 1st September last he said that we might well have a million unemployed at this time of the year, owing to the shortage of coal, due to not having enough miners. But of course the Minister said we did not want any more miners, because there was not going to be a crisis any more than there were going to be cuts in electricity. The Minister quoted a letter which he wrote on 8th October. I will quote another. This is the letter which the right hon. Gentleman sent out to all industries on 4th December. He said: If industrial consumers at once curtail their consumption by 5 per cent… [it]… should suffice to enable industry to get through this winter without any serious interruption in activity. Yours faithfully, E. Shinwell. I suggest to the Minister that that was a thoroughly misleading letter. Only ten days after that, what happened? The Austin factory was brought to the point of having to close down and was only kept going for a time by the switching of 500 tons of coal which had already been consigned to the Rover Company. I suppose that is. what the right hon. Gentleman calls planning.

The Minister has said that the allocations never had a chance owing to the freeze-up. But the coal position was chaotic long before the bad weather started. Let me quote the example of the Rover Company. That company requires 450 tons of coal a week, but their allocation was only 230 tons. This was reduced by one half, to 115 tons, under the "realistic scheme "of the President of the Board of Trade, and the firm has not been able to get even that. How can industry carry on in circumstances such as this?

It is plain that we have reached this position because this Government of planners has no plans whatever. In consequence, the rhythm of industrial production has been brought to a full stop and the unemployed today can be counted in millions. The harm which has been done to our national reconstruction and lo our export trade is incalculable. Nor have we any reason to be confident that things are going to be any better either next year. It is time that the Government really planned for production in order to put the country back on its feet and to ensure that we do not stagger from one crisis to another.

9.14 p.m.

Captain Peart (Workington)

I wish to intervene because I represent a constituency in the important coalfield of Cumberland and also because I can see in my constituency the fruits of Socialist planning. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) again echoed his cry of "Woe, woe, woe," which we had at the Tory Conference and on the wireless in 1945. It cost the Tory Party dearly. I think I speak for most development areas and coal districts when I say that there is in my constituency under a Labour Government a better spirit amongst the people which will, I am certain, reflect itself in increased output. Apart from coal production, there are in some of the development areas, such as West Cumberland, new factories with new workers producing goods which are essential to our industrial recovery and to our export trade.

That is happening under Socialist planning. When I hear the right hon. Member for Woodford talking so glibly, as he so often does, on domestic policy, and when I hear him talking about unfulfilled promises, I think of the miners in my constituency who walked the dole queues when little towns like Maryport had 60 per cent. of their men unemployed. I commend to the Opposition an interesting editorial which appeared in yesterday's "Observer." I quote that editorial so that I shall not be accused of bias on this particular problem: The crisis has ancient roots, and it is no use ignoring them because most of them are dismally familiar. It goes on to mention that "the failure of the Government in 1940 to regard the coal industry as a top-ranking industry…"We then had, as was stated by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), the stupid calling-up of miners into the Armed Forces. We are still suffering from the disastrous effects of that policy. Again we are still suffering from a lack of mechanisation, that failure to develop, on sound technical lines. It was not that industry was just run by private enterprise; that there was no enterprise in the industry. It was an industry controlled by private monopoly, and it failed not only to produce the coal for the nation, but to give the people working in the industry that security which I believe they deserve. As the "Observer "editorial states: This was the gloomy heritage which the Labour Government took over. I sympathise with the Minister of Fuel and Power. He has been handed a terrible heritage, and, naturally, it is his task to try to overcome that heritage through sensible planning and through a quick implementation of the Reid Report, which I believe can only be achieved by sensible planning under public ownership.

I agree that we must today address ourselves to the immediate problem. How can we close the gap which the Minister foresaw and emphasised in a previous Debate in this House before the Christmas vacation? How are we to increase production? That is the crisis, and if some good comes out of this Debate it will be that it focuses public opinion on the importance of winning coal and the importance of the miner's job in this battle for fuel. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will not treat this matter in the party spirit in which it has been treated by the right hon. Member for Woodford, who should know better. I hope they will regard it as a real battle for fuel. We hope that in the next few months, this battle for production will go on, and that we shall see, more coal too, produced by unorthodox methods, such as the opencast operations. I think that, in the last statement of the Minister, he said he budgeted this year for one and a half million tons extra from that source I would like to know if there are further developments in the conversion from coal burning to fuel oil in industry. In the last Debate, we were told that the figure of 3 million tons would be reached. I hope that that process will continue, but we must recognise that the problem is really one of manpower The big job of this Government and, indeed, of the nation, is to find out how to attract new recruits to the industry.

