HC Deb 07 December 1927 vol 211 cc1401-529
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD

I beg to move, That this House registers its protest that, on the Motion by the Leader of the Opposition on the 16th November on the serious situation in the Coal Industry, which involved a vote of censure on the Government, the Prime Minister should have deliberately evaded giving any defence or explanation of the inaction of the Government for which, as Prime Minister, he has a personal responsibility; and this House declares that the crisis in the industry, transcending all possibilities of mere departmental action, is such as to demand an authoritative statement by the Prime Minister of the intentions of the Government as a whole. The first attempt that we made to have a discussion on the coal question was thwarted by the Prime Minister—[Interruption]—who deliberately overlooked the fact that the silence which was so convenient to him might be interpreted as an insult by the Opposition. To-day, we observe on the Order Paper a most extraordinary series of Amendments. I have never known a party in the House of Commons to be so ready to take the part of Satan rebuking sin as the Tory party in these Amendments. I have sat in this House, with a short break, for 21 years now and for the scenes that I have witnessed, the interruptions of business, the suspensions of sittings that have partaken mostly of an unjustifiable hooligan character, the party opposite has been responsible. What, therefore, they are going to do to-day is this: At eleven o'clock we are going to see the party opposite trooping into the Lobby in favour of one of these Amendments, and in doing so they are going to censure themselves. They are exactly in the position of a party against whom an accusation has been brought and, rather than face the music, they have made up their minds to commit suicide. The Tory party in this House solemnly putting down a Motion of Censure upon some party which has held up the business of the House to such an extent that you, Mr. Speaker, or your predecessors in office have been compelled to suspend the sitting, is one of the most huge jokes that I have seen or witnessed or taken part in in the whole of my life.

When this Debate was started a few weeks ago, I saw in the newspapers, very much to my amazement, that the Prime Minister proposed to take no part in the Debate. After the incidents, which were copied, perhaps unfortunately, from the Tory party, had taken place, I saw that a statement had been made—I am not going to say it was official, but it had all the appearance of an official statement—that the Prime Minister, as a matter of fact, had an open mind and that, if circumstances arose, well, who can say, he might take part in the Debate. When I saw the first statement, it caused me so much surprise that I made it my business to find out whether the Prime Minister was to take part in the Debate, and it was only when I had twice received an assurance that he was not that I started my speech in the way that I did, so as to give him an hour's consideration as to what might happen. The Prime Minister had no intention whatever of taking part in the Debate.

I understand that a great search has been made along the highways and byways of the OFFICIAL REPORT to find precedents. Has a Prime Minister ever been known not to follow upon the Motion of a Vote of Censure? Does the OFFICIAL REPORT contain a record of a case where ordinary decency would have compelled the Prime Minister to speak, and he has not spoken? I do not know what the results of these explorations have been, and I am bound to say I do not care very much. But there is one thing I hope the Prime Minister's secretary has come across, and that is the Lyttelton case. I hope they have treasured that, and I hope he will explain it. There is one precedent, however, that I am not sure they have supplied him with, because it is not recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is the only precedent for his case of a few weeks ago. It occurred a long time ago. It was on an occasion when Sir Robert Peel was changing his opinions and found it very inconvenient to sit upon the fence. He was being attacked, he sat in the place represented by the Prime Minister's seat, and as the Debate went on, we are told that Sir Robert got more and more uncomfortable, more and more unhappy, more and more nonplussed, until at last, crunching up his notes in his hand, he turned to his Presi- dent of the Board of Trade and said, "You had better reply because I am not able to do it myself."

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE

I do not see it.

Mr. MacDONALD

What was the position on the last occasion? We challenged the Government's position; there was no doubt about that. We reminded the right hon. Gentleman, as the head of the Government, that the Government took sides in the dispute. We reminded him that the Government passed legislation, and that that legislation was passed for a specific purpose. We reminded him that the purpose of that legislation had not been fulfilled, and we reminded him that he handed himself and his Government over absolutely to the hands of the mineowners, and that they cheated him. The only parallel is to be found in our old friend the "Vicar of Wakefield." [HON. MEMBERS: "The Vicar of Bray!"] No, on this occasion it is the "Vicar of Wakefield," where Moses, going with a good horse to market, sells the horse and brings back in exchange a dozen or two spectacles. [HON. MEMBERS: "A gross or two!"] Gross, then—I am perfectly willing to give the Prime Minister the benefit of my mistake. A gross or two—and I emphasise the gross. [HON. MEMBEES: "Green spectacles!"] I did not like to be offensive, by reminding hon. Members that they were green—a gross or two of green spectacles with copper frames washed in silver. But whereas Moses was prepared to reply for his sins, the Prime Minister claimed the right in this House to hold his tongue whilst we were exposing the way in which he had betrayed the trust placed in him.

Moreover, the indictment being an indictment of the Government, the only man who could reply was the Prime Minister. That was not all. The indictment was personal to the Prime Minister himself. The points that were raised were exactly those points which would have been raised if we had been able to call for the Prime Minister's salary on Supply. If instead of having to move a Vote of Censure, which we all know is a most inconvenient thing to do, the business of the House had allowed us to put the Prime Minister's salary down on a Thursday afternoon, would the Prime Minister then have thought that it was in accordance with his responsibility to this House to ask another Minister to reply for him? Of course, he would have done nothing of the kind. The charge against the Prime Minister was this, that during the negotiations he was active enough individually. He did not then sit back in his seat and decline to speak and take part. He himself conducted the negotiations. When, in his absence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer very nearly came to an agreement, he returned hotfoot, and personally terminated the negotiations. When it was over, or about to be over, he pledged himself to the miners to see fair play being done. Later on, when the Government produced and passed legislation, it was he who justified that legislation by making certain prophecies as to its beneficent results in connection with the coal trade. During these times, during the negotiations, during the legislation that followed, he was not backward, he was not silent, and I am perfectly certain that there is no man in the House who understands better than the Prime Minister the sort of feelings we had when we found that he chose to remain silent.

4.0 p.m.

I think perhaps he was wise, worldly wise in a sense, in putting somebody up who knew nothing about the subject at all, one who, whatever the reason may have been, never appeared in a single negotiation of last year, one who never took sides in these negotiations, and one who we know, as a matter of fact, offered to resign on account of his position in this matter. I say all honour to him, but, in the circumstances, again, who could understand better than the right hon. Gentleman Parliamentary etiquette and Parliamentary decency? No one understands better than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that however justified that attitude of his was last year, and however much we congratulate him upon taking it, under the conditions of the Debate which was started a week or two ago, he was not the man to respond to the challenge thrown out to the Prime Minister. Not only was it a Government challenge; not only was it a personal challenge, but it was a challenge that covered various Departments, while you, Mr. Speaker, quite truly said, in your most laudable attempts to get things smoothed down on that day, that whatever Minister spoke for the Cabinet, the Cabinet was a united one, and one voice was sufficient. That is a good, sound doctrine, but that was not the case in point. The case in point was that at least four Departments were indicted, and it is not the custom of this House that one Minister should speak for three of his colleagues. The only man to do that is the Prime Minister. Over and over again in this House, when such things arise as, for instance, the President of the Board of Trade having a supplementary question thrown at him across the Floor affecting not his Department, but, say, the Ministry of Labour, he would be the very first man to find refuge in Parliamentary rectitude, and say, "That question must be addressed to my right hon. Friend."

