Lords Sitting of 29 January 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT CAMROSE.
William Ewert Baron Camrose having been created Viscount Camrose of Hack-wood Park in the County of Southampton —Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement on speculation in regard to schemes of reconstruction?
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (LORD REITH): My Lords, I welcome this opportunity of announcing a particular initial step in the preparatory work for reconstruction. In the debate on November 13 there was reference to the difficulties of compensation and betterment. Existing provisions have not worked satisfactorily. They have been proved an obstruction to planning throughout the country. The Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population recommended that the subject should be remitted for expert examination. If it was important then, it is imperative now, with post-war reconstruction in view. I have accordingly appointed an expert Committee. The Committee will not deal with policy issues; these are the concern of the Government. In addition, confronted with the complication referred to in the noble Lord's question—the possibility of speculation during the war hampering or prejudicing the work of reconstruction thereafter—we have asked the Committee to advise urgently on that point.
The membership of the Committee is as follows:—With the approval of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, Mr. Justice Uthwatt, who will be Chairman, Mr. James Barr, Mr. Gerald Eve, Mr. F. R. Evershed, K.C., and Mr. James Wylie. The terms of reference are:
260
To make an objective analysis of the subject of the payment of compensation and recovery of betterment in respect of public control of the use of land;
To advise, as a matter of urgency, what steps should be taken now or before the end of the war to prevent the work of reconstruction thereafter being prejudiced. In this connection the Committee are asked to consider (a) possible means of stabilising the value of land required for development or redevelopment, and (b) any extension or modification of powers to enable such and to be acquired by the public on an equitable basis;
"To examine the merits and demerits of the methods considered; and
"To advise what alterations of the existing law would be necessary to enable them to be adopted."
The latter part of these terms of reference makes it clear that the Government do not intend that reconstruction after the war shall be hampered or prejudiced in any way by speculative transactions or any other such individual operations carried out in advance.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, we must, I am sure, recognise the high importance of the announcement which the noble Lord has just made to us. Any one who is familiar with this subject will recognise the truth of his statement that existing provisions in regard to compensation and betterment have not worked satisfactorily, and that they have proved an obstruction to planning throughout the country. I notice that it is further stated that the Committee will not deal with policy issues. I hope in that connection that we may here and now, have an assurance from the Government that the appointment of this Committee to deal with these expert and technical matters will not prejudice or prevent the discussion in this House at an early date of very important policy matters which are involved in these issues. Quite frankly, not wishing to say a word to minimise the importance of the announcement that has just been made, I find it a little difficult off-hand to visualise the consideration or the giving of advice upon these questions without a decision having been taken on matters of policy. However, I can only hope that this distinguished Committee will be able to do their work without finding themselves involved in that difficulty, though I should not be hopeful of their success.
May I ask the noble Lord, in further explanation of the last sentence of all, to

261
assure us that the Government intend that the words "reconstruction after the war shall not be hampered or prejudiced in any way" include also that they shall not be delayed? I have a very painful and lively recollection of how things were delayed after the last war by the failure of decision on policy upon some of the matters here affected. Therefore, I should like, if I can, to get the assurance of the noble Lord that I can understand that the words mean "reconstruction after the war will not be hampered, or prejudiced, or delayed in any way." Apart from these general observations, which arise in ore's mind after a first reading at five minutes' notice of this very important statement, I most cordially thank the noble Lord for it and wish him the best success, reiterating my request that we shall not be prejudiced in any way in the matter of a free and full discussion of the important policy matters involved. I hope that discussion will be at a fairly early date—at all events when it suits our convenience.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am sure that the appointment of this expert technical Committee will be welcomed by all, but I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he expects to be in a position at an early date to make any statement on the general policy of His Majesty's Government on matters of planning and reconstruction? I feel sure your Lordships would desire to hold a discussion on that important matter as early as may be.