Some hon. Members opposite, and, I am sorry to say, even on this side of the House, talk glibly about dumping foreigners into our midst. I am certain that, if hon. Members were only to look at the problem, they would realise that it is not just a question of getting a bulk supply of labour. That labour must he trained in colliery work. To be a face worker, a man has to be highly skilled. Working at the coal face is a highly technical occupation which can only be performed after long months of training. More than that, hon. Gentlemen should remember that there is still a coal crisis on the Continent. In Czechoslovakia, Germany, France and Italy every available productive worker, like the miner, is a valuable man. Therefore, to talk of bringing a large supply of foreign labour to this country is really not to understand the problem. What we have to do is to encourage men in this country to become miners. What about the idle gentlemen who grace the pages of "The Tatler", the people whose only physical occupation in the past has been to raise a cocktail glass. They are the people we want to attract into the industry: not just the sons of miners, but men of a society from which hon. Members opposite come.

We must give the miner the incentive to work and the opportunity to buy certain luxury goods. The other day, the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) said that we ought to increase the wages in the coalmining industry. I entirely agree with rum. The wages should be increased, particularly those of the face workers. Wages in the mining industry should be the highest of all occupations in this country. We must recognise that the miner occupies an important place in the country and should be appreciated.

In conclusion, I wish to say that I am confident that, with planning under the National Coal Board and with the industry under public ownership, a new spirit will be created. I saw that spirit not so very long ago. On the vesting day, I attended a little ceremony in a colliery village when we hauled the Coal Board flag to the mast. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) laughs; he laughs too often. At that ceremony, and at similar gatherings throughout the coalfields, the miners and their families recognised that that flag is the symbol of a new era in the industry—the end of the long days of unemployment which I knew in the mining village in which I live, the long days of victimisation, and the long days when miners were ostracised by Tory Governments which probably the parents of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and he himself defended. That is an era that has gone, and the Coal Board flag is really a symbol of something new and better. I only wish, as I said today in a supplementary question, that hon. Members opposite were as patriotic in this crisis as are the coalminers.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris (Cambridge University)

I hope that the House will forgive me if I diverge for a moment from the main current of this Debate in order to discuss a matter which, I frankly confess, affects me personally, and into which, I think. a large element of public interest also enters. It has been announced this evening that the whol of the weekly Press of this country is to be suppressed or suspended for a period of at least two weeks. That includes—and this is what particularly concerns and interests me—papers of opinion like the "Economist," which is so freely and rightly quoted on all benches in this House, the "New Statesman," which has many admirers and supporters on the opposite side-of the House, and, I doubt not also on this side, the "Spectator," about which I will say nothing, and papers like "Time and Tide," "Tribune" and so on.

Let me say at once that if it is in the public interest that this should happen, we will all lay our heads uncomplainingly on the block, but I submit it is essential in the public interest that this should not happen. It seems to me deplorable in the last degree that, at a time like this, in a crisis almost unprecedented in our history, those papers which do endeavour to express responsible opinion and guide the public to the best of their ability, should be forbidden to appear. I do not want to make any high claims for those papers, but I believe they have a considerable value which is not to be measured by the standard of their circulation. These are papers every copy of which passes through a number of hands, and many of them are posted abroad. It has been rightly said that the most important of our exports is coal. That, no doubt, is true, but I suggest that another valuable export is opinion, provided that it is right opinion— whatever interpretation may be put on that adjective. These papers have been publishing airmail editions and building up circulations in the United States of America. It seems to me deplorable that at this juncture they should not be allowed to carry to that country their views on this crisis in our country.