That was the situation. The indictment was an indictment against the Government as a whole, against the Prime Minister and specifically against four" or five Departments. Now to decline to stand up against it may have been a demonstration of the instinctive disregard for the Parliamentary decencies when they have to be shown to Labour by a Tory class, but it was an act which we were fully justified in resenting. We have made our position clear, and the condemnation with which the Prime Minister's action that day was generally received by the Press of the country fully justified the action which we took. The questions that were then put are still unanswered. The Prime Minister, I am told, or I see by the papers to-day—I have made no inquiries whatever to-day—is just going to say a few words, and hand it over. There will be no misunderstanding in the minds of the people who read about it, that instead of taking up the challenge which is thrown down in the Vote of Censure, he simply asks somebody else to make an explanation. Instead of leading his men into a fight, he is merely, at eleven o'clock, going to lead them into the Division Lobby.

The case was this, and it remains. We brought case after case, and established a general condition of distress and unemployment. We asked the Government what they were going to do. We pointed out the conditions in distressed areas. We asked the Government how they were going to handle them. The President of the Board of Trade cannot answer those questions. We pointed out that the legislation passed by the Government, which resulted in the increase of hours of labour and in the lowering of wages, produced effects absolutely contrary to those which the Government pledged themselves they were going to produce last year. We asked what they were doing with their Mining Industry Act, which took up so much of our time last Session, and that is still unanswered. We pointed out that combines were being organised to meet the present evil conditions. We asked the Government whether they were indifferent to the question of economical working. We asked about research. We asked about any new use that is being made of coal and, finally, we brought before the Government the fact that hundreds of men in the coalfields to-day are being boycotted, not because they are bad workmen, and not because they are bad citizens, but because they happen not to belong to the Conservative party or to the Liberal party. We reminded him that during the greater part of this year the Government were responsible for bringing legislation before this House which assumed that in a very peculiar way, in a kind of way that my colleagues and myself really cannot share at all, that where an Englishman is boycotted, then the power of the Government comes to his aid, that is, if boycotted by his fellows, not boycotted by his employers. Apparently, the employers have got a pass. Having seen these things with our own eyes, and knowing the men who are victimised, knowing them personally and valuing their personal friendship, we came and asked the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, to give us a reply to those things, to tell us what the Government proposed to do.

We made that request in the way that Parliamentary requests are always made, and we expected a reply in the way that Parliamentary replies are dealt with. We put the Government in the dock on a bill of indictment. The Prime Minister's attitude was this: "It may be true, this bill of indictment you have drafted against me about my past. I am not going to answer that. I have got a certificate about my future, and, instead of answering for what I have done, for the mistakes I have made, the muddle I have made of the whole coal industry, I am going to ask a colleague of mine to tell you what I am going to do in days to come." It is really not good enough, and I must say that if ever I had painful moments in this House and I have had some—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—Certainly, what is the use of jeering or trying to be rude on those occasions? I do care for this House, whatever hon. Members may say or jeer, and if ever I had unhappy, painful moments, it was when I felt most sincerely, as I did, that the Prime Minister was not observing that relationship which, by its observance, has enabled this House, with all its party fights and all its deep, and, very often, hot divisions of opinion, to maintain itself as a governing unity at the centre of the public life of this country.

I hope to-day we are going to be able to turn over a new leaf. But in the turning over of that new leaf, if hon. Members imagine that the only person who is not to do it is the Prime Minister, then they and I part company. As I said in the very first sentence I have spoken, I repeat that the Debate was interrupted a few weeks ago by the failure of the Prime Minister to do his duty to this House. We put questions to him then. We displayed a condition of things in the coal trade for which the Government are very largely responsible. We asked them to tell us what they were going to do with regard to it. We asked them to explain their position. They declined to do it, and I move this Resolution to-day in the hope that the error they made last time will not be repeated to-day.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)

In the indictment which has been laid against me, I have been accused of an instinctive disregard for the decencies of Parliamentary life, and that is, of course, a very serious charge to lay against the Leader of the House of Commons. I wish to make some observations about the duties of Leader of this House as I see them, some observations about Votes of Censure and some particular remarks having regard to the circumstances that led to this particular Vote. The work of a Leader of this House, to whatever party he may belong, is no sinecure, and the more closely the Prime Minister attends to the business of this House, the heavier the burden, because he is often taken away from work that he ought to be doing, and this makes more difficult the per- formance of his daily duties. There is no one who has occupied this position who will not agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was unable to take that duty upon himself when he held double office. The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party, during all the time that he was Prime Minister, I believe, delegated the Leadership of the House to Mr. Bonar Law. I think he was wise to do it. I do not think it would have been possible for him to do the work; he could not have led the House himself. Circumstances then, of course, were infinitely harder than they had been before the War, and the problems in which he was involved were more continuous and greater than even the problems of to-day, though the problems to-day are infinitely greater than they were before the War and the strain is consequently much more.

I say that at the beginning because I think it quite possible that the day may come, owing to the increase of Parliamentary work—it is increasing year by year—when it may be impossible for the Prime Minister to lead the House of Commons and the actual Leadership will have to be performed by a Minister delegated for that purpose. But then the question arises, in what Debates ought the Leader of the House to participate it—I do not think anyone would expect him to speak—and when a Leader of the House speaks what he says has to be very carefully considered, because a great deal depends on it—I do not think it can be held that every time, a Vote of Censure is put down—and it is a very common method nowadays of asking for time—he should be expected to speak. If he is expected to speak it makes his task almost impossible, and indeed no one would contend for a moment that that expectation has been held always or that the demand that he should speak has always been made.

It will be well within the recollection of the House that on various subjects which have been treated as Votes of Censure—subjects connected with the breaking off of diplomatic relations with Russia, subjects connected with a famous Circular issued by the Board of Education, subjects connected with what, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are equivalent to Votes of Censure, subjects dealt with in the King's Speech—on those occasions many times other Ministers than the Prime Minister have spoken and no objection has been raised. [Interruption.] You come to many discussions, especially those in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour have been interested, on wide financial questions or unemployment, which cover a great many Departments; but I will leave that for the moment and proceed with what I was saying.

Take the Debate that occurred the other day. That in itself, in its inception, was not a Vote of Censure. It became one, I admit. It was not asked for as a Vote of Censure. Time was asked to discuss the question of coal, and, although we had very little time, we readily acceded to the request, and we have as a matter of fact, or had at the beginning of the Session, before the business became so tied up, allotted a very liberal supply of days for the use of the Opposition. It was when the Motion was put down that we saw that it was drawn up in the form with which we have become familiar now, the form that could be interpreted and was interpreted as a Vote of Censure.

Mr. SUTTON

Could it have been discussed in any other way?

The PRIME MINISTER

I want at this point to pause for a moment to consider the effect of such events as those which took place on that day. The Opposition thought fit to express their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Leader of the House by preventing any other speaker being heard. There is no novelty in that; it has been done before. I have once taken part in such a demonstration, and, frankly, I was very ashamed of it the next day. I make another observation on that point. When I was a young Member of Parliament I learned that such demonstrations, instead of being, as I expected, regarded as something rather heroic in the country, did nothing to add to our popularity and tended to lose us a great many votes. I might put forward a suggestion here. I think it was the realisation of that fact that led the Leaders of the Opposition to put down this Motion in the hope that it would pull their party together—

Mr. W. THORNE

We are always together.

The PRIME MINISTER

—and would make the country forget that demonstration of bad manners which they copied from other parties in their less wise moments. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in the middle of all that trouble called out in a voice which I was happily able to interpret, "We are proceeding Parliamentary," and he was quite right up to a point. There was precedent for everything that happened on that occasion. The only novelty adopted by the other side was that as I left the House there was from some quarter the sound of hissing, which has been heard in this House but once before, and which in this country has always been peculiar to a bird that walks over the village green; and all I would say to hon. Members who have used that precedent is this, that I hope they will have a much happier Christmas than those birds will have.