LORD. BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, if I may be allowed to add one word from his side of the House, I should like to offer my most sincere thanks both to the Government and to the noble Lord for his statement which has just been made. I must admit that I am a little surprised at the rather modified rapture shown from the Front Opposition Bench. I am quite sure the misgivings of the noble Lord will be found to be baseless. I for one without any reserve welcome the statement and I would remind the noble Lord opposite that it was described as a step in the preparatory work. I accept it as that. It does mark a very great step forward for which we should be grateful to the Government.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I be allowed to add a word to what
262
has been said? Everyone in the House I think will welcome the appointment of this Committee to deal with most important matters. The point which I should like to emphasize is that which the noble Lord who first asked the question emphasized. For my part I do not understand his reference to matters of policy. I cannot help testing the matter by considering for a moment what my position would be if I had the honour to be appointed Chairman of this Committee. I can hardly conceive any matter which will come into discussion before this Committee which does not raise matters of policy, and although I do not question the intention of His Majesty's Government, I think it would be very desirable if they would at any rate enlarge or extend the phrase so as not to prejudice evidence or discussion before the Committee on matters which seem to me to go to the root of almost every single topic which they are likely to discuss.
LORD. REITH: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have commented on the announcement which I had the honour to make and I shall try to answer the points raised by them. I feel that I should be able to give the noble Lord opposite the assurance which he asks for that the appointment of the Committee will not prejudice discussion on policy in due course. Secondly, I would take delay as an instance of prejudice and I certainly meant, by referring to "hamper or prejudice in any way," to include "delay." In any event I assure the noble Lord that we will endeavour to cover that point satisfactorily. I am grateful to the noble Lord on this side of the House for his welcome and to the noble Viscount on the other side. On the particular question that the noble Viscount asked me, my reply is "Yes." I hope before long to be in a position to initiate in this House a general discussion on the policy of His Majesty's Government in the matter. I can say no more at present.
As to the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount who spoke last, I am sure he will appreciate what is involved in the words "an objective analysis" in the terms of reference. The terms of reference were drawn up in consultation with the learned Chairman and were satisfactory to him. Should he find himself in any way embarrassed or sub-

263
ject to any limitation other than that which he would wish to be under—that is of keeping clear of controversial political issues; my reference was to that—I am sure he will quickly draw our attention to the fact.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
BOROUGH OF KETTERING ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF TRING ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF MELTON MOWBRAY ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF MATLOCK ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF OF EXMOUTH ORDER.
BOROUGH OF OSSETT ORDER. BOROUGH OF TEWKESBURY ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF ROSS-ON-WYE ORDER.
BOROUGH OF ALDEBURGH ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF BUDE-STRATTON ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF ILFRACOMBE ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF HINCKLEY ORDER.
COUNTY BOROUGH OF IPSWICH ORDER.
CITY AND COUNTY OF THE CITY OF EXETER ORDER.
BOROUGH OF HENLEY-ON-THAMES ORDER.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 2Ist instant last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL DISTRIBUTION.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps
264
are being taken to improve the distribution of coal; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is common knowledge, I think, that of recent months there has been a considerable shortage of coal in many parts of Southern England and that this shortage is far more serious than the insufficient supply available for domestic purposes about this time last year. It is more serious because it affects industrial undertakings and, to a lesser extent, public utility services as well as the home, and because last year blame could not unreasonably be laid on the exceptional severity of the weather—in any event a temporary source of inconvenience—whereas this year the weather has not hitherto been abnormally cold. The deficiency, therefore, can be accounted for only by some deep-seated maladjustment of our system of transportation and distribution in relation to its task. I do not wish to dwell unnecessarily upon an acknowledged fact by multiplying examples, but I should like to mention two striking instances which occurred last month. At Maidenhead the coal merchants announced to their clients that they had three days' supply in hand for the whole population, which amounts, I believe, to about 50,000. My second example is that of a far greater urban centre. The Bristol Corporation arranged with the railway companies for the delivery of five train-loads of coal during the course of the month, but not one of these loads arrived at its destination. The facts in both these instances have already been published, so that I am not divulging anything which could be regarded as confidential or as information which might be used in a manner that one would not desire.
