§ 37. Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of shifts worked per wage earner in the coal mines of Great Britain for the four weeks ended 10th March, 1951, and the four corresponding weeks of 1950.
§ Mr. P. Noel-BakerIn the four weeks which ended on 10th March the average number of shifts worked per wage-earner on colliery books averaged 5.09 per week. The corresponding figure in 1950 was 4.88.
§ Mr. MurrayIs my right hon. Friend aware that this is a great improvement on anything that has been known under private enterprise?
§ Mr. Noel-BakerIt is a very good performance, and it has meant more coal.
§ Mr. ShepherdOn a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that I made an allegation against the miners.
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerWe have passed that point now; but there will be other opportunities for the hon. Member to raise the matter.
§ Mr. ShepherdIf the Minister makes an allegation against me surely I am entitled to make some reply. The right hon. Gentleman said that I made an allegation against the miners which I was unable to support. Is he not aware——
§ Later—
§ Mr. ShepherdOn a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I desire to raise a question on a reference made about me by the Minister of Fuel and Power earlier today. Will you please say what means are open to me now to see that there is a public withdrawal of a statement about me which was not, in fact, true, and which the Minister himself, I think, now knows was not a true statement?
§ Mr. Noel-BakerAs I understand it— I am speaking without the papers here, but I looked at them this morning—what happened on a previous occasion was that the hon. Member used language which was plainly intended to make the House understand that there was widespread abuse of the privilege of concessionary coal by the miners. When asked for evidence of that by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary the hon. Member replied that he could give no specific cases to support it, but that he thought it was a matter of general knowledge.
§ Mr. ShepherdIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is an even greater distortion of the facts? My first reference was purely interrogatory, by asking the Parliamentary Secretary if he was aware of any abuse. Secondly, I agreed to provide to the Minister—[An HON. MEMBER: "Is this a debate?"]—definite 2087 information of abuse, provided the Minister would agree to safeguard my informant and not disclose his name. Would the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House——
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerClearly, we cannot debate a matter of this kind now. It has been ventilated, and I presume it will be inquired into. Maybe the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member may think fit to make a personal statement on some other occasion.
§ Mr. ShepherdBut is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the right hon. Gentleman to refuse to give an assurance to safeguard my informant, so that the matter can be investigated?
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerOrder. The matter having been raised, it will no doubt be taken into consideration. Clearly, it cannot be debated now.