Mr. R. MORRISON

We did not throw books.

The PRIME MINISTER

That was a precedent which was never followed. I hope that what I have just alluded to will never be followed. The other thing in which hon. Members opposite have departed from precedent is by putting down a Vote of Censure the next day, as I say, in the hope that their conduct would be forgotten in the House and in the country. Let me say this apropos of disorder in the House. The right hon. Gentleman has sat, as I have sat, in this House for many years. He has seen many disturbances. He was good enough to say that we had been responsible for most of them. If that be so, the reason is that we have been in Opposition more than other people. But such disorder never achieved its end. There is not a single man in any of the three parties who would yield for one instant to clamour. Therefore, not only is it a waste of time, but you are—the side that does it—ihiperilling to a certain extent the prospect of success at the next General Election. Lord Balfour, when he was leading this House at the time when the first demonstration of this nature occurred over 20 years ago, used these words: Never in the whole course of my Parliamentary experience have I known the House refuse to listen to a member of the Government dealing with a subject which concerns the Head of the Government, nor have I ever known an Opposition who thought it their function to suggest the order in which the Front Bench opposite to them ought to deliver their speeches. I am bound to say that the precedent to-night, if followed, will absolutely ruin the House of Commons. That precedent most regrettably has been followed more than once at rare intervals. But, as I said before, never, never in this House or in any House of our people can it achieve what those who create these disturbances hope to achieve by their action.

Let me take the House into my confidence and tell them how I dealt with the order of this Debate before it took place. It was very important in my view, a day or two before the Debate took place, that whatever Ministers spoke should be in a position to deal, so far as they could, with every question that might be raised. The problem was bound to raise a great many questions on a great many points. I thought that when the Leader of the Opposition sat down the first speech, the general speech, should be made by the President of the Board of Trade. In my view no more competent Minister could make that speech. I do not propose to discuss his merits in this House with any Member.

At this point it was suggested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, during the Debate which ended so briefly and unhappily, that it was an insult to him that he was not followed by me. But mark this: He is not the only Leader of the Opposition in the House. It is true he is the Leader of the Official Opposition. But we were expecting a speech from the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party, as this was a matter to which he has given a great deal of consideration, and if I had not insulted the right hon. Gentleman opposite by following him, then I should have insulted the right hon. Member who leads the Liberal party. Hon. Members may think that that was a small point, but surely in the Labour party, as in Napoleon's army, every Member carries a Field Marshal's baton in his knapsack. Any one of you may be standing at this Box, and then, maybe, you will realise the difficulty of making arrangements for debate that will be as fair as possible to all parties. Then, further, I had charged the Minister of Labour to be ready in case points were raised about unemployment insurance or points dealing specifically with unemployment in certain districts. I had charged him to be ready to speak if necessary.

Then I come to this last point. I had decided, first of all, that I would wind up the Debate. But then I thought this: I do not suppose this will appeal to hon. Members, but I am telling them exactly the process of my own mind. I thought, "There is my friend the Secretary for Mines, a man who for three years has carried one of the most difficult and most troublesome tasks in the Government. He is giving up that post and he has undertaken another most difficult and probably thankless task, which will take him to India." I felt it only fair that he should have one last opportunity of speaking from this Front Bench as Secretary for Mines. It was for that reason, and for that reason alone, that some time before this Debate took place I decided that he should speak instead of myself. I have told the House exactly how the Debate came to be arranged. That did not find favour in the eyes of the Opposition. For that I have been accused of an instinctive disregard of the decencies of Parliament, and for that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to ask this House to censure me. I shall await the result of their verdict with confidence and, more than that, if this were an issue before the country, my confidence would be no less great in the country than in the House.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)

I should not attempt to say anything of a personal nature were it not for the re marks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but, if I may say so, I appreciate very much both the form in which he made those remarks and what he said. I think, in view of his having said that, on account of my past connection with the cool trade, I was an unsuitable Minister to respond to this Debate, it is only fair that I should say in the House—

Mr. MacDONALD

Whatever the heat may be, let us be accurate. I did not say it was on account of the right hon. Gentleman's past connection; I said it was on account of his silence during the negotiations.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I was not in the least complaining of the tone or nature of anything which the right hon. Gentleman said. I say at once that I appreciate what he said about myself, but he said the mere fact that I had remained in complete silence during a previous coal crisis, after having offered to resign before the crisis made it inappropriate that I should be responding for the Government in this Debate. That having been said, I think it only fair to state—what I thought the right hon. Gentleman knew—namely, the nature of the connection which I thought disabled me from dealing with coal matters or being the Minister concerned with the dispute. I would like to read to the House a letter which I wrote to the Prime Minister a considerable time ago, before I resumed control of the mining situation. I had been (asked by the Prime Minister that, whenever circumstances changed, I should resume the normal duties of the President of the Board of Trade, who has a general control of the Department of Mines, for which the Secretary for Mines is responsible to the President as Cabinet Minister. On 31st January this year, I wrote this letter to the Prime Minister: My dear Prime Minister, You directed me to let you know when my intimate connection with the coal industry had been terminated in order that I might resume general control of the Mines Department. I think this time has now arrived. I had felt bound to ask you to relieve me of the direction of the Department in a time of acute difficulty in the industry because my wife's trustees "— As a matter of fact, they were executors under a will— —"were the proprietors of, and entirely responsible for the Ackton Hall Colliery Company. This company has now been sold to the South Kirkby Company. The purchase has been completed, and the South Kirkby Company have taken over the whole of the property. Part of the purchase price was paid in debentures which my wife's trustees hold. They have the right to nominate one director on the board so long as they hold a majority of the debentures. But, apart from this power, they are in no way responsible for the conduct of the company. Neither they, nor my wife, nor I hold any shares in the company. In these circumstances I understand that you regard my connection with the coal industry as sufficiently indirect to dispense me from any difficulty in resuming control of the Department. You will remember that you explained to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Lloyd George the circumstances in which I felt compelled to ask you to relieve me of the conduct of the Mines Department. I assume, therefore, that you will inform them of the change in the circumstances, and of the fact that you have asked me to resume control. I only read that letter to the House because, had circumstances been the same as they were when I tendered my resignation, I should not have accepted the Prime Minister's request to resume control of this Department, and had I felt that there was anything which impeded me in any way, I think the House knows from my past actions in this matter that I should be the last person to thrust myself forward. I am sorry to delay the Debate to make this personal statement, and I do not think hon. Members will say that at any time I have exceeded my proper quota of the time of the House.

What we had assembled to discuss last time, according to the terms of the Motion, was the question of the present position, the prospects and the present policy in relation to the coal industry to-day—whether that position arises in consequence of or in connection with the past or not. In order to form an accurate appreciation of that issue it is surely important that we should get, as far as we can, agreement upon the facts. The right hon. Gentleman last time painted a picture which was gloomy, and I think unnecessarily so. No one in his senses would dream of suggesting that all is well with the industry, but while it is utterly wrong to minimise the difficulties that exist, no useful purpose is served by aggravating those difficulties or making them out to be greater than they are.

