§
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, to provide for the purchase and importation of Coal in connection with the Stoppage in the Coal Industry.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)This is an Estimate for purchases of coal from time to time which it has been or may be necessary for the Government to make to preserve essential services. By common consent it has been regarded as obviously undesirable to state the methods by which, and the places in which, and the times when coal is being purchased on behalf of the Government. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that that is a necessary precaution to take. If a Government engage in a commercial transaction in buying, if they are to buy in the best interests of the taxpayer, they must not only have the same facilities for purchasing as are enjoyed by those who engage in the ordinary commercial way in buying coal but, obviously, they must not disclose the source of the purchase or the time when they are going to buy or the manner in which they are going to buy. I am sure the Committee will agree that it would be eminently undesirable that I should be asked as to when and how and where any purchases of coal are to be made.
Of course, there will be the fullest investigation in regard to this matter, as there is in connection with every trading transaction in which the Government engage on a trading account. These trading accounts are submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and he 2088 passes them under review and makes his Report to the House of Commons on them. The accounts are also subject to the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee. If there are any criticisms to be made regarding the method in which the transaction has been conducted, that can be dealt with at the proper time when full information is placed before the House.
The only thing which it is necessary or right that I should say in presenting this Estimate to the Committee is that, without considering any question of the merits or demerits of this unfortunate controversy—it would be out of place, and I think out of order, to do so—it is plainly the duty of whatever Government may be in office for the time being, to ensure the carrying on during the time of crisis of the essential services of the country. For that reason, at this time, as in the case of the previous coal stoppages, it is necessary that the Government should have the power to make whatever purchases are necessary for that purpose. For that purpose we are proposing a Vote of £3,000,000. The purchases will be made exactly as they were on the previous occasion. The £3,000,000, or such amount of it as it is necessary to use, will be used as a working credit for the purchase of coal, the coal being sold to consumers and the purchase price of such coal passing back into the account.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYCan the right hon. (Gentleman give the date of the previous occasion?
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIt was in 1921. The hon. and gallant Member may remember that while other matters were discussed very fully in the House, by common consent it was considered desirable that details of the purchases should not be discussed at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have looked up the Debate, and I find that there was no discussion upon the details.
§ Mr. BARKERWhy have this Debate if you are going to give no information? You are doing it in the dark.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI do not think we need make this a matter for controversy. There are plenty of other things which are controversial.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERLet me answer the hon. Member in this way. If he found himself in the place of the Government to-day, he would find himself charged with the duty of ensuring that essential services were carried on. He would find that in order to carry on those essential services, where it was necessary to supplement private purchases of coal, the Government must be in a position to take action. In accordance with the regular Parliamentary procedure of the House, if the Government are to engage in a transaction of that kind it is the duty of the Government to come to the House and present an Estimate to cover the transaction.
§ Mr. BARKERAnd give no information?
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have already explained to the hon. Member. If the Government are charged with the duty of buying when necessary, it is plainly—
§ Mr. KIRKWOODDo you buy it from Russia?
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIt is the duty of the Government, in the interests of the taxpayer, to buy where and when they can buy to the best advantage.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODDo you buy it from Russia?
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI do not propose to tell the hon. Member where I shall buy.
§ Mr. BARKERYou want £3,000,000, and you will not tell us anything.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI will tell the hon. Member why. I have already told him. [Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask hon. Members to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed, without these repeated interruptions.
§ Mr. BARKERIs it in Order for the Minister to ask for £3,000,000, and tell the Committee at the beginning of his speech that he will give the Committee no information? It is a monstrous thing.
§ The CHAIRMANI did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that. Had he said it, it would not be out of Order.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODrose—
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe hon. Member will have the right to criticise anything which I say in due course. I want to put the matter to the Committee. All that I am taking responsibility for to-day is to engage in a commercial transaction for the buying of coal.
§ Mr. WALLHEADYou have no need to do it.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI think everybody will realise in every quarter of the House, whatever their views may be about the present dispute, that if coal is to be bought, it ought to be bought at the least possible cost to the taxpayer.
§ Mr. J. JONESGerman coal. 1914, fought the Germans; 1926, buy out the Germans.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERAnyone who has hail to buy anything will know that if you have to engage in a transaction of this kind, there is no better way of putting up the price against you than to say exactly how and where and through what channels you are going to buy. My duty is to see that such coal is bought at the cheapest possible price, and if I disclosed in what manner and in what markets coal was going to be bought, I should make that impossible. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. MACLEANOn a point of Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee—
HON. MEMBERSOrder, order!
§ Mr. J. JONESThere will be no Order for this. It is the biggest outrage.
HON. MEMBERSOrder, order!
§ The CHAIRMANNo point of Order can arise on this.
§ Mr. MACLEANYou did not allow me to finish my sentence. What I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman through you—[HON. MEMBERS "That is not a point of Order!"]—is this: Will he at a later stage, submit to this Committee a statement as to the places and firms from which he is purchasing coal?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not a point of Order.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have already told the Committee that that can be done in the regular and appointed 2091 way. The whole of the trading accounts in connection with the purchases of coal will be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General—
§ Mr. J. JONESWho is he?
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERHe is an official of the House appointed for the purpose?
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERFor the purpose of examining these accounts, and reporting to the House.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODYou are buying from Russia and Germany in order to beat British miners.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTERThe House of Commons.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERHe was appointed by this House, for the express purpose of investigating and reporting to the House upon any such trading transaction. When they are completed, they will be submitted to this officer of the House, who will report to the House upon them—[Interruption]—and any criticism which it is desired to make upon the transactions can be made then. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. J. JONESYou are buying German coal—
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIt is not the case that I have ever been unwilling to give information to the House of Commons. I am afraid I have often bored the Committee with a great deal of information, and at Question time, as also in debate, I have never been slow in supplying information asked for by hon. Members. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. MARDY JONESOn a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to be buying coal for the purposes of the nation, when members of his family are heavy shareholders in coal mines? [Interruption.]