I realise the difficulties which face Ministers. It will be said that there is no way to draw the line, that they cannot allow a certain number of papers to appear while forbidding the others, and that there is no room for discrimination. That depends, of course, upon how one defines discrimination. The "News of the World" with its seven million circulation—and with a seven million circulation it must use a good deal of electricity—is to be free to pursue its civilising mission, while the "New Statesman," "Spectator" and so on, are to be suspended. We have heard that the "Radio Times" is excluded from this suspension [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I was about to ask that myself. The daily programmes are given in quite sufficient fullness in the daily papers. I have no desire to cramp the style of the B.B.C. but it seems to me that a rich monopoly is gaining considerable favour as compared with these free and independent newspapers whose existence was so strongly advocated during the Press Debate last October.

I realise the difficulty in which Ministers stand. I speak with some feeling, because so far as the "Spectator" is concerned, I think that for 118 years it has never failed to appear in a single week; even in the General Strike it produced a pallid simulacrum, a roneo sheet, just to preserve the sequence uninterrupted. The same can be said of the "Economist," which has existed for over roc years. I do not wish to be critical, still less complaining, without being constructive. I would suggest that it would be possible, without undue discrimination, to allow these particular newspapers whose names I have mentioned, and probably one or two others, to continue publication. It is well recognised in the journalistic world and, I think, recognised among those who read serious papers, that there are half a dozen organs of opinion which stand in a peculiar category, which certainly would not consume a large amount of electricity because their total circulation is not great, and which have a special part to play, particularly at a juncture like this.

The suggestion I make to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should ask three Members from any part of this House or, better still, invite you, Mr. Speaker, to name three Members in any part of the House to draw up a list of half a dozen papers whose continued publication is regarded as necessary in the public interest at this time. If my own paper were not in this list, I would cheerfully accept the verdict, but I do submit that that suggestion should be considered. Speaking objectively, I feel that the total disappearance for two weeks of papers which endeavour to approach public questions in the spirit of the papers which I have mentioned would be a disaster to which we need not necessarily be condemned.

9.30 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton)

We are discussing today a very serious—and I use the word deliberately—situation. Before I speak on its other aspects I should say, in reply to the hon. Member the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), that the fact that it should have been necessary to discuss the question of the temporary suspension, even for a brief period, of the publication of many of these important organs of opinion illustrates the serious situation in which we find ourselves. My information comes to me at the last moment, on the bench here; I naturally had to inquire about it when the hon. Member raised the point; I was not aware he was going to raise it, but I make no complaint. I merely make this explanation why I cannot reply in detail on this matter. I understand there have been some discussions this afternoon between representatives of the papers and the Government Departments concerned, and that an agreement has been reached, for the time being at any rate, with the trade association, that all periodicals will appear this week, but then for two weeks will be suspended. That is an arrangement reached only this afternoon, and everything is open for reconsideration as we move forward during this difficult time. The hon. Member will not expect me, at this stage, to say more than that. It definitely is not the wish of the Government to impose any restrictions other than those which are necessitated by the situation in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Wilson Harris

The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, quite correctly stated the position, but I am sure he will not suggest for a moment that this was an arrangement entered into voluntarily and cheerfully, by the papers in question?

Mr. Dalton

Certainly not. That is where, for the moment, the discussions have led us. I repeat, all these matters must remain open for reconsideration at short intervals during this period which we hope, for reasons that I will indicate before I sit down, will not be perhaps, of such long duration as some panicmongers have suggested. I deliberately chose the word "serious," and did not choose a more melodramatic word to describe this situation. It is a serious situation, but it does not call for panicmongering, nor for silly exaggeration. I was shocked when somebody suggested that it is the most serious period we have had to go through for 20 years. I am told the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said so. Well, there has been a war in the interval. And even before the war there were periods when—

Mr. Grimston (Westbury)

For the sake of accuracy, might I say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said it was the most serious industrial crisis we had had to go through in the last 20 years?