I want at the outset to give the House a few facts as to the present position. I take first output. In the first 10 months of 1925, which is the last normal year, we produced 201,000,000 tons. In the corresponding period this year we had produced 210,000,000 tons. You have therefore an increase in output. You have also an increase in exports [Interruption]—not at all at a satisfactory price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give the figures! "] I do not intend to shirk anything. This matter is far too important for scoring small points. I propose to give what I hope will be a businesslike review, not ignoring a single difficulty or a single fact in the position. We exported in those months of 1925, 41.8. million tons, and in the first 10 months of this year 43.1 million tons. Employ- ment is bad, but employment is not as bad as it was in October, 1925. At that time, 247,000 men were out of work in the coal trade. In October of this year, 223,000 is the number unemployed. That was a reduction from the July peak figure of 258,000. That includes people who are wholly unemployed as well as those who are on short time. Both the figures I have given include the wholly unemployed and those partially employed according to the Ministry of Labour return.

Let me say one word about the prospects. The prospects, of course, must depend upon trade generally, whether it be world trade or trade at home. In the export trade we are faced with the keenest possible competition. I think there has been a remarkable recovery in view of the fact that during the long stoppage—I am not seeking to attach any blame here—we lost an enormous number of contracts in nearly every market all over the world. Contracts which we could have had if the men had been at work, have been taken up by others and now we have to cut into all these foreign markets. If you have to cut into a market where you have lost your goodwill, it inevitably happens that you have to quote lower prices than you would quote if you had merely a continuation of your contracts. I am not saying for a moment that we are always getting the best prices possible. I think combined selling arrangements will do a great deal to help that, but we must remember that in Germany, which is so often quoted, while the cartel controls the selling price in the home market, it leaves the German coal-owners absolutely free to sell in competition with one another in the foreign and export markets and, indeed, in that part of the home market where international competition is met. I would remark that in criticising prices we should remember that it was, on the whole, good policy to cut in and recover the markets even at a dreadful cost. [HON. MEMBERS: "To the miners!"] To everybody. It meant more work to the miners. Supposing we had refused to take export contracts unless at a certain profit. That surely would have been worse for the miners. It would have meant refusing contracts and refusing to get and to sell coal which is being sold at the present moment, although at a loss, and undoubtedly that would have meant that fewer men would have been employed because less coal would have been produced. So much for the export side.

In the home trade which, after all, must absorb the bulk of the coal produced I think the prospects, which depend upon British industry generally, are better. The right hon. Gentleman, last time, said it was getting worse. I do not think it is. I think certainly in home industry the prospects are better. Cheap coal has played its part, and I think undoubtedly trade prospects are better. They are actually better on the figures we have. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that when he is quoting figures he must not quote the sterling figures of a few years ago and compare them with the sterling figures of to-day. It is easy to say that our export trade is down. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the price figures, the sterling figures of, say, two years ago and compared them with the sterling figures of to-day. He has forgotten that in that time prices have fallen by 14 per cent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am not complaining of the fact that the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was not fully reported, but if he looks at a full report he will find that I did call attention to that point. I said, first, that if you took a comparison of prices they had fallen by so much, but then I took up the question of quantities—the very point which is now made by the right hon. Gentleman. Then, I said that in two or three vital industries there was a reduction even in the actual quantity.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will give him the correct figure in the aggregate, for it is the aggregate that really matters. The correct figure shows-that in January to October of this year, as compared with January to October, 1925, which is our last normal year, the total exports of British goods and manufactures have not fallen but have increased by i4 per cent. If you take your figures in money to-day and re-write them into the value of 1925, you will find an export this year of £661.000,000 against £580,000,000 in 195JD. [Interruption.] I dare say we have imported, but according to the theories of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that means that we should be exporting a great deal more. Therefore, that is an additional argument in support of what I am saying. In addition, we are, undoubtedly, doing more business in the home market. We are always expected, and I think it is a mistake, to deal with the industrial position entirely on figures of unemployment. If we take the figures of employment instead of the figures of unemployment a very different picture is presented.[Interruption.] Undoubtedly, it is true—I have had my figures worked out by the Ministry of Labour—that year by year a very much larger number of people, both men and women, come into industry than go out of it. People live longer at one end and more come in at the other. If you take the net increase of the people employed in industry you will find that in the last three years, between July, 1924, and July, 1927, industry has absorbed 475,000 more people.[Interruption.] Do let me deal—

Mr. BATEY

This is a mining Debate.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

But really, if you are to test whether there is a market for coal you must see whether the prospects of industry generally are going forward or are going backward, because the hon. Gentleman and I know that you sell coal to these industries and that if the industries of the country are employing nearly half a million more people it means more business is being done and that the prospects of selling more coal are better.

Mr. BATEY

It is not true.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am giving chapter and verse for every figure Slat I am quoting. In addition to that, it is my business to see, month by month, representatives—employers and employed—of all the great industries of the country, and whereas a few months ago progress was seemingly not being made, I am glad to say that in the general opinion of nearly all of them there is, not a boom, but a steady improvement month after month actually in the orders placed and the prospects before them. I say, therefore, that the general prospect for industry, and, consequently, for coal, which depends upon industry in this country, to a large ex- tent, for what it sells, is not worse but is distinctly better than it was.

Mr. BATEY

It is immensely worse.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I come to the charge which is made both in this and in the previous Motion—the charge of inaction. The Government are charged with having failed to take the necessary steps. I say at once that in this House we have an acute difference between us as to what is the relation of the State to industry. On this side of the House, we do not think all action is necessarily wise. The Leader of the Opposition said at the opening of his speech last time that it is impossible at this time of the day to divorce industry and politics. If I believed that that were true, I should be compelled to say: "God help industry!" That is the fundamental difference between us. He believes that the more you interfere with industry until such time as you can completely control it, the more is it a sound policy. We do not. We believe that the less you interfere with industry the better.[Interruption.] Do let me make my speech. I have a great deal of ground to cover, and I do not want to take up more time than is necessary. If I do not cover all the points, hon. Gentlemen opposite will be the first to say so. We say that all action is not necessarily wise. I do not like to go back on the past—it is rather an idle occupation—but I would remind the House of this, that when the Samuel Commission reported the Government, although they did not, by any means, agree with all the recommendations, were willing to accept every single recommendation made if the other parties would do the same. Whether these proposals were right or wrong, it is not our fault that the whole of them were not put into force at once. In the circumstances, we were free to judge the proposals on their merits, and we were free to judge what we should do and leave undone.

There are two distinct problems, and I think everybody would agree with this. It is important to keep them distinct. There is, first of all, the problem of what is the best policy to adopt in the coal industry as an industry in order to make it efficient and set it on its feet. There is a. separate problem, which is not a coal problem, and that is, what steps can you take to help men in that industry who, whatever happens, are going to be thrown out of work, to find employment in other industries? Undoubtedly, it is true that, if you pursue a wrong policy in relation to the coal industry as an industry you will increase the magnitude of your second problem, the number of people with whom you have to deal.

We have been challenged. We were challenged last time, and we have been challenged again to-day on the ground that by the Eight Hours Act we have made the position of the coal industry more difficult and increased the number of unemployed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] That, it seems, is a charge that I have to meet. It is quite untrue to say—and I say this as an observer, and I am sure anyone who had anything to do with the negotiations, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone else, will bear me out that never was it said on the part of the Government or by anyone on this side of the House—that we guaranteed prosperity. We were not fools enough to do anything like that. What we did say was, that on the whole this was likely to give the industry a better chance.