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIn view of that rather unusual interruption, I should desire to make a short statement. It is within the knowledge of every 2092 member of this Committee that, long before the first dispute in the mining industry arose, I not only disclosed to the Prime Minister and my colleagues, but to everybody else the indirect interest I had in coal mining. I tendered my resignation. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. LANSBURYYou ought to sit down.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI tendered my resignation, and it was only upon pressure, not only by the Prime Minister, but by other people in all quarters, that I consented to carry on in my present office. It is within the recollection of hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench that desired the Prime Minister to intimate to the Leaders of other political parties in this House what my indirect interest in this matter was, and what action I proposed to take.
§ Mr. J. JONESListen to the pecksniffs.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI did not think I should be called upon for an explanation of that kind in reply to any criticism of any Member on any side of House. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. MARDY JONESOn a point of Order.
§ The CHAIRMANNo point of Order can arise. This may be a matter for public criticism. The right hon. Gentleman has made his statement, but no point of Order can arise in connection with the matter.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESIn view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been permitted to make a personal explanation, shall I be permitted to say why I raised the question?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member will have an opportunity later in the Debate.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe essential services of the country must be carried on, and the Government are responsible for seeing that those services are carried on. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. KIRKWOODBuying German coal, in order to beat their own folk.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIt is the admitted duty of this Government, and it was recognised by our predecessors in 2093 office, that, in a period of national emergency, it must make certain that the essential services are maintained. If it is the duty of the Government to ensure that these essential services are maintained, it is plainly the duty of the Government to supplement private enterprise where necessary. In order to do that, the Government desires to have this Vote, and I say plainly that just as it is the duty of the Government to discharge that function it is equally their duty to do it in the most economical way. It would be absolutely impossible to do that if we disclosed the time and manner and means of our purchases. We should be squandering money. I only add this, that in the purchase of coal the Government has no desire whatever to interfere with the independent purchases of coal which are being made at the present time. It is the plain duty of every essential service and private industry that can carry on to place their own orders, and no sort of obstacle will be placed in their way by the Government.
Coal bought in this way will not be requisitioned. That, I think, is understood, and purchases have been made and are being made in the usual way by many companies and undertakings. This Vote is only required to supplement, not to supplant, the purchases made by individual undertakings and firms. The Government have no desire to supplant them in any way. On the contrary, we wish to encourage them to make their own purchases, and we have no desire or intention of relieving them of their duty. But it is necessary that we should be in a position to supplement the independent purchases where shortages would otherwise occur in public services or essential trades, such as food production. It is for that purpose that I ask the Committee to give the Government the means of carrying out what at this time, whatever may be our view as to the merits of the controversy, is their plain and obvious duty.
§ Mr. G. HALLI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
4.0 P.M.
I rather welcome the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman in Debates dealing with the coal industry, and especially in connection with a Vote of this kind, seeing that it was only a very short time ago that he himself took the initia- 2094 tive in a campaign for the purpose of getting British people to buy British goods. It is not now so much a question of the purchase of British goods as it is a question of buying foreign goods for the purpose of prolonging the stoppage, knowing that it is only as a result of the prolongation of the stoppage that the Government's policy of an extension of hours in the mines can succeed. There is no need for this Vote. The Government have power under the Emergency Regulations to have the coal required in this country produced in this country, and, if they put into operation that part of the Emergency Powers Act, then the necessary coal can be provided in this country instead of going to Germany for it.
I can quite understand the reluctance with which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to explain this Vote. I expected to have some information with regard to the stocks of coal available in the country at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, it would be very interesting, and I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee, who always pride themselves on being the business men in the House, when asked to support a Vote for the spending of £3,000,000 in the purchase of coal, would have wanted to know whether it is really required. Still, I quite understand even their reluctance to know the facts in connection with this matter, seeing that this money is to be used for a purpose which they desire, namely, prolonging the stoppage and thus forcing the miners to have a longer working day than any miners in Europe. Let us see for what this money is to be used. The right hon. Gentleman said it was to he used solely for essential services. We find from the Vote itself that it is to be used for the purpose of the maintenance of supplies to public utility, food-producing, and other essential undertakings, and to domestic consumers. I would like in know whether they have any idea how much coal this £3,000,000 will purchase. I asked the Secretary for Mines to-day whether he could give us the amount of coal imported into this country since the 1st May, from what countries it came, and the cost of the coal. The Secretary for Mines could not give me that information. He did give me the figures so far as the amount of 2095 coal that was imported is concerned, but he could not give me the actual cost, and there is a very good reason why. Coal cannot be imported into this country at anything like the price that it can be produced in this country.
First of all, it was a question of the suspension of the Seven Hours Act. The Government know now that since the introduction of the Bill to suspend that Act the miners have been more determined than ever to continue the stoppage, and, knowing this and that time is the only thing that is going to defeat the miners, they come forward with a proposal to spend £3,000,000 for the purpose of prolonging the stoppage so as to force the miners to accept an eight-hours day. Look at the notices posted at every pithead. Of course, the only exception that the Government have taken to those proposals is that Yorkshire will not carry out the 1924 agreement with regard to the distribution of the surplus. There is no exception taken to the reduction of wages throughout the country, no exception taken to the reduction of 10 per cent. in Durham and Northumberland, and no exception taken to the temporary proposals in regard to wages based upon the 1994 Agreement, but simply, in order to have a little bit of Press notoriety, the other place have held up the Eight Hours Bill for 24 hours to try to bluff the miners that the Government are not as bad as they have been painted.