Mr. Dalton

All right, let it be that, If it is qualified by the epithet "industrial," it is an equally fantastic statement to make, because, during all the prewar years the industrial state of this country was such that it would not have been able to generate a shortage of fuel—the productive capacity of the country was kept so low, and the mass of unemployment was kept at such a figure that we were never short of coal in those days. I say—and here I repeat—that this topic which we are now discussing, seriously and objectively, has been subjected to the most fantastic and ludicrous exaggeration by a great number of people in a great many parts of the country, who ought to know better.

I would like to say a word or two about the situation which my right hon. Friend has had to face during the year 1946, and especially at the beginning of the winter. As has been said, in most admirable speeches of different types, by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Workington (Captain Peart), this all dates back a long, long way, and it is impossible to discuss the matter simply in the light of the events. of the past few weeks or months. It has ancient roots. I will recapitulate very briefly the essential figures which we had to watch and have regard to, the figures of distributed stocks and, in particular, stocks of the electrical power stations. I will select these from the aggregate of stocks. Distributed stocks are subject, as the House knows, to seasonal rhythm. In the summer they are built up, and in the winter they are run down, due to the fact that it has been the practice and experience for many years that more coal is produced in the summer than is consumed, while in the winter consumption rises and demands on stocks are increased. Every year we have this movement.

Sir W. Darling

Amazing.

Mr. Dalton

In November, 1944, distributed stocks were 18 million tons—I give the figures to the nearest million in each Case—which, by April, 1945; had fallen to 10 million. I pause at this moment to observe that this very large depletion of the stocks—nearly by half—had taken place before His Majesty's present Government came into office. From November, 1944, to April, 1945, there was a decline in the stocks from 18 million to 10 million tons. That was part of our heritage, the latest chapter of our heritage, when we took over from the last pre-Labour Government.

Mr. Clement Davies

Not the last.

Mr. Dalton

There was the "caretaker" Government; but there is really nothing to argue about. Such distributed stocks fell from 18 million tons in November, 1944, to 10 million tons—in the course of the ordinary movement in that year—to 10 million tons in 1945. They rose to just under 14 million by November, 1945, and declined in April, 1946, to the very low, the uncomfortably low, figure of rather more than 6,000,000 tons. We succeeded in building them up again through that summer to a total of between 10 million and 2 million tons—to 10,400,000—by November, 1946; but since then during the winter they have been declining. This seasonal movement has brought stock down each Year to a lower level than that in the year before. I come to the power station stocks. We were asked about electricity, and it is very proper to consider it. The stocks at power stations have declined in the following way. In December, 1944, there were 3,250,000 tons in stock at the power stations. In December, 1945, the figure had fallen to 2,800,000 tons. In December, 1946, to 1,600,000 tons, to two and a half weeks' supply.

This was the background against which this problem has arisen. I say frankly—and I do not think anyone will contradict this statement—that we had had no previous experience of full employment in time of peace.[Interruption] None under Tory rule.

Mr. Eden

What about now?

Mr. M. Lindsay

Four million unemployed today.

Mr. Dalton

Better not judge too quickly It may be all over in a week or two—and what a pity that would be from the point of view of the Opposition.

Mr. Churchill

How dare the right hon. Gentleman appeal to us to aid him in raising his savings certificates, and then use language of that kind?

Mr. Dalton

We can all join in stoking up a fire if we set ourselves to do so. I said—as is true and will not be denied—that full employment in time of peace is a new experience. I was going on to add—there is nothing to which the right hon. Gentleman need take exception in this; he should not really object to what I am now saying—that, consequently, it was not possible for any person, however expert, in any political party, Government Department, or industrial establishment, to make an accurate assessment.

Mr. Churchill

One moment, if the right hon. Gentleman will do me the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we wish to see things grow worse in order to make political capital. I assure you that that is not true.

Hon. Members

Withdraw

Mr. Dalton

I think this is really needless heat; but I am very happy to reply at once to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that, of course, I did not for a moment mean that that was so—[HON. MEMBERS:" You did."] May I complete my sentence? —in his case, or in that of leading Members on his side. But we must take notice of certain appearances of pleasure and delight which have manifested themselves recently among some members—a small minority—in his party, and in some organs of the Press. Of course, it is my hope, as I am sure it is the right hon. Gentleman's, that we shall be able to cooperate, as we are seeking to do in this Debate.