Taking first of all the position of the domestic consumer, for the domestic consumer this shortage at the coldest period of the year is, of course, a serious source of inconvenience, and in many cases it may prejudice health. I think that on the whole the householder responded well to the Government's appeal to him to fill his cellar to capacity during the summer and autumn months of 1940; indeed, a well-earned tribute was paid to his foresight by my honourable friend the Minister for Mines in the course of his broadcast on Monday night. I was extremely glad to hear of this appeal for co-operation from the public, and to hear what I am sure is

265
a good thing, such an exceedingly fair and frank statement of the facts and difficulties. At the same time, I noted with regret that the Minister expected the coal shortage to persist, and indeed possibly in certain localities to increase, in the near future. It should not be forgotten that the average household has neither the money nor the storage capacity to build up a large reserve and, for that reason, supplies always tend to run short towards the end of the winter.
I think that we may be even more concerned about the position of the industrial consumer. Lack of fuel, or lack of the proper fuel in proper quantities, must inevitably slow down production; and, in so far as this happens, it applies a brake to the whole of our economic war effort. The appointment by the War Cabinet of the Committee over which Sir John Anderson presides—a step which everyone, I am sure, welcomed—is obvious evidence that the Government are aware of the extreme gravity of the problem; and one of the things for which I hope as a result of this discussion is that the noble Lord who will reply will be able to tell us at least something about the advice which this Committee have tendered ad about the sort of action that the Government are intending to take to implement it.
There is one step which would go far to meet the difficulties of the householder and of the industrial undertaking at present short of fuel, and that is a revision of the Government's list of priorities in relation to transport. At present coal for public utility services is on the list, but not household coal and not the coal that is needed by the small business, or indeed by the large industrial undertaking, doing important work in connection with war-time production, but not falling within the category of public utility services. I think that their difficulties would be met if the Government could see their way to put the coal that is used by them on the same footing as coal that is required by public utility services.
I think it: would be generally admitted—I do not wish to dwell upon this point—that there have been certain clear errors of judgment in the past year. The chief among these was the failure to fill to maximum capacity the dumps of the Government and of coal merchants during the summer and early autumn, before
266
the severe and continuous air attacks began. Consumers, as the Minister for Mines has himself acknowledged, did their bit in this respect, and I cannot help feeling that if the Government and the principal distributive agencies had done likewise there would have been ample reserves in most of the districts affected to meet at any rate the most imperative of their needs. However, it is easy enough to be wise after the event, and no doubt we shall hear from the noble Lord who will reply something of the other side of the case. Whether in fact we can still remedy these deficiencies—and that, of course, is the important point, and not any mistakes that have been made in the past—will depend on some sort of satisfactory solution of the transport problem, which has been, and is still, the crux of the whole difficulty.
As I know the Government realise, whatever remedy may be devised can work satisfactorily only if it secures the co-operation of all the people concerned: the consumers, the mining industry, the coal merchants, the transport undertakings and, of course, the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Mines. I am sure that that co-operation can be obtained if the Government will give a bold lead, telling the interested parties what it is desired that they should do and, if exhortation fails, taking compulsory measures. The broadcast by my honourable friend the Minister for Mines on Monday night was evidently a step in this direction and is welcome on that account, but I am asking the Government, if they see fit to do so, to go a good deal further. There were certain things which I believe to be of some importance which the Minister omitted from his address. I should have liked him to tell the consumers, in addition to what he did say, that they cannot be finicky in war time about the grade and the quality of their coal; if they do not get what they order they must put up with the next best thing. I should have liked him to tell the coal merchants that customers' orders can be carried out only so far as these factors of transport and production permit, and that they again must put up with a near approach to what they want.