It would be very interesting to see the importance that is given to this question of coal. The only interest that some people take in the question of the coal supplies of this country, other than at a time of stoppage, is to take what they can out of the industry. Coal is the very foundation of the industrial life of this country. Apart from the exportation of coal—and our exports amount only to one-fifth of the coal produced in this country—it is necessary for industry and for domestic purposes to have a supply of something like 180,000,000 tons a year, and here are the Government coming forward hoping that they will be able to continue industry by spending, in the first instance, £3,000,000, and then using the proceeds of the sale of coal for the purpose of other supplies during the continuation of the stoppage. Let us see how far these supplies are going to assist industry. The Secretary for Mines told 2096 us that during the last nine weeks, 1,000,000 tons of coal have been imported into this country. Here we have the spectacle of a country that never has any need to import coal, except during a stoppage, prepared, for the purpose of defeating the miners, to spend this money on the importation of coal. Hon. Members opposite should know that the economic, industrial and financial structure of this country depends upon our coal supplies, and they cannot look with easy concern on this country now turning from a country exporting coal to a country importing coal.
I have some figures that the Secretary for Mines gave my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), and they are very illuminating. France, who in 1925 took 10,250,000 tons of coal from us, exported to this country in the first eight weeks of the stoppage 43,000 tons of coal. Germany, to whom in 1925 we exported 4,000,000 tons, have now changed from a country receiving coal from us to a country exporting coal to this country. Hundreds of thousands of miners were called to the colours between 1914 and 1918—to prevent the Germans coming over to this country to exploit the miners, and now the German miners are being used by the Government for the purpose of defeating the miners of this country and compelling them to work an eight-hour day. The Government are now prepared to purchase coal produced under conditions which will be very much better than the conditions under which coal will be produced in this country if the Eight Hours Bill is put into operation, and they are prepared to do that for the purpose of defeating the miners. The standard of life of the miners of this country will be depressed, and, as a result, the standard of life of the miners on the Continent, in turn, will suffer a similar depression. I would commend that to hon. Members opposite.
Let us deal with the question of prices. The President of the Board of Trade was not in a position to tell us where this coal is to be purchased, how it is to be purchased, and what price is to be paid for it. He and the members of the Government can depend upon it that the coal imported into this country will cost them nearly 100 per cent. more than coal can be produced in this country. Take the figures for March. We exported 4,500,000 tons of coal at a cost f.o.b. of 2097 17s. 10d. a ton. If you take the evidence given by Sir William Larke, on behalf of the National Federation of iron and Steel Manufacturers, at the Coal Commission, you will find that he said the iron and steel manufacturers in this country in September of last year were able to purchase coal at a cost of from 11s. 11d. to 13s. 6d. per ton, or slightly in excess of what had to be paid for coal in 1913.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need that there was to introduce a similar Vote in 1921. Let us take the experience of 1921 with regard to the purchase and the price of coal then. According to the evidence given by Dr. Charles Carpenter, on behalf of the Gas Companies' Protection Association, at the Royal Commission, during the 1912 stoppage, the South Metropolitan Gas Company had to pay an additional sum of £89,000 for the purchase of imported coal, and in 1921 they had to pay £350,000 additional for the purchase of coal. We have these illuminating figures that in 1921, when coal was at its highest price, the best Durham gas coal was purchased by this company at 30s. per ton. During the 13 weeks of the stoppage of 1921 the company imported or purchased 109,000 tons of coal. They could get Durham coal for 30s. a ton. By the time the coal that was imported was brought to their works it cost them 69s. 10d. a ton. The position is very similar during this year. Manufacturers, who are represented by hon. Members opposite, should be very concerned about it.
Take the position as far as it is explained in the "Iron and Coal Trades Review" for last week. That journal states that the imports into all the Humber ports, including Hull, to the middle of last week—that was 1st July —were about 90,000 tons. In large proportion it is German coal, but some is Belgian and some French. The prices vary. Silesian coal, free on rail at Hull, unscreened steam, is 47s. a ton, unwashed 46s. a ton, unscreened gas coal 48s.; Belgian washed nuts 47s. a ton, and slack, which is almost given away in this country and was given away before the stoppage, 38s. to 42s. a ton. The demand from the inland centres is not large, as delivered prices 2098 at works are considered rather high and beyond the capacity of any but the most favoured trades to pay.
That is the position as far as the North country is concerned. It is interesting to see what the position is in some of our large industrial centres. I am quoting again from the "Iron and Coal Trades Review."
In Cardiff more cargoes of foreign coal have arrived for local industries, and further supplies have been arranged for, but most of the iron and steel, tinplate, galvanised sheets, and other works have been obliged to stop entirely or reduce their operations to limited proportions, although in a few cases work is being carried on with foreign coal. The fact that the cost of imported coal is practically double that of the usual home supplies precludes its general use.The same thing can be said of Birmingham and of Stoke. I have here a quotation relating to Stoke:Practically all the large factories are now closed down on account of the lack of suitable fuel for pottery furnaces. Supplies of Continental fuels continue to come into the district. In many cases it would appear that the foreign qualities have proved to be of very low grade, although the prices are approximately two and a-half the normal price of local qualities.The same thing can be said of Manchester. I was interested in the statement made by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) during the Debate on Thursday last. He then said:We traders to-day have contracts for coal for the rest of 1926 in convention with seven different places of which I have intimate knowledge, at an average price of between 19s. 6d. and 22s. 6d. per ton. delivered. Last week we bought at 67s. a ton certain stuff which was dumped on us, and it was poor coal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1926; col. 1445, Vol. 197.]That is the position throughout the country. Hon. Members think that the Government speculation of £3,000,000 is going to be a very satisfactory one, but, as in 1921, they will find that they have very large stocks of this unwanted coal on their hands, and the £3,000,000 that we are asked to vote to-day will be very largely lost. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose experience in 1921 was such that he has prevailed upon the Government on more than one occasion to do everything they can to prevent a continuation of this stoppage, has told us on many occasions that the stoppage of 1921 cost the country £350,000,000. Now we see that the 2099 Government, some of the Members of which were responsible for the position in 1921, have not in any way benefited by that experience. In their desire to lengthen the hours of the men employed in the mining industry they are prepared, not only to put the Eight Hours Bill on the Statute Book, but to spend a considerable amount of public money for the purpose of again defeating the miners. Of course, their consciences will not allow them to subsidise the mining industry, but they are prepared to subsidise anything or everything for the purpose of defeating the miners.The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon), in a speech delivered a short time ago, estimated the cost of the stoppage, or of the loss of trade to this country as a result of the stoppage, at £8,000,000 a day. He said that if the stoppage continued for another fortnight it was going to cost the country no less than £10,000,000 a day. That is £48,000,000 a week. In the nine weeks of the stoppage this country has lost, as a result of the action of the Government, more money than would have been required to pay all the miners all the wages that they would have got for three years. There is no need to wonder that in this country at the present time there are 4,000,000 men, women and children, directly dependent upon the mining industry, who are in a position of privation and destitution, and in some instances of starvation. Industries are gradually being paralysed; hundreds of thousands of men are unemployed, many of them not directly connected with the mining industry. Our Poor Law institutions are almost breaking down. All of this trouble has been caused by the lack of vision, the bankruptcy in ideas, and the total incapacity of the Government.