Mr. Churchill

No coalition.

Mr. Dalton

This will be bad news for the "Daily Mail," but it saves me perhaps from having to deny rumours—baseless, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said—which have been circulating in certain quarters in the last week. The point which I was seeking to make was that it was not surprising that, given that we had full employment for the first time in peace, calculations have not been wholly accurate. It is also the case, though I do not make too much of an excuse of this matter, that the weather has not been uniformly good lately; and that has had a certain effect, indirect no doubt in some respects, both upon the production of coal at the pits and upon its distribution.

I wish to say a word or two first upon what has been done by the Government to try to relieve the position, and secondly upon what we intend to do in future. With regard to what has been done, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has given an account of what he has achieved in his Department. My right hon. Friend has had a hard job. He has inherited a difficult inheritance, and in my view he has done excellent work in seeking to deal with this position; and so have other Members of the Government, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. One of the major aspects of this problem is transport, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has succeeded in getting more coal moved by the railways in these difficult times than could have been thought possible, in the view of the difficulties of the weather, the freezing up of the lines, and so on. There is also a very grave practical problem we have been facing, as regards the necessary repairs to wagons and locomotives, which have been largely worn out during the war; and here, too, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Supply, and the Royal Ordnance factories, have been making a most fine contribution, as a result of which we have more rolling stock on the lines, carrying coal, than would have been the case but for these efforts.

Sir Waldron Smithers (Orpington)

Why, then, do you export them?

Mr. Dalton

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question. I think that credit should be given, in the midst of any party turmoil, which anybody, including myself, may be responsible for stirring up, though this problem should be well above party, to those people who have borne the brunt of this work during these past weeks. I think that we should all pay our tribute to the work of the railways, which have moved this coal in very difficult conditions indeed. [An HON. MEMBER: "A disgrace to the country."] No doubt they will be able to do a bit better when they are nationalised; but for the time being, the railway men are doing as good a job as is possible in present circumstances, and we should take off our hats to them.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was interested, very naturally, in what was said this afternoon about the ships, the colliers, and so on. My right hon. Friend said that we are doing our best to turn them round as quickly as possible, and there, too, very fine and excellent work has been done. I was reading yesterday a report about Captain Murray, of South Shields, master of the "Ethylene," which was carrying coal on Saturday from the North-East coast to Nine Elms pier. He stated that it was the coldest weather he had ever experienced in 26 years at sea, and that neither he nor his crew had been to bed since Wednesday. These men also deserve the thanks of all of us, regardless of any party sentiments which we may have. In this same field I place the miners. I have the latest figures, which I think will be of interest to the House. Last week the coal mines were largely blocked by snow, not only falls of snow around the pit-heads in many parts of the country, but falls of snow which greatly impeded transport and the movement of the men from their homes to their places of work. In the Yorkshire field, the snowfall was so heavy that tunnels were blocked, and troops were turned out for clearance work, and a lot of these men had to fight through snow drifts six to eight feet deep to their places of work, large numbers being unable 'to get there. In the country as a whole, the output last week was over 3,500,000 tons. The actual figure was 3,530,000 tons, including opencast output of 120,000 tons. This was a very fine performance indeed, for which we are bound to thank the miners. These workers are not demoralised by what is happening, and it is a gross and fantastic exaggeration to compare this inconvenience, serious and troublesome though it is. with what we went through during the war—

Mr. Eden

Who was responsible for that exaggeration?

Mr. Dalton

I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman's own speech.[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?" If Members opposite will read the Press of last weekend, they will have no difficulty in finding out. So far, I have been speaking of what is being done. Now let us look to the future. Clearly, the one thing that cannot he permitted to happen again is for us to have total stocks so law at the beginning of the winter. Whatever steps are necessary to prevent that, they must be taken. That means that during the summer months, when production exceeds consumption, we must make sure that stocks are built up. We must not again enter a winter with grossly insufficient stocks. The means to prevent this must be worked out, and can be discussed in this House. Certainly, it will mean that restrictions will have to be placed on the great increase in the domestic use of electricity and gas, which has gone beyond what is reasonable in our present situation. Steps will have to be taken to put a limit on this increase. In other respects, a scheme of allocation, or if you like, rationing, as between industrial consumers will have to be worked out, having regard to the experience which we are now facing. Whatever happens to consumption, it must be adjusted to production in such a way as to keep our stocks adequate when we enter the winter period. If we are able to build up a volume of production during the months ahead of us, we shall not have the drag on us which we have had during recent years—

Mr. Churchill

You will not do it again?