It is, of course, infinitely more difficult to adapt the mining industry to war-time conditions, and I am not going to dwell on that problem in the course of my few

267
remarks. There is just one factor which ought to be mentioned. It is a factor on which the mining industry can count, and that is a steady demand for coal for home consumption, which will continue to increase until our war industries are producing at maximum capacity—and that point, of course, will not be reached for a considerable period of time. I mention this because it is surely the Government's business—and I have no doubt the Government have the matter in mind—to estimate our industrial and domestic requirements over a period, so far as they can see into the future, and, of course, to safeguard those mining areas—I am thinking of the areas producing for the home market—that cater for the whole range of production at home. The fact is that we have plenty of coal, far more than we need, and shall need, for many years, and there is no reason why, so far as production alone is concerned, any firm or household should go short, however long the war may last. The hitch, of course—I mentioned this before and I venture to dwell upon it because I think it is the central feature of the difficulty—is transport. An actual shortage of fuel is bound to persist in certain localities until ways and means can be found of bringing the coal from the pit head to those places where its energy is required for warmth or for power.
Our transport system, judging from results, would appear to be the weakest link in our war-time economy, and the coal shortage is merely one symptom of a malady which affects distribution generally. What I venture to suggest as a matter of policy is that what we require is a drive to co-ordinate all forms of transport with a view to obtaining maximum efficiency for war purposes. This large-scale co-ordination is surely impossible while the roads continue, as in peace time, to compete for traffic with the railways, while canal barges and coastwise merchant vessels are each pursuing their own sweet way. The roads, railways, canals and coastwise shipping services should be brought under a single directorate, like the recently appointed Production Executive, which covers the whole field of the war industry. Surely, if we can cover the war industries by a single body working from the centre, we can apply the same method
268
and the same remedy to our system of transport. The time has surely come when we should have a Transport Executive as well as the Production Executive which would cover in its range the whole field of domestic transport.
To deal with a minor but, I think, an important point, I am puzzled to know why it has been impossible to make more use of our vast network of canals. In 1929 the canals carried 1,500,000 more tons of coal than they were carrying in 1938. I wonder—I am only seeking for information—whether it is really impossible to bring their capacity to-day up to the 1929 level, because industry is booming and we are rapidly reaching the same sort of conditions as we reached in that year. In any event, if this major step of policy were taken, wastage and overlapping would be eliminated on the pooling of our transport resources, which could then be managed in accordance with a war-time plan for the whole country. I have ventured to raise this matter for discussion this afternoon both because of its intrinsic importance and because I was aware that several noble Lords were anxious to make a contribution to the solution of the problem, and also because I hoped to elicit from the Government some comforting and reassuring statement of the action that they intend to take. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, I desire to say a very few words on the question which the noble Earl opposite has raised. Having been bombed out of London I had to retire to one of the Southern counties, and when in September I tried to get some coal I found there was practically none. Of course the situation got worse. In the district where I live there are several thousand evacuees and a great many families of officers and soldiers, all of whom cannot store coal. The position at Christmas was that there was practically no coal at all. Coal merchants did share out what they had, but there realty was not enough to go round. We had a warning last year, when there was also shortage of coal, and I am afraid I cannot help thinking that with a little more initiative and a little more action at the time when the war was imminent, we should not have had that shortage last winter. Naturally, one thought after that warning, when we were told there were going to be large dumps and that every-

269
body had to lay in coal, that we should not have had the same shortage again this winter. It is quite impossible to lay in coal and get supplies when your coal merchant cannot supply you with coal. Where I am there had been a large dump, but certainly a few months ago it had not got an ounce of coal in it. The Ministry wrote and pointed this out in August, but they got no results at all. Then they sent a telegram just before Christmas, which was, of course, too late.