§ Mr. DIXEYI realise that this is a very important Debate, and my only excuse for intervening for a few moments is the fact that so many extraordinary statements have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that I think it is high time some Members on this side of the House put their own private point of view. I am as much interested in the miner, his wife and his family, as are many hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite, 2100 and, so far as knowledge of actual work is concerned, I have experienced in my own short life possibly quite as much actual work as some hon. Members opposite. [Laughter.] It is quite easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh when anyone on these Benches talks about work, but my experience of a lot of Socialists is that they talk far more about work for other people and do less than other people, and, so far as actual money and profit are concerned, I have yet to find a Socialist who, when it comes to himself, either despises profits or neglects to take them. With regard to the subject of this Debate, it has amused me to hear so many hon. Gentlemen opposite adopting the patriotic standpoint in favour of buying British goods and expressing a dislike of any contact with foreign products. Often enough Members on this side who hold Protectionist views have pleaded with hon. Gentlemen opposite to give some support to Imperial Preference and the Protection of home industries, but the invariable reply has been, "We do not care where we buy as long as we buy the cheapest goods." It is invidious and absolutely futile for hon. Members opposite, with one or two honourable exceptions, to come into this House and talk about their love of buying British goods, seeing that on every platform in the country they show their preference for foreign products every time.
I strongly support the Vote. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know quite well—they are not allowed to express themselves freely—that the present situation has arisen entirely through the stupidity and the obstinacy of the miners' leaders. [Interruption.] I am not now quoting from a Conservative journal. I do not want to give offence to anyone. I know that hon. Members opposite believe in people expressing their opinions freely. I am pointing out that this obstinacy of Mr. Cook and Mr. Herbert Smith is not a matter merely of Conservative opinion, but is admitted by the Trades Union Council. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If hon. Members opposite take up the position that the general strike was quite right and that the miners always acted properly, all I can say is that it is an extremely funny position now to have the officials of the Trades Union Council addressing meetings and conferences, at 2101 every one of which they say that the miners' leaders made a great mistake. We have been told that the miners' leaders were out of town at the critical moment, and there was great difficulty in finding where they were. It is idiotic. There appeared in an illustrious journal, with which the name of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) is connected, an article by a gentleman—I assume it was not written by a Conservative—which says definitely that it is no good the miners' leaders talking about starvation wages; and he puts some of the wages in the mining areas at between £7 and £12 a week.
§ Mr. DIXEYI want my hon. Friends opposite to be perfectly clear about what I am saying. I understand that the figure given on the authority I have just quoted was actually from£to £13, and I know the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness will not think that I want to mislead the Committee in this matter. I do not allege that these are correct figures. That was alleged in a responsible journal, by a responsible individual, because we may take it that the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness would allow nobody but a responsible man to write for his paper. Those figures were laid down quite clearly, and I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they cannot come into this Committee and say that hon. Members on this side are callous, that we do not believe in what we say, and that we are out to starve the miners and cut down their standard of life, while at the same time, they go out into the open and, in excuse for their own conduct, make statements such as that which I have just quoted. What are the facts? [Interruption.] Mere abuse is not argument, and it is time that a number of hon. Gentlemen on the other side learned the facts. The facts are that some hon. Members opposite want to go out to the working man and make it appear that they stand up for him, while, at the same time, they know that the people principally responsible for the present situation and for this Vote are the leaders of the Miners' Federation. They cannot get away from that responsibility. I wish to be perfectly definite, and I say that if 2102 responsible mine agents in the country and the real hard workers were asked to-morrow, "Will you get rid of Mr. Cook or Mr. Smith?"—[Interruption.] I do not say that they should get rid of Mr. Cook altogether; he is too valuable. If hon. Members opposite will allow me to complete my sentence, I was about to say that if responsible mine agents in this country were asked tomorrow, "Do you think, if you changed your negotiators and had some gentlemen other than Mr. Cook and Mr. Smith to represent you, that you might then arrive at some settlement with the mine-owners?" I believe they would all answer in the affirmative.
§ Mr. J. JONESIn the infirmary!
§ Mr. DIXEYIt is very unfair of hon. Members opposite to allege that we stand up for the coalowners. [HON. MEMBERS: "So you do!"] We do no such thing! [Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote did not make what was exactly a conciliatory speech, but he was heard without interruption, and I hope the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) will receive the same attention.
§ Mr. TAYLORIs it not the fact that the hon. Member who moved the reduction, addressed his remarks to the Chair and not to the Members on the other side of the Committee?
§ The CHAIRMANI hope all hon. Members on both sides will address their remarks to me.