Mr. Dalton

The right hon. Gentleman has put it very exactly. This must not be permitted to happen again. We shall, of course, count upon the cooperation, or, if that is too ambiguous a word, upon the reasonable support of the Opposition, in all measures calculated to achieve that end. As well as assenting to the end, they must all assent to the means.

I do not know whether this Debate is the veritable Vote of Censure by the Opposition or not. I do not know whether, just before Ten o'clock, they will divide, or whether they will put the Vote of Censure off for another day—

Mr. Churchill

For another day.

Mr. Dalton

Each day, as we go forward, will, I hope, show us a little more clearly the exact magnitude of this situation. We are hopeful that with a little assistance from the weather, not to speak of the Opposition, the difficulties may not be of very long duration. None the less, the Government and all of us are anxious to draw from this incident its proper lesson. We have all been warned that there must be, on the one hand, a greater production of coal and, on the other, a better adjustment of the demand for it. I hope that the Opposition do not dissent from the proposition that we hold—that an increase in the rate of production of coal since 1st January will be effected. First January was the day which marked the opening of a new chapter—whether for better or worse, but we believe for better —in the history of the mines; and we believe that the biggest single contribution to the solution of this difficulty which we have been discussing today is to get a sustained increase in the output of coal from the pits, now nationally owned. To this we must give our closest attention, as the National Coal Board, and the other agencies, know that my right hon. Friend will do.

The right hon. Gentleman made a statement earlier, which has removed many doubts that have existed in certain quarters. This Government will do its utmost in this field, as in others, to achieve the national interest.' This Government, supported by this majority elected at the last Election—this Government undivided, undefeated, and, as we are now assured, undiluted—and we ourselves would always prefer to take the drink neat—this Government will do their best to do their duty in this particular problem, as in others; and we appeal, not on any party lines, to the good will of all men and women who have shown their patriotism in the past, and who desire to help to get their country out of a tight fix now.

9.57 P.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

I am sure that the House will forgive me when I say that the speech to which we have just listened from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one that was totally unworthy of a serious occasion. There are, at this moment, between two million and four million unemployed in this country. That is the least part of the mischief. In my own house—and I only mention this because it is characteristic of the feeling of many millions of anxious parents in the country—there is a little baby, three weeks old. That baby's nursery is heated by electricity, which has been cut off during certain hours of the day [Interruption] May I appeal to your protection, Mr. Speaker? The right hon. Gentleman, in these circumstances, which are repeated in countless homes in this country, has thought fit to taunt us with wanting this dreadful situation to continue. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself. He has utterly failed to answer the case made against him.

The Government have a few simple questions to answer. Did they or did they not know that a crisis was coming on? If not, how do they account for their lack of foresight? If they did know, as every one else knew—apart from the Minister—that a crisis was certain to occur, why was not better preparation made to meet it? A great leader of the Opposition once described the Treasury Bench as "A range of extinct volcanoes" I prefer myself to borrow the felicitous phrase of the right hon. Gentleman himself. It is a poor bag of assets, and in that poor bag of assets there are a couple of empty-headed braggart— [Interruption.]My abilities—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. Speaker

The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Hogg

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I do not understand why the hon. Member has risen. He has no further right to speak now. The House has passed on to the Orders of the Day. As it is after Ten o'clock, the hon. Member's right to speak is exhausted.

Mr. Hogg

On a point of Order, Sir. I rose because I understood that the Debate was on the Motion for the Adjournment and that after the hour of ten had been reached, the Question would be proposed again.

Mr. Speaker

I thought I had disposed of that quite clearly the other day when a Minister rose to continue his speech when I called the Orders of the Day. The last half-hour is Private Members' half-hour, and is sacrosanct to them.