No doubt we shall be told that all this coal in Southern districts was seaborne, but then the Government have known that, and should have taken steps and made arrangements to send the coal by other means to those districts. The trouble, it seems to me, is that there is a tremendous lack of co-ordination between the different people concerned—the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Mines and, no doubt, a great many of the mine owners. I am told that there were trucks loaded with coal that perhaps was not suitable for domestic purposes, or not as suitable as other coal, and they were left loaded in the sidings because the owners did not wish to go to the expense of unloading those trucks. I do not know how true that is, but that is what I have been told. Now we have been told that this Committee has been set up. What I should like to know is why this Committee was not set up last year after that very serious shortage. It seems to me that there is a great lack of action and foresight in these various Departments. They must have known these things, so why was not action taken when there was time? It is very late to set up Committees now.
There is, another question. It seems to me that some use might be made of some of the military wagons. Where I am you see Army wagons going about all day practically empty, consuming an enormous amount of petrol and driving at a very rapid pace, and they all belong to different units. There seems to be no coordination; they seem to be wasting their energy in taking either very small loads or none at all. Surely, if the transport question is so serious, there might have been some; consultation with the Army authorities to see if they could spare some lorries. I shall be told, I suppose, that the Army is short of transport. The other day a military officer came to my coal merchant and said he wished to com-
270
mandeer a wagon. It was a Saturday, and the coal merchant said it was a bad day because on Saturdays he has to deliver small supplies. He pointed out that there was an Army park containing twenty lorries half a mile up the road and suggested that the officer might get what he wanted there. This officer ought never to have gone to the coal merchant. It shows lack of proper co-ordination. The Departments work independently, and there is an enormous number of military lorries going about the roads not pulling their weight or carrying proper loads. I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply will tell us that some action is going to be taken, because people are not satisfied to be left with no coal and have nothing to cook with, especially when they are the wives of officers and men serving with the Forces. It does create a great deal of talk and perhaps ill-feeling, and I believe that with co-ordination much of the trouble could be overcome. I hope the noble Lord will tell us that they are taking things more seriously and that there is to be co-ordination of all these different Departments, for it is there, I am sure, the trouble arises.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I wish to say a word in support of my noble friend on this subject. I must say I am disappointed that a subject like this, which is occasioning widespread hardship all over the country, has not drawn a larger attendance to-day. Perhaps it is because many noble Lords, like myself, have been affected by the prevailing ailments. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the kind of hardship to which multitudes of people of all classes, particularly people who buy their coal in small quantities, have been subjected during recent weeks. I am sure the illustrations given by the noble Lord who has just spoken could be multiplied a thousandfold. In fact, it would be almost impossible to go into any village anywhere and not find a similar example. It is not as if we had not had any warning. We had last year's bitter and painful experience before us, and on the strength of that a large number of people—myself included—were sanguine enough to hope we should not be let in for a repetition of it. We were told there was going to be all manner of arrangements set in hand in good time to prevent a recurrence of that kind of thing.

271
The end of it all was that we had the broadcast of the Minister for Mines the other night. He made out as good a case as he could, but anything more pitiful it is impossible to imagine. It was an apology from the first word to the last, and I say with great respect that it was an apology that ought never to have been called for. We have had twelve months to make some reasonable provision to mitigate the hardships of the people in this respect. Quite frankly, when we get the Minister for Mines asking people to take coal from their own cellars and hand it over to their neighbours, as no doubt a great many are doing out of their own good will because their neighbours are hard up, what a confession of failure and impotence it is, remembering that we have had twelve months more or less in which to set up arrangements whereby those in the trade would be able to supply their customers. We were told that there were going to be large dumps established at various strategic points from which people could be served. Some of us—myself for one—have made inquiries about these dumps. Some of them are empty, some of them have never been more than 25 per cent. filled, and I have not yet been able to hear of one that has ever been filled. It is bad management, that is what it is. Who is responsible I do not know. It is a case, from one end of the year to the other, of the Ministry of Transport tossing the ball back and forward to the Ministry of Mines.