§ Mr. DIXEYI apologise, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not think for one moment that I want to be offensive. I merely wish to emphasise my own point of view and the point of view of certain of my hon. Friends on this side, that we consider the responsibility in this matter to be with the officials of the Miners' Federation, and that is our excuse for doing something which we do not like to do. I am opposed to buying anything German or anything Russian, and I do not like to receive money either from Germany or from Russia. Some of my hon. Friends opposite are not so particular about that. I am not afraid of facing any audience in any constituency on this point. I support this Vote 2103 because I think it necessary, and because I am strongly of opinion that all sane people in this country have begun to realise that we are not to be controlled by the officials of the Miners' Federation or any such body.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe discussion this afternoon seems likely to take us into the heart of the mining dispute, and I have no doubt the Committee welcome every opportunity of having further light thrown upon what has now become an intensely difficult and painful situation. But the Vote, before us is not going to decide the dispute or any element in it. It is not likely either to postpone or to hasten a settlement It is, indeed, simply a Vote brought down here by the President of the Board of Trade for an experiment in State trading. In this atmosphere of paradox, we have the remarkable fact that the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat was making an impassioned speech in favour of State trading—in favour of Socialism on a huge scale—to deal with what I think is a unique situation, while, on the other hand, my hon. Friends above the Gangway, who in normal times would welcome State trading and would be very glad to see an extension of the municipal sale of coal, for instance, as one means of getting over the troubles of the coal industry, are opposed to a Socialistic proposal this afternoon. It really shows how confused we become when we take what is really a departmental transaction and try to translate it into a means of solving or exacerbating what is one of the most awfully tangled problems ever faced either by leaders of Labour or by employers or by Governments.
The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Vote disclaimed having any personal interest in it. I, for one, absolutely accept, as I always have accepted, his assurance in that respect. He was perfectly candid and frank when this dispute first arose as to what his interests were. None of us can free ourselves entirely from personal interests in any of these matters. In every part of the Committee we are all interested, directly or indirectly, and it would be a very sorry thing if this Chamber were composed of men who were not in touch with the actual problems of life. What is necessary in the House of Commons is that there 2104 should be a full disclosure of interests, and that those who have direct personal interests should not use their public position, whether as Ministers or Members, for their private aims. I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman has been punctilious in this matter. From such information as I have been able to obtain, he has taken no part whatever in the negotiations between the Government and the mine-owners or between the Government and the miners.
This personal question, however, has nothing whatever to do with this Vote. It is quite clear that this Vote can have no influence whatever on a settlement of the dispute. To-day, in this country, we consume about £180,000,000 worth of coal in a year for various utility, manufacturing and domestic purposes. A mere importation of £3,000,000 worth from abroad is but a fraction—a speck of dust —in the total amount necessary for the carrying on of this country. The pressure on all industries now has become most acute. There is not a single big industry which is not either closed down or is in process of closing down. Blast furnaces are cold; railway services are restricted; factories and works are being closed one by one; shipyards are idle, and the extent of unemployment at the end of July, or at the end of August if the dispute should be so far prolonged, is far beyond the imagination of even the most lurid mind. We really cannot tell where we are drifting to in the next few months, if this is not brought to an end. Therefore everybody ought to do his best to put his wisdom and his good temper into the common stock to meet our national necessity. I trust that nothing which is said on this Vote will be likely to make the problem more difficult. What has happened during the last few weeks may be regrettable, or we may have made some advance towards a settlement. For my part, I do not see that we are much nearer a settlement but, at all events, it is in the interests of everyone that this dispute should be brought to an end.
While discussions are going on and negotiations are proceeding, we run the danger, not only of our manufacturing industries being stopped but of a great many of our public utility concerns, on which the life of the community depends, being short of fuel. Our waterworks in 2105 many districts will be so short of coal, unless some supplies are obtained from abroad, that we shall have to ration water next month. Gas companies, electric light and power companies must be kept going if the community is to survive. The railways themselves must, somehow or other, be able to provide for their traffic. Up to the present, I gather that most of the coal which has come from abroad has come by private importation—by that private enterprise which the right hon. Gentleman must admire and to which I am very partial myself. Private enterprise, up to the present, has relieved seine of the prime necessities of the situation. If I may say so, where I blamed the right hon. Gentleman in connection with his statement was that he did not tell us what were the public utility concerns which he had in mind in bringing in this Vote. Surely the large gas companies and electric power companies are capable of taking care of themselves.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI spoke when the Committee was not very quiet, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me, but I said that this Vote was intended to supplement and not in any way to supplant. The big companies, I pointed out, were bringing in their own stocks, and I look to them to go on bringing in those stocks. It is only where undertakings which are essential have not supplies that the Government will come in to assist, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the point that all big companies and undertakings who can meet their own requirements through the ordinary channels of purchase should do so.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIt is necessary that it should be known by the municipal authorities as well as by those who control the great utility supplies, that they must depend primarily upon their own enterprise. They must not come like paupers to the Government asking for assistance. They are quite capable of managing their own affairs. The risk I see in the Vote which we are now invited to adopt, is that it may give some excuse to some authorities, some companies or some concerns to depend on what the Government will do for them rather than look after their affairs themselves. That may even apply to a good many municipal authorities. A great many of them are 2106 large consumers of coal. They are very proud of their autonomy. Do not let them get away with the impression that the Government are going to do their work for them. That is exactly the risk which is run by coming to the House of Commons and asking for a Vote of this kind without making a very clear statement as to how far it will go and how far it will not go. As for breaking the strike, it is perfectly ridiculous to think that £3,000,000 worth of coal would have the least effect one way or the other. The only thing it can do is to keep some of the public utility concerns going, and save some of our municipal and social life from destruction.
One point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. I am not at all sure, and I am not persuaded up to the present—I have heard nothing yet that will convince me—that this is the right way of dealing with the problem. I believe the best thing to do is to say to the public utility concerns, which are not looking after their affairs, that if they fail in the functions placed upon them by Parliament, they will sacrifice their statutory powers. It is much better to tell them that if they cannot do their work then their work must be brought to an end. It is much better that they should understand that the State cannot come to their assistance; that all it can do is to keep our ports open and to see there is free handling of this fuel for the necessities of life, and when that is done, I feel sure there is quite enough independent spirit and ingenuity and enterprise among these bodies to carry on without Government assistance.