What has happened? That Act has reduced working costs. There is no doubt that it has reduced them by amounts varying from 10d. to 3s. 8d., and the average for the whole of the coalfields of this country is a reduction of 2s. 8d. a ton. I am comparing the September quarter of 1927 with the September quarter of 1925, and it must be observed that that reduction of 2s. 8d. a ton is not made principally at the expense of wages. The reduction in wages per shift is from 10s. 5d. in 1925 to 9s. 10d. per shift in 1927, a reduction of 7d., but the total reduction in the cost per ton is 2s. 8d. A great many of the collieries I know are carrying on at a loss to-day, but can anyone tell me, that after you have reduced the cost by 2s. 8d. a ton, you are not able to sell more coal in the competing markets of the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you done so?"] We have, undoubtedly. [An HON. MEMBER: "To what extent?"] I will tell the hon. Gentleman, as I told the House at the beginning of my speech. We sold 10,000,000 tons more this year.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

As the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the ex- ports for 1925 and 1927 for 10 months of each year, were 41,820,000 tons and 43,200,000 tons, will he tell the House that the receipts were some £3,220,000 less in 1927 than in 1925?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Exactly. That is my point. I am not assuming that the coal-owners are making money. I know that they are not. What I am assuming is, that, although they are losing money to-day, they are selling more coal to-day in spite of the fact that they are losing money, and if you had added 2s. 8d. to their costs, they would have sold less coal, and there must have been fewer men employed. Unless, of course, you do the thing which some hon. Members still hanker after, and which is really impossible unless you have a subsidy, there is no other way out. Therefore, I meet the charge which is brought against me that we have reduced employment by the Eight Hours Act by saying that, on the contrary, we have reduced costs by 2s. 8d. per ton, and are selling more coal to-day, and more men are at work by reason of that Act than would otherwise have been employed.

I want to come back to the question of the organisation of the industry, but I come now to the steps towards dealing with the second problem, helping those who are permanently or temporarily out of work, and helping the children to get work who cannot be absorbed into the industry. Here, I admit, we are faced with a problem which is particularly difficult. It is not as if you had an industry situated where there are other industries around which can absorb them as they come out. It so happens, unfortunately, that you are dealing with unemployment in districts where there are no other industries to absorb them, or where the industries which do exist, such as iron and shipbuilding, are hard hit. That makes the problem insuperably more difficult. It makes it all the more necessary to try to solve it, but it does make it a very difficult problem. The right hon. Gentleman spoke to-day as though we have taken no action in this matter. He is quite wrong. The first thing that we have done has been to reserve the mining industry for the miner, and it has made a very substantial difference and has put the industry in a unique position. We have in force, by agreement, an arrangement under which vacancies are not to be filled except by miners if miners can be found to fill them, and it is working.

Let us consider the figures. This is what has happened in three months. I am dealing with facts, not with theories. It has been at work since the beginning of August, and in the first three months since that date 53,534 miners have been placed into vacancies in that industry and only 133 men have been brought in from outside. That is a very substantial contribution. It is not fair to say that we are doing nothing when as vacancies arise from one pit to another only 133 from outside the industry have come in and 53,000 have been absorbed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Since when? "] In the three months. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was vitally important, and I agree with him, to see that the young lads who come on should be absorbed into industry, or into the coal industry. I agree. Does he assume that we are doing nothing? Why does he not inquire as to the facts? We have established, and are estahblishing, throughout the whole of South Wales, Northumberland and Durham, which are the acute spots, Juvenile Unemployment Centres in a number of towns, and they are so spread out that when the system is complete, and by using omnibus and tram services to bring these boys in from outside districts, there will not be a single boy, so the Minister of Labour has told me, who is out of work and cannot get work in the coal mines in Durham, Northumberland and South Wales who will not be able to go to a Juvenile Unemployment Centre if he wishes to do so and obtain instruction. The instruction that is being given there is practical instruction. It includes metal and wood work and elementary mechanical engineering. The whole of the machinery of the Employment Exchanges is there to place these boys as they emerge from their training. This problem is, I think, a manageable problem; and it will become easier because the low birth rate of War years will mean that there will be more vacancies in industry generally for young men and boys in the years to come.

5.0 p.m.

Then a great effort is being made by the Ministry of Labour to transfer un- employed miners to other industries.

In the 12 months up to July, 1927, 30,000 of these men have been placed, and we propose to try all we can to facilitate that, and to speed it up.

Mr. MONTAGUE

What industries?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

All sorts of industries—the gramophone industry for one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) laughs. Is it a bad thing to take a miner who is out of work and put him in a factory?

Mr. MONTAGUE

The point of my remark was in what industries are you putting men? Where are there jobs vacant, and jobs clamouring to be done? Are there these jobs to be found?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I have said that 30,000 men have been placed; if this was so simple we should not be debating it.

Mr. MONTAGUE

But others are out of work.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

No, others are not put out of work. We are not turning people out of work to find jobs for miners. What we are trying to do is to use the whole machinery of the State in order to place these men into work wherever we can find jobs for them. Training centres have been established at Birmingham and Wallsend, and a third is being established. There are training centres for emigration at Clay-don and Brandon, and the Overseas Settlement Committee is doing what it can. These, surely, are the right lines on which to work. It is the only way we can hope to grapple with this problem, not by perpetual doles, although a great deal of help has been given in that way, but by constructive work; wherever a job is available, to try to get one of these men into it. We have been considering for a long time—the question is always under review, not by one Department only, but by all of us in consultation—as we work out this problem of training centres, juvenile unemployment centres, and placing, whether we can accelerate this absorption, not only by using our existing facilities, and increasing them where practicable, but by in- troducing a new element into the organisation; and we think that as an experiment we probably can do something further to help.

We propose to set up a small Commission, Committee or Board, of not more than three men, whole sole object will be to stimulate and assist the transfer of workers from distressed areas to openings in other areas and other industries, both at home and overseas. We have got a parallel in Lord St. Davids Committee. That is a very valuable Committee; it did not supersede any Department, but worked outside and with them in order that, in the most efficient way, relief grants to local areas should be given. Here we have got a somewhat analogous problem. We have got a problem, not of giving relief to distressed areas, but of trying to find more jobs for the men outside the distressed areas. We propose that the Minister of Labour should define these black spot areas, they are not confined to mining, though it does happen that the worst of them are in Durham, Northumberland, the North-East Coast, and South Wales. There you have the black spot areas not only in coal but in the iron and steel and the heavy industries. If these areas are scheduled, this Commission, working through and with the machinery of the Ministry of Labour, will devote its attention entirely to seeing what can be done to find jobs, either here or overseas, for men from them. This will be worked largely through the organisation of the Ministry of Labour, and any expenditure—although this is primarily not a matter of new expenditure, but rather of driving force—that is necessary will appear on the Vote of the Ministry of Labour in the ordinary way.

It is important that the activities and the recommendations of this body should not be confined to the Ministry of Labour. It ought to work closely with any other Department it can help, either the Overseas Settlement Committee, or the Ministry of Health where housing schemes need acceleration, or with the Board of Education where education can be brought in to help, or the Board of Trade on the general commercial side. Their problem is to see where they can find jobs for men who are out of work in distressed areas. We have got to be very careful in this scheme that we do not spend money with- out a plain necessity for it; but where you find, and we are finding it to-day in the ordinary work of the Ministry of Labour, that there is a vacancy, but that it is really impossible to transfer a man to that vacancy without some assistance, then it pays, if you work prudently and carefully, to give a little help to transfer that man into a vacancy rather than to keep him permanently on the dole. That is the line we are working on now, that is, assisting men, where it is really necessary, with railway fares, and assisting them perhaps to move their homes. You want discussion with the Overseas Settlement Committee. I think it is very likely that we shall find in future that, where you get a Dominion like Canada, with a great advancing prosperity, the Committee have a very good chance of getting what may be seasonal, or, it may be, permanent employment, for men in Canada. Such men may get a certainty of six months' work, but they might be a little anxious, and would not want to go out there unless they are sure they are going to remain in their jobs. It is worth while considering in cases like that whether they cannot have an assurance that when the seasonal employment comes to an end they will be helped with a return passage.