The ordinary man in the street like myself must stand bewildered. The only thing we know is that we can produce any amount of coal. Many miners are unemployed, and a lot of coal is being produced, but people are not getting it. That is the plain English of the situation. It is a most discreditable situation, and I am not disposed to be as polite as my noble friend was. He was far too mild. It is really absurd, in a country where we can produce enormous quantities of coal, that we should have people everywhere scraping about to be able to buy a hundredweight or two. I know the noble Lord (Lord Templemore) will make one of his facile and kindly replies, but he has no responsibility in the matter. If he had, it would be better managed—I give him credit for that—but I cannot imagine its
272
being worse managed. It has not been managed at all. That is what is the matter. The country is entitled to a better service. We are also entitled to know who is responsible for the mess and what is going to be done to clear it up.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY:My Lords, I should like to add a few remarks to what has already been said, not on the subject of coal, but in support of the Motion, particularly in reference to the co-ordination of the means of transport. Three or four years ago I was Chairman of a Commtitee called the Coastal Trade Development Committee, and having had then to go into the matter and having seen how coastal trade was struggling against the roads on the one hand and the railways on the other, and how some of the railways had canals under their control and some not, it made me a convert to the idea that the Government, and the Government only, should be in charge of national transport. The whole of this confusion arises from the number of interests which have a hand in the distribution, and it comes from a failure not to realize that it is no good bringing stuff in heavily protected convoys to this country unless you can carry it away from the ports immediately. The real journey is not from one coast to another; it is from, say, a western port in America to the tables or factories where the goods are wanted. If you get some grit in the machinery, as you do when you have rival interests, someone has to suffer. Coal comes into the picture as one of the materials which have to be carried about the country to where they are to be used. When I was in a position to do so, I tried to point out some of these things. My facilities were not very great. I had a pleasant interview with the Minister of Transport at the time, but that was all that happened. I was very anxious to say what I could in support of this Motion, which I did not know was coming forward, otherwise I might have been better prepared, but I am in support of it, and I shall always vote for it in future.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, it is with certain misgivings that I approach this box to answer the question which my noble friend has put. I am sure nobody could complain of its being put because it is a most important question, affecting as it does the comfort and happiness of

273
many millions of our fellow subjects. I can assure my noble friend that His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of maintaining supplies of coal for every essential purpose. It would not, I am afraid, be to the public interest to discuss this matter in great detail, and I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I appear to skate over some aspects of the matter. I am afraid also that I may incur the displeasure of the noble Lord who leads the Opposition, because if my honourable friend the Minister for Mines is not able to satisfy him with the broadcast which he gave, what can a person like myself do who, as he truly says, has no real responsibility in the matter? However, I will do my best. My noble friend has asked what steps are being taken to improve distribution of coal. Without denying, as indeed I am not able to do, anything that he has brought forward or anything said by my noble friend behind me (Lord Greville), I will endeavour to explain as well as I can what steps are in the mind of the Government to be taken. I hope that my noble friend Lord Greville and my noble and gallant friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Cork and Orrery) will forgive me for not going into the question of the Government direction of transport. It is really a rather large matter and one which I am not prepared to go into now. It is a matter that is worthy of a debate by itself.