§ Mr. WALLHEADI support the reduction of this Vote, and I agree with some of the words that have fallen from the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) in pointing out that there are deplorable conditions arising from the continuance of the coal dispute. It seems a cruel thing to say, but a stoppage of the supplies of coal is the one weapon possessed by one side to this dispute. It is the only weapon they have. The question in dispute between the two sides is whether there are profits in the industry sufficient to pay a living wage to the men who do the work. An hon. Member shakes his head, but there are plenty of unbiassed observers in this country who will say that there are 2107 profits in the industry if it is properly conducted. That is the miners' case. Their side of the case is that a reasonable wage can be paid if you, on the other side, will conduct your industry along common-sense, reasonable and business-like lines. When a dispute takes place, the weapon with which the owners fight is the weapon of hunger and want, compelling the miners to accept their terms, and the weapon of the miners is refusing to supply a commodity which cannot be supplied without their labour. The Government come in, and take sides very definitely against the men and on behalf of the owners. I think there can be no question about that. The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) raised the question of the wages that are paid to the miners, and said the whole trouble rested on the stupidity of the President and Secretary of the Miners' Federation. I do not know whether or not the figures he quoted are justified, but I should say that the number of men, if there be any, who receive as much as £13 per week is so extremely limited as to render the statement itself ridiculous and foolish in the extreme.
The right hon. Member for West Swansea referred to the question of interests. I have heard friends of my own, on this side, refer to the President of the Board of Trade in connection with this dispute as playing the game up to the present. It was known that he had interests here, but it has been said on this side, among my own friends, in conversation, that at any rate he has refrained from taking a definite part in this matter. I am bound to say that it would have been better if he had refrained from moving this Vote, for it does not matter how we look at this question; this is an attempt to break the miners. The Government have tried all sorts of tricks. They have practically the whole of the Press against the men. There are tremendous forces brought against the men, and there is no doubt that the Government are using their influence for the purpose of attempting to keep them in the state in which they are, and to break their resistance to what I call these contemptible proposals of the owners; by every means in their power. It is a very bad business, I consider, because it is 2108 a fact, and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted it, that interests of his own will be served if these men are beaten, and he has taken action that helps to bring about that result.
I hold that there is no need whatever for the Government to go in for buying coal at all. If they had exercised the powers they possess, they could have settled this strike long ago. It all comes back to the question of the policy that has been pursued. The Government's policy, we maintain, has been a bad policy, a policy that has backed the owners as against the men, and that is why we oppose this Vote. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite take the view they do with regard to the measures proposed. I remember the time when patriotic ladies, dressed in colourful costumes, members and dames of the Primrose League or the Empire Union or something of that sort, sat at street corners stopping passers-by and attempting to get them to sign petitions or make statements or affirmations to the effect that never again, so help them God, would they buy a pennyworth of anything from Germany. That was a thing we saw done for months and years during the War, chiefly by persons connected with the Conservative party, who are now actively engaged in purchasing coal from Germany for the purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) pointed out, of breaking the resistance of the miners whom they wanted in their service to fight those very Germans a few years ago. It is an illustration of the complete hollowness of what is called the patriotic motive during war, and it is further illustration of the fact that when it comes to a question of the interests of groups of powerful individuals, there is nothing in the world that can stop them from having their own way.
Many of the hon. Members opposite belong to an Order which takes for its motto, noblesse oblige. It is the universal motto of the aristocratic order, but whatever it may do inside the Order, it does not run outside, for nobless oblige does not extend over the social frontier of the Order that takes this motto unto itself. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), I believe, asked a question here some time ago as to why the general strike' had been brought about and why the men were on 2109 strike. He should know, at any rate, that the men who came out on strike to help these miners did a finer thing than the Government are doing now. They backed up the motto that other gentlemen have discarded, and they said it was to their honour to do so, and it is to their honour that they were prepared to sacrifice their all in order to assist the men who are now fighting so bitterly in this struggle in the coal industry. It is to their eternal honour, and I should have thought that hon. Members opposite who pride themselves on esprit de corps, instead of doing all whey could to foster treachery and blacklegism among the workers, would have honoured the men who stood firm to their own class in such a struggle.
That is what we intend to do. We shall fight the Government upon every possible occasion, so far as this dispute is concerned. We shall fight them as long as we can to-day, and they will not get their money if we can possibly help it. Their industries shall languish, and they ought to languish. The pressure of the want of coal is the one thing that the men must rely upon if they are to win in this fight. Let the pressure be put on the owners to come to terms with their men to give them decent treatment. The bona fides of the owners in this matter can be tested already by what took place yesterday in the House of Lords. Remember what is taking place in Yorkshire—
§ The CHAIRMANIt is not in order to refer to Debates in another place, and we cannot deal with pending legislation on this Vote.
§ Mr. WALLHEADIt is not a question of pending legislation.
§ Mr. TINKEROn a point of Order. In the Debate in the House of Lords yesterday, Lord Daryngton made reference to the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), and mentioned the House of Commons. If the members of the other place can do that, I claim that Members here ought to have the same right.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is not for me to criticise the Lord Chancellor for not calling a Noble Lord to order, but it is a very old Rule in this House that 2110 reference cannot be made to Debates or statements in another place with a view to answering them.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn a point of Order. Is it not a fact that there are no rules of order in the other place?
§ The CHAIRMANI am not acquainted, nor is it my duty to become acquainted, with the rules in another place.
§ Mr. J. JONESThey live in Do-as-you-like Land.
§ Mr. WALLHEADI was conscious that I had infringed a little the Rules of this House. I was saying that it was almost impossible to accept the bona fides of the owners. It would appear that already arrangements have been come to as between the Government and the owners, with regard to the wages that might be paid under legislation which the Government have already passed in this House, namely, the Eight Hours Bill, and even before the seal has been set, even before His Majesty's Assent has been given, the owners are beginning to infringe the agreement which they have made. Talk about gentlemen's agreements! They cannot be kept even between the gentlemen who make them themselves, and so far as asking the miners to accept the bond of persons of this description is concerned, I say it is asking more than you have a right to ask under the circumstances. I hold that if the Government had exercised a reasonable policy, they might have settled this matter without having to come to this House and ask for this Vote for the purpose of purchasing coal. I sincerely hope the Vote will not be passed, but I know that it will be carried by the well-trained battalions behind the Government, representing, as they do, the sinister interests that permeate our industry, representing finance, representing bodies and individuals who hate men to assert their independence and who hate the resistance of the working classes, individuals who really believe in the Conservative idea of a kind of divine dispensation under which you get the establishment of a slave State with the aristocracy in complete control. If only they can do something, such as using the powers of this House, 2111 backed up by finance and economic power, to drive these men to a condition of servitude, I am convinced that they will be very glad to do it.