Mr. LUNN

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an effort of that kind, which was inaugurated and intended to be carried through, failed this summer?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Yes, I know it did, because I believe there is no power under the Overseas Settlement Act to give that kind of assurance; and I believe that with a very small expenditure of money, you might be able to give it. The very fact that the hon. Gentleman says that that was in view this summer, and did not materialise, is all the more reason why we should make sure of it in the coming year. Here, of course, as in the case of Lord St. Davids Committee, there would be no question of setting up a new Department. We think it will be a stimulating force, and I think a few men of the kind we propose will have a chance of making an appeal and an approach to employers which the Employment Exchange manager and even a Cabinet Minister, with all his other duties and responsibilities, could not make. Let me take an illustration from business. If you want to concen- trate on a new selling ground, and you have your existing organisation, you do not hesitate to put two or three special men on to the job to see if you can carry on there and stimulate it. That is exactly the kind of proposal which, after careful consideration, we think it is worth while making.

I come to another charge which the right hon. Gentleman made. He said, "Why are you not doing something to stimulate the more efficient use of coal?" I disagree with him, in the first place, that here there is no room for private enterprise. That ignores the whole of the experience of Germany, and all that has been done in hydrogenation in Germany, which is the product of private enterprise, and not of government activity. But the Government are doing a great deal here. The right hon. Gentleman said, "What about electricity?" One of the most important things in coal is that you should have efficient electrical plant in this country, and efficient development. There I agree with him, but have we not done anything? We spent the greater part of last Session in passing the Electricity Act. That Act was based on the considered experience of the best business men and the best technical men we could get to advise us. The Central Board has been set up, and nobody can say that is not a sound and businesslike Board. No one can say that it has no knowledge upon it of coal. No one has a better knowledge of coal than my old friend Sir Andrew Duncan, who is Chairman of the Board and who was a wise and sympathetic Coal Controller. No one is going to say that Mr. Hodges has not a good knowledge of coal as coal. They are both on the Board.

How insane we should be to sweep away that machinery, that considered scheme of organisation which we have recommended to Parliament, which Parliament has endorsed, and which is now in force in order to take on—well, I really do not know what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We have done everything that is possible. We are on the right lines, and let us allow the Electricity Board to go on with its work. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "What are you doing about oil from coal?" He said that here again was a field for Government activity. We are doing a great deal. The Fuel Research Board has been working on that not only for months, but for years. The Government themselves made their own experiments in low temperature carbonisation, and they have done what is the practical thing to do; they have made business arrangements with the Gas Light and Coke Company for a plant on a commercial scale. Take the other alternative, the process of hydrogenation. The Government have stepped in, and we have experiments going on in the Bergius process in conjunction with the British Syndicate.

Mr. HARDIE

Why did you not buy any British patents?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Because there were not any. I am always hearing a great deal about internationalism from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and when you get a great process in another country—which might turn out right or it might not, but which, at any rate, is a good gamble—it is vital that the Government should step in and see that experiments are made, for, it may be, without the aid of the Government it would not be worked in this country at all. When we, as a Government, step in and see that the experiments are made, surely, from an international point of view, no one is going to tell me that that is wrong.

Mr. HARDIE

I am not talking about international grounds.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am putting it on business grounds.

Mr. HARDIE

On business grounds why have the Government not given the same attention to British processes for extracting oil from coal that they have given to this one? These British processes had been in existence for ten or fifteen years before the Bergius process appeared.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I should be sorry to say anything in this House which reflected upon this or that business, but it is well known that the Fuel Research Board have been in touch with every single system and with every single experiment. The only businesslike thing to do is to see where you have the best chances of success—and there we rely upon our experts—and then to concentrate on those. That is the only businesslike way. Then there is pulverised coal. I think a very considerable hope lies in that direction. I daresay that hon. Members have seen that five 10,000-ton steamers, turbine vessels, may be laid down which will use pulverised fuel. New machinery has been devised which is able to pulverise the fuel on the ship, in that way reducing the risk which arises from carrying a large store of pulverised coal, which is rather a dangerous fuel for a ship to store. I cite that in passing. I say, therefore, that in every direction in which developments in the use of coal on new lines have been regarded as possible we have not been behindhand in investigations. We are working with the National Fuel and Power Committee, we are working through the British Engineering Standards Association in sampling and analysis; and I could name other lines of action. If the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House this rather large catalogue of our activities, would he have raised cheers so freely from his own supporters by his statement that that Government had done nothing to encourage the coal industry? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the cheers from your side now?"] I am concerned to state the facts, which I think are agreeable to people genuinely interested in the industry, if they are not equally agreeable to those who wish to secure some Party advantages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whip up the cheers!"]

I come now to the question of the organisation of the coal industry itself. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the duty of the Government to take immediate action to secure the efficient organisation of the industry in the sale and the use of its own products. I do not know which horse the Opposition are going to ride. I have been a consistent advocate, in theory and in practice, of amalgamations, and I have over and over again defended amalgamations against attacks from the other side. I believe that amalgamations—large combinations—are necessary for the development of industry. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot at Question Time, day after day, attack every amalgamation which is set on foot and then come and charge the Government with neglecting to see that amalgamations take place.

Mr. WILFRID PALING

Attack them!

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I have no doubt of the value of amalgamation, though it is very important not to overrate it. It is impossible to generalise on the subject. Anybody who has brought, about an amalgamation, who has worked in a business, knows that you cannot generalise as to what will be the results-produced by this or that amalgamation, but I have no doubt that, broadly speaking, the value is considerable. By amalgamation you get a reduction in administration expenses, you improve your selling organisation, you are large enough, to enter the retail business yourself, if it is good business to do so, and you can ensure that the merchant sells the maximum and not the minimum of your products. You can more easily eliminate excessive competition, you are able to pool railway wagons and thus reduce, to some extent, transport charges, or, at any rate, increase your own transport facilities. You will be in a better position to make district' and national agreements. You will be in a position, also, to do something to improve the technical side of the industry, although I must say that I think the technical development of our mines here is extraordinarily good, as-Professor Moss has testified; but even so amalgamations would enable the best technical men to cover a wider field and you will undoubtedly be in a better position to raise more capital for improvements, for the development of subsidiary processes and for research.

Those are views which I have over and over again expressed in this House, not only in connection with coal but in connection with industry generally. I would only add this, that I am pretty sure that the size of the ideal amalgamation can be proved only by experience. It may very well vary in different industries. I am sure it is wrong to assume that the largest possible amalgamation is necessarily the best. The American experience of trusts is extraordinarily interesting on this point. The original trend of trusts in America was for them to be as large as possible. Then came the Sherman Law. Some of the largest of the American trusts, when they were compelled to disintegrate, found that they increased their actual efficiency. They had originally formed units which were too large for the maximum of efficiency. They found that some of the energy which ought to have gone into efficiency of production and of sales was actually absorbed in the work of turning the machine itself. It is very important that we should not spread abroad the idea that the bigger the amalgamation is the more there is in it. The Samuel Commission contemplated a number of units, and I think there is no doubt that as amalgamations take place—as they are taking place now—if it be good business for them to become larger and to absorb each other we shall find that is what will come about; if, on the other hand, the limit of efficiency has been reached, they will not amalgamate further.