The problem of the distribution of coal resolves itself, as previous speakers have said, into the question of transport. We all know that there is plenty of coal in the country—indeed more than enough—and the whole question is how to get it to the persons who want it. The transport services are primarily the railways and coastwise shipping. The noble Earl opposite, Lord Listowel, asked about the use of canals. Well, our canals are being used on an increasing scale for the transport of coal, and so also is road transport, but with road transport you require a great many lorries to take a large quantity of coal. Incidentally, I fully sympathise with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Greville about military lorries going about empty. It is something that I notice on a very considerable scale in the district when; I come from, but that is another matter that might form a subject of debate, and if the noble Lord wishes to put down a question
274
about it I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Croft would be very pleased to say something on the question of the possible use of Army lorries. As to shipping, the difficulties of the coastwise movement of ships, often under the very eyes of the enemy, need no emphasis from me. Nevertheless it is a fact that coal does continue to be so moved, and I dare say my noble friend might be surprised if he knew the vast amount of coal that is moved in that way despite the most determined efforts to prevent it by the enemy, who so far has shown himself quite powerless to stop it. In this connection I should like, and I am sure your Lordships also would like, to pay a tribute to the determined courage of the officers and men of our Mercantile Marine who carry on this traffic, very often in most dangerous and trying conditions. They are worthy of all praise
The chief burden of distributing the coal must, therefore, fall upon the railways, and the principal steps which have been taken are those designed to assist the railways in making the most economical use of their resources for all war purposes, of which the transport of coal is of course only one. Among these points I may mention, firstly, the reduction of long hauls resulting from the progressive concentration of demand so far as practicable on the nearest coalfield; the movement of coal, so far as practicable, in full train loads instead of in odd wagons so as to minimise sorting and shunting at junctions; the temporary curtailment of certain passenger services; the arrangements for the diversion of coal traffic, where necessary, to relieve congestion due to enemy action; and steps to secure the more rapid release of wagons by the consignees. Your Lordships may remember—indeed it has been referred to by my noble friend who leads the Opposition—that the Minister for Mines gave an undertaking last summer to take every possible precaution against a repetition of the state of affairs which obtained last winter, when huge stocks of coal were held up for long periods, causing suffering and discomfort. Accordingly during the summer months when longer hours of daylight facilitated railway working, every possible effort was made to encourage consumers to lay in large stocks of coal and so reduce the tonnage to be moved in the winter. One noble Lord seemed rather to minimise

275
what was done in this respect. I can only say that the policy was so successful that the tonnage put into stock exceeded previous records by some 10,000,000 tons. I am quite aware that consumers were very good in falling in with the Government plans; still I think some credit is due to the much-abused Department of Mines and the Minister for what was done in that way.
The problem of retail distribution has been dealt with by the encouragement given to the house coal distributive trade to set up for itself an organisation for securing co-operative action in the use of man-power, vehicles and depot stocks, to assist in the rapid turn round of wagons, and to the ordering of coal in bulk. These and other measures have been under constant review by an Executive Committee of the Ministers directly responsible for the supply and transport of coal, whose efforts are being co-ordinated on behalf of the War Cabinet by the Lord President of the Council. This Committee meets regularly, and further steps will be taken if necessary to meet the needs of consumers of whatever class they may be. My noble friend Lord Listowel raised the question of a revision of priorities. I can assure him that that matter will be brought to the notice of my honourable friend the Minister. I rather think that it is being considered now by the Committee I have just mentioned, but I can assure my noble friend I will take steps to see that his suggestion is brought to the notice of the persons concerned. He also referred to co-operation by the different parties involved—the consumers, the merchants, the coal-owners and the railways. I can assure him that every step is being taken to bring about that co-operation. I do
276
not think I can usefully say any more. As I have said, it would be of no use to deny any of the charges of shortcomings that have been made. People know that they are there, and I can only assure my noble friend that the Ministers concerned are fully aware of the importance of this question, which I shall see is brought to their notice.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it was extremely gratifying to find that this Motion secured support from all quarters of the House. I think that is the clearest indication one could have that the problem of coal distribution is one that is arousing widespread anxiety in all parts of the country. I am grateful to the noble Lord who replied for his assurances, and I am well aware that the Government are considering the problem. I am only anxious that they should take effective action as soon as possible. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD. SNELL: My Lords, I am unable to make any immediate statement as to future business, but your Lordships will receive the usual postal notice in due course.
LORD. ADDISON: My Lords, I was hoping that we should have a meeting for the purpose of discussing a question which I believe my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is raising. I hope also that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the question of the calling up of men for the Army from agriculture—an essential industry.
House adjourned.