All that I can say is that the day will come when the role will be reversed. All that I can say is that the time will come when the powers of this House will be used definitely for the purpose of asserting the right of the working classes, the real people who count in the country, the people at the bottom of things, to a decent livelihood for the labours that they perform and the services that they render. At the present time the forms of this House are being used for the purpose of driving a million men back to poverty and economic servitude. It is a disgrace to our common humanity, a disgrace to our social order, and a reflection upon what you represent, the powers that have controlled you, the powers that control finance, wonderful powers, marvellous powers, such powers that you cannot guarantee to the men whose labour is essential to you a decent livelihood for the service that they render. In order to prevent them having that, you use these powers and forms to buy coal from anybody, friend or enemy, black or white. For the purpose of driving your own people into subjection, you give away hundreds of millions to the men whom you called your enemies and whom you called your allies a short time ago, but for your own people you have only the sword of starvation, the blight of penury in the home. I say that your civilisation is a damnable one, that allows you to use the powers you do for the purpose for which you are now using them.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. RADFORDI did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but there are certain points which have arisen in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) to which I feel there should be a reply. The right hon. Member for West Swansea rather questioned the wisdom of the Government intervening in the purchase of coal, as it might, possibly, undermine the independence of, and the action which should be taken by, those essential under 2112 takings, which he understands, I think, could furnish their own fuel. I think there is something to be said in favour of the Government buying, because it can make bigger contracts, spread over a period, possibly, of a few weeks, which is conducive to cheap buying, and, after all, it can get its money back from those undertakings. Then, it was said that £3,000,000 would not go very far in the purchase of coal. I take it that this amount having been purchased and sold, and the Government recouping themselves by its sale, that £3,000,000 may be turned over again and again, as often as is required. We all hope the end will not be long, but if the strike be protracted, that will, obviously, enable fresh supplies to be purchased without coming to the House again.
I gather from the hon. Member for Aberdare that he accuses the Government of being responsible for the coal stoppage, and of having taken the side of the coal-owners. I want to repudiate that in the most emphatic manner, and I will not content myself with repudiating it, but will go a little further, if the hon. Member will allow me. The Miners' Federation, in their demand that there should not be a penny off the pay, or a minute on the day, were not embarking on a fight against the coalowners or the Government, but on a fight against economic law. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but you cannot pay more out of an industry than you put into it. I have not heard any hon. Members opposite yet question the impartiality of the Coal Commission, or the accuracy of their findings. Their Report states plainly that 73 per cent. of the coal which was being produced, was being produced at a loss.
§ The CHAIRMANI would remind the hon. Member that this is a Vote for the purchase of coal for a certain amount. I think it is hardly desirable, if in order at all, to go into the origin of the dispute.
§ Mr. RADFORDI am sorry I have transgressed. I will leave that side, but with regard to the purchase of coal being in any way directed against the miners, I say that is entirely untrue. The Government are not buying this coal in order to support the coalowners. They are buying it because they represent the people of this country, and it is the people of this country for whom this coal 2113 is being bought. Hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote, have pointed out the disastrous effects of this coal stoppage on the country. The hon. Member heaved statistics on statistic, fact on fact, to show how our country is being absolutely ruined by this coal stoppage, and his only solution for the stoppage was that no coal should be purchased, that we should be compelled to give in to the demands of the Miners' Federation. Is that a reasonable attitude for hon. Members to adopt?
§ Mr. WALLHEADThe miners have made no demands whatever.
§ Mr. RADFORDI have already been called to order, and I hesitate to incur the just wrath of the Chairman. Therefore, I cannot reply to the hon. Member as I would wish; but it is untrue to say the miners have made no demands. They have demanded to receive the rate of pay they had been receiving, and to work the same hours. Obviously, it is impossible to go on trading on losses, and the alternative is a Government subsidy. That is what, in effect, they are demanding. I am perfectly convinced that if half-a-dozen hon. Members in this House representing mining constituencies, and themselves ex-miners—I mention no names or constituencies—but half-a-dozen men whose honesty is transparent, and whose knowledge of the coal trade is at least equal to that of those now representing the Miners' Federation—if they were the miners' leaders, they would have reached a decision fair to the miners and fair to the country.
The miners have shown beyond question—it has never been questioned—their absolute loyalty to one another. When this coal stoppage first came about there were pits and whole areas where owners could afford, and were prepared to go on paying, the rate of pay and to agree to the period of hours the miners demanded. There were other areas which were quite uneconomic on that basis. Instead, the miners in the good areas have shown their loyalty to their colleagues, who were less favourably circumstanced, by refusing to work, although no notices were posted in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Cannock Chase. The owners were prepared to go on, after the subsidy terminated at the end of April, 2114 at the rate of pay and the hours previously worked. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not now."] The miners themselves handed in their notices, loyally came out, and have shared in the privations and sufferings from that day to this. We know the miners are loyal to one another, and are prepared to bear sacrifices. Would it not be a much wiser and saner thing that the miners should agree to different minimum wages for different areas, and that those men in the areas where a high minimum wage can be paid, should set aside a certain percentage of their high earnings to augment the low earnings in the areas where only a very poor wage can be paid under economic conditions? I beg to support the Vote before the Committee.