Again, if you have a cartel, or territorial arrangement, and a number of disconnected units in it find that the relationship of interest between the different parts is not close enough for all to keep to the common policy, you will find that that in itself will lead to closer amalgamation. Having found the advantages of combining into a cartel they will not afterwards split apart; what they will do, in the natural process, is to come to a closer amalgamation in order that their interests may be more closely identified. The right hon. Gentleman talked as though nothing had been done. One has only to read the papers to see what has been done. A number of amalgamations have taken place, and selling syndicates have been formed. I only quote what is public property in the newspapers in saying that proposals are going on in South Wales for a selling combine, and that Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire are discussing a cartel.

Mr. PALING

With what object?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

For the object for which the right hon. Gentleman is pressing, the stabilising of prices.

Mr. PALING

They do not say so.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Of course, it is so. Is it suggested that the object for which they are coming together is that they shall sell coal less successfully than they are doing at present?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Sell it at a higher price.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Really the hon. Gentleman must be consistent, at any rate the course of one afternoon. He was criticising me half-an-hour ago because the price at which export coal sold was too low, now he is criticising those who want to stabilise prices. If he were thinking of the interests of the con sumer and saying, "I want to keep coal prices as low as possible, even below the economic level" I could understand him, but the whole charge in this Debate is that nothing is being done by the Government or the coal owners to get an economic price for the coal, and then when you get people together working out schemes—

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

To increase the price of coal.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

You had better see these schemes before you criticise them. All I am saying now is that you have been criticising coalowners-because they will not get together in order to try to form common selling syndicates to stabilise prices and to get a greater degree of efficiency in the industry, but when they do come together you at once begin to criticise them on that score. I think we had better wait and see the schemes. Apart from these schemes, I know myself, in confidence, of other negotiations which are going on, negotiations to amalgamate on a very large scale. The last thing in the world which would help those amalgamations would be the discussion of them in public. Anyone who has tried to amalgamate either conflicting branches of a trade union or a series of businesses knows that in delicate negotiations the last thing you want is to have a great light of publicity thrown upon them. If you have a union which is being rather obstructive to your proposal to bring it in, or if you have an owner or a company which is putting too high a price upon its assets, the last thing in the world that is wanted is a public discussion. Up goes the price at once. It may be, also, that one of the parties is showing himself obstinate on personal grounds, because both in businesses and in unions human faults show themselves, as well as human virtues. In any case, the difficulties which may arise are much better overcome with quiet, discreet negotiations, and those are going on.

While all this is happening in the industry itself, how on earth can the right hon. Gentleman say that nothing is being done and that the Government ought to take action? What further action ought we to take? It appears that we ought to compel everybody to join in some amalgamation, though the right hon. Gentleman is very careful not to specify what amalgamation. What informed authority can he quote in support of his proposal? The Samuel Commission were dead against compulsory amalgamation against the will of a majority of the owners. I can quote their views if I am challenged.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

What did the Samuel Commission say about the eight hours day in the mines?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Let us discuss one thing at a time. If they were always right, and if you use them to condemn me because the Government passed the Eight Hours Act, then surely I am entitled to cite them with equal authority—

Mr. WILLIAMS

Do not have it both ways.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

For this purpose I have it this way. Lord Beaver- brook, who has taken a great interest in this matter—

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM

He is an expert!

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

—even he is dead against compulsory amalgamation, and says that amalgamation can only come if the parties are willing to get together. The Lewis Committee rejected compulsion in selling arrangements, except in the case of a recalcitrant minority, and even then were very doubtful as to whether it would prove successful. Above all, I would say this, do let us be careful that we do not embark on a policy which is going to force the efficient units in this industry to take in against their will all the most inefficient units. I know of no worse policy than to attempt to force efficient business men to take in inefficient businesses. If you have enforced compulsory amalgamation by which the owners have to take in every single old pit—the old pits which ought to have gone out long ago, which were only kept going by adventitious circumstances—the War, the Ruhr, the subsidy—pits which ought to have amortised their capital and gone out; if you are going to force the efficient pits to take over the inefficient pits, then you are not going to help the men, and you are only going to saddle the new and efficient combines with inefficient pits. We have followed the Samuel Report upon this question, and we have laid down that if any single unit or any two units consider that the amalgamation or absorption of two, three or four or more units would be good business, they can go to the Court, put forward their scheme, and get compulsory amalgamation or absorption on terms of issuing shares and not necessarily finding any more capital. That goes the whole length of the Samuel Report, in fact it goes rather beyond it.

We have gone further. We have given the Court the right to order the transfer of areas from one company to another, and that is being done. If you are going to go further and give compulsory powers greater than that, you are going to assume the responsibility of forcing people into an accommodation into which none of the parties are willing to enter, which none of them think is good business, and which none of them would formulate upon their own initiative. Surely that is a very great responsibility for the Government to undertake. Would hon. Members put their own money into such an undertaking? Would hon. Members belonging to the Labour party put trade union money into such an undertaking? If you do, of course, you must assume financial responsibility, and you would be bound to underwrite the profits. Would we not then be bound to assume some responsibility for the direction of the industry and for its attitude towards other industries? Where does that lead you? It is nine-tenths of the way to nationalisation. We are giving every reasonable assistance to amalgamation wherever any responsible owner thinks it is good business. In these cases, let us give them all the help we can, but let us be very careful that we do not land ourselves into a policy of nationalisation.

As a Government we are prepared to accept responsibility both for what we have done and for what we have left undone. I agree that the major responsibility rests with us so long as we are the Government, and we accept it. I think we can justify the whole of our policy. I would like to point out, however, that the responsibility for the present situation does not rest with us alone. I think we are entitled to ask the Opposition what has been their contribution to the solution of this problem. What is the policy of the Opposition for the future? When the Labour party had a short term of office they forced an agreement upon the coal industry which brought it to the verge of bankruptcy, and the present Government had to foot the bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was it?"] I am referring to the agreement made while the Labour party was in office in 1S24, by which you placed perfectly impossible wages on the industry with the result that you drove men out of work.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Was not the decision referred to by the right hon. Gentlemen the recommendation of a Government Commission?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I do not care whose recommendation it was, but I know that the party opposite forced it on an unwilling industry by the threat of legislation, and I defy hon. Members opposite to deny it. If that agreement had been in force to-day there would not have been 200,000 but 500,000 men out of work in the mining industry.

Mr. MONTAGUE

What about the wages?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

What is the good of wages on paper if you cannot take them home? When you were in opposition you engineered the general strike. You started the coal strike and you could not call it off when you wanted to; you lost every foreign market which we are recovering with such difficulty to-day and which you lost by your action.

Mr. STEPHEN

On a point of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would like to ask if the President of the Board of Trade is in order when he says that "you" caused the general strike?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

It is the rule that all remarks should be addressed to the Chair, but I have often heard the second person used in a rhetorical way to refer to the opposite party. I hope the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) will inspire all his colleagues with a strict observance of that rule.