§ Mr. J. HUDSONIn the discussion which has recently taken place in Germany as to the property of the late German royal family, there was the question of including the ownership of land, and the ownership, in certain instances, of mines and mining property, and I have no doubt that, if the truth could be found, certain of the coal which is now to be bought from Germany to break the miners' resistance has actually been secured from property out of which, directly or indirectly, that same Kaiser who was to pay will actually draw gain. It is something upon which the constituents of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) can reflect. Some of them are workers—I know them well in South Salford—in the Pendleton Colliery, and constituents in the neighbouring constituency of West Salford are workers there, and the Vote we are now discussing is for a purpose which may mean far more of gain to the Kaiser than it is to the constituents whom the hon. Gentleman is representing. Indeed, it is this very simple issue which to-day is coming home to more and more of our people. They are realising how, at a time of industrial difficulty like the one we are passing through, all international boundaries are forgotten by the class and by the interests which desire to keep the workers in their place. Would to Heaven the workers might realise that in war time, as they are now being taught to realise it in the suffering which you impose upon them in peace time!
I do not think at any time in my propaganda career—and I have been 2115 doing the best I could to promulgate those doctrines, so much disliked by hon. Members opposite, of pacifism, internationalism and socialism these last 20 years—I do not think there has been any time in which miners in particular have been so ready to understand and accept the doctrine, that, in the long run, their masters think not of international boundaries, and will do all they can to use even the forces of an enemy in the international field to defeat the interests of the workers at home. It is because we realise to-day that out of this money which is now to be spent—£3,000,000 in the Vote, or whatever part will be actually expended in the long run—
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)It may be that the whole of this money will be used. If the stoppage goes on, it will be used in the interests of the country.
§ Mr. HUDSONIf necessary, the whole of it, but the White Paper suggests that only part may be spent. The White Paper suggests that you will sell the coal at such price that you may be able to recoup yourselves for the £3,000,000, or the part you expend. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should interrupt me on that point. If he has read the White Paper, and, indeed, the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, showed that it is the intention, as far as possible, to save spending finally this £3,000,000. That is all I was suggesting.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWe are agreed.
§ Mr. HUDSONI accept the right hon. Gentleman's apology. The main point I wish to make I had made before the interruption. It is a point which will be very much referred to in the weeks to come, and in the years to come. Personally, I do not believe that by the bringing of this coal from abroad you are going to do anything to lighten the country's difficulties. You are rather giving the impression, particularly by the sort of incomplete information which has been given to us by the President of the Board of Trade, that in some way or other you have got a great power up your sleeve, by which you will bring the country through safely again. You will 2116 not. There never has been, in the history of our land, such a determination amongst the workers to resist the oppression which is now being sought to be imposed upon them. Whether you bring in this coal or not—very possibly because you bring in it—you deepen the determination of the miners—and the miners' wives—to resist. I was shocked over this last week-end to see many hundreds of the miners' wives in the Wigan area, and to learn from them how they are prepared to suffer any extremity rather than that their men shall continue to starve—to starve even to a great extent when the conditions of hon. Members opposite are imposed upon them. As one woman put it to me at a public meeting: "Our men had better starve in sunlight than be starved in the heavy labour of an eight-hours day which you are trying to impose upon them." You will not by the process of bringing coal from abroad break their resistance. You will rather make them feel, by the injustice of it and by the memories that they still have of all you told them in the days of the War, that you are determined to beat them now, and they will use all the power they have to resist you in your evil efforts.
Captain ARTHUR EVANSThe last speaker endeavoured to convince the Committee and the country that this was a secret plot to benefit the ex-Kaiser financially, that such plot was really the policy of the Government, that it would not benefit in any way the industries which are at present being starved for want of coal, and that the Government policy was not one which, in fact, would benefit the country. Does the hon. Gentleman really think there is anybody in the country who will believe that? Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the interest of the miners, of those people he endeavours to represent here, will be in any way served by his bringing forward arguments of that nature?
What, in effect, does the opposition of the Socialist party to this proposal really amount to? Let us assume for one moment that the Government is defeated on this issue, and that the views of hon. Members on the benches opposite are carried into effect. What would it actually mean? It would really and actually mean that in another way this would be a further attempt to blackmail 2117 the country into submission to their views. They have tried the method of the general strike. That has failed. I am very glad it did. Now, they are going if they are successful in their efforts, to stop by every means in their power any coal or fuel of any kind whatsoever being at the present time imported into the country. The logical consequence of that action would be that the whole of our industrial life, the whole of our civil and social services, would be paralysed. The Government would have to accept the terms of the miners and of the Socialist party in order to bring about a settlement, and in order to see that the necessary coal was supplied to meet requirements. Whatever sympathies we have, whatever side we take in this particular industrial dispute, no responsible Member of this House, least of all any ex-Minister from whatever party he may come, can really get up and say in this House that it is not the duty of the Government to make every endeavour they can to see that those industries which are not directly interested in this dispute—which, after all, is a purely economic one—shall be starved for lack of fuel. The figures of unemployment are very grave, and are going higher; yet hon. Members opposite come down to this House, and do everything in their power to do that which, in effect, would mean that these unemployed figures would go still higher. I do hope that no notice whatever will be taken of the futile arguments of the character used by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI should like to express my amazement at the manner in which the present Government is being used for Socialistic purposes. In previous Debates they have jibbed at nationalised industry, but we are now discussing what is practically a nationalised coal service. When this Vote is disposed of we will discuss the affairs of a nationalised newspaper. The Government jib at the proposal that the municipalities should be allowed to distribute coal, and yet, I understand, there is a large section of their own party, led by the Home Secretary, who are going to resist the proposition to allow the municipalities to trade in coal as put forward in the Coal Commission's Report.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWhat did the hon. and gallant Gentleman say?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI said that a section of the Government party, led by the Home Secretary, are resisting the proposals against the municipalities being allowed to organise their own coal supply.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot go into that matter.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYNo, Sir. All I was going to point out was that I thought it would be better, if instead of the Government coming forward with the present proposal, they suggested that the money should be spent in the way I have described, and I was asking the right hon. Gentleman if he was in favour of the municipalities being allowed to supply coal?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am afraid I should be out of order in answering that.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe right hon. Gentleman takes refuge in the fact that he would be out of order, but I should like to put my questions to the Government. There are a great