Mr. STEPHEN

I intervened because I thought it was very unfair that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, should have all this responsibility ascribed to you.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Let there be no doubt as to where the responsibility lies. What contribution have hon. Members opposite and the right hon. Gentleman who leads them to make in the future towards a solution of this problem? They put forward simply the policy of nationalisation, which so far from rendering a single pit in any country more efficient, would permanently quarter them upon the taxes of this country. Between those two policies, between the practice of hon. Gentlemen in office or in opposition and our own, the Government are quite willing to take the verdict of the House today and the verdict of the country in due time.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think I can promise that I shall not introduce any further heat into this discussion. We are discussing a matter of national importance, which ought to be examined by the House of Commons quite calmly, and I am not sure that we shall advance matters very much by recriminations. With very great reluctance I join in the personal controversy which has been raised in reference to the Prime Minister, although I wish it had been possible to discuss the mining situation without having to consider evidence of that kind; but, as the question has been raised, I feel bound, by my long experience in the House and in office, to express an opinion upon this question. This is not a Departmental question, and, in point of fact, there could be no better illustration of the necessity for having an authoritative pronouncement upon it than the speech to which we have just listened. There are not merely four Departments involved. I know the Leader of the Opposition said there were four involved, but there are very many more. The Departments involved include the Board of Trade, the Mines Department, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry of Health has had to face a very serious situation in some of the coalmining areas, where we are experiencing almost bankruptcy in regard to municipal government, and the Government in this connection will have to face a considerable liability. It is far beyond the resources of these mining areas to wipe off this indebtedness, and sooner or later the Minister of Health will have to come to the Government with definite proposals. At the present moment in those mining areas the authorities are unable to collect the rates. I have here a list of the arrears of rates in the South Wales areas, and those arrears run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. In those areas county government is failing and district government is failing; there is no one there to pay the rates, with the result that the rates are falling more and more heavily upon the good mines. The rateable value of those areas is decreasing year by year in consequence, and this is a question with which the Minister of Health will have to deal before very long. Another question with which the Government will have to deal is the surplus population and the training of the young, and here the Minister of Education is concerned. There is also the question of agriculture, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is involved in this. As a matter of fact, there are seven or eight Ministries directly involved in the solution of this problem, and, consequently, it is a question upon which no one can speak with authority except the head of the Government

The Prime Minister referred to my experience during the three years of the War. It is perfectly true that Mr. Bonar Law and I came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible, in the state of Europe at that time and the condition of things in this country, for the Prime Minister to come down here and lead the House, and we concluded that it was a wise arrangement to hand over the Leadership of the House to Mr. Bonar Law, who spoke with exceptional authority, because he was the leader of the largest party in the House at the time, and he was a man of very great experience. I feel absolutely certain that if there had been at that time a discussion of this kind, Mr. Bonar Law would have said to me, "You must come down and deal with this question, because no one can speak with authority on a subject of this kind except the Prime Minister." I do not wish to imply anything offensive to the President of the Board of Trade, but he does not possess the power to deal with this problem effectively, because he is not the leader of a party. Mr. Bonar Law invariably said to me in regard to important question, "As Prime Minister you must come down and speak."

Mr. GROTRIAN

Did he say "Speak first?"

6.0 p.m.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will come to that point in a minute, and I think it is a fair interruption. If the Prime Minister had said in the course of the discussion, "I do not propose to speak immediately, but I intend to intervene in the Debate," I should have said that it was a most unreasonable thing to protest against that course, because you must allow the Government to arrange its own order of speeches. On that occasion. I very nearly got up to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should give a promise to speak in the course of the Debate, and I regret now that I did not do so. I do think that it was quite inexcusable—and I am trying to say so without any personal offence—when we were going to discuss the condition of the second greatest industry in the country, which is in a very bad way, which, according even to the President of the Board of Trade, has over 20 per cent, of those engaged in it out of work, and that does not represent everything, which is in a worse plight in many ways than it has ever been in, in spite even of this Government—it was quite inexcusable that the Prime Minister, the head of the Government, should not intervene in the course of a Debate on a Vote of Censure in reference to that industry. I have said that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade was an illustration of that. He made a purely departmental speech. It was very interesting, and in so far as it stated the facts, I think it stated them quite fairly. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I certainly never criticised him last year because he was unable to take part in the discussions on this subject. On the contrary, I took some steps to indicate that, had he done so, I had every confidence that he would have behaved as an honourable man in those circumstances, and would not have allowed his interests to intervene. After all, however, he only deals with one Department, and he has given a purely departmental reply. I will show now what I mean.

All that he said about what has been done with regard to research and otherwise was very interesting, but, when he came to the thing that mattered most of all, namely, amalgamation, the grouping of the industry in order to save expenses, and, what is still more important, the marketing arrangements, which are vital when you come to cutting down the costs and reducing the margin, what did he say? Did he give any indication, except a general one, that there were negotiations—what he was pleased to call quiet and discreet negotiations—going on? Everybody knows that the thing has not been grappled with at all by the industry; it is perfectly well known that it has not. There is a good deal of talk going on, but nothing really is being done in order effectively to group the industry to increase its efficiency. The Government gave the industry two years from the 4th August last year in which to set its house in order. That is under the Act of Parliament. A year and four months have elapsed; can the President of the Board of Trade really say that the industry has utilised those 16 months in order to puts its house in order? This House—not merely the Government, not merely the Samuel Commission, but the House of Commons—declared last year solemnly by an Act of Parliament that the industry had to be reorganised. Most of that Measure is taken up with the reorganisation of the industry. There are elaborate provisions for bringing court after court and Ministry after Ministry to compel them to do so if there are any recalcitrant mineowners; but practically nothing has been done. As far as marketing is concerned, there has been a good deal of talk, but, in so far as there has been discussion up to the present, it has been discussion with a view to raising prices and increasing profits, and not really with a view to reorganising the industry, in the sense in which the Germans are doing it, with a view to cutting down expenses and enabling us to face competition in the markets of the world.

You cannot get away from the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with this industry. We have exceptional advantages in our coal measures as compared with any other country in Europe. In the first place, the quality of the coal is on the whole superior to that of any other country in Europe. Another great and decisive factor, as was pointed out in a very able article in the "Daily Telegraph" the other day, is that all our coal measures are within easy access of the sea. That is a vital factor, and it is more than can be said about Germany, it is more than can be said about France. The quality of the coal of Belgium puts it out of competition, and, therefore, it does not count seriously. We have exceptional advantages as far as our coal measures are concerned, but what are the facts? All the great producing countries in Europe, with two exceptions to which I am coming shortly, have increased their output since 1913; ours has gone down. As compared with 1913, our coal production—I am assuming that the output will continue at the same level during the month of December as it has during the last few weeks—will this year be down by 31,000,000 tons. That of Germany—I am taking now the post-war figures for comparison—will be up by 25,000,000 tons, and that of France will be up by 13,000,000 tons, while that of Belgium will be up by 4,200,000 tons. In the case of the United States the figures are still more remarkable. I will take the figures for last year, because there has been a great strike there this year, so that it is not fair to take this year's figures. In 1913 they raised 514,000,000 tons, and last year their output was 663,000,000 tons. [Interruption.] Even this year their output was 606,000,000 tons, in spite of the fact that they have had a strike, so that, even taking this figure, their output has gone up by something like 90,000,000 tons.

It may be said that we are suffering from the fact that oil is being used in our ships, that there are coal-saving appliances of every kind, that the water supplies of Europe have been harnessed for the purpose of the production of power: but that is equally true of other countries. The three countries whose coal output has gone down are Poland, Russia and Britain, while the countries that have gone up in production are Germany, France, Belgium and the United States—the well-organised countries, while in the disorganised industries the output has gone down. That is a very significant fact, and it is in spite of all the natural advantages that we enjoy, and of the fact that our hours are longer at the present moment than in any coalfield in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman may say that the wages are better, but they are not better as compared with 1913, which is the real comparison. They were better then, but it will be found that the wages in Germany, France and Belgium are higher than they were in 1913, taking purchasing power into account. On the other hand, they are much lower here. In those countries conditions have been improved since 1913 in regard to hours and wages. As regards wages, our conditions' have degenerated, and the hours are worse than they were in 1919. The pits are working at a loss; our export trade is down in every market except two; the municipalities are bankrupt, and there is a great reduction in the output of coal.

What is the use of optimistic statements by the President of the Board of Trade in the face of