The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1947. Britain’s Coal Needs

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25160, 16 April 1947, Page 6

The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1947. Britain’s Coal Needs

■ Not even the heady atmosphere of : a party rally in his constituency • tempted the British Minister of Fuel i (Mr E. Shinwell) to forsake all ! caution in his optimistic review of ’ the coal situation, although, as a cablegram reports 40-day, he took j the opportunity to castigate the I “ pessimism of the reactionary ' “ groups who were more anxious to *’ see the Labour Government go “down than the country survive”. Mr Shinwell “ felt sure ” that if the present rate of recruitment in the mines was maintained British miners would be able to produce all the coal the country required. In the meantime, both the electric clock presented to Mr Shinwell by his constituents and British industry are short of motive power. Yesterday the report that the coal allocation to industry had been increased by 100,000 tons a week—giving industry now just half of its coal requirements instead of the one-third it has had to operate on since the winter blizzard—is another reminder of just how desperate is Britain’s shortage of fuel. If there is pessimism in Britain about the prospects of overcoming the shortage it arises both from the Government’s unimpressive record in providing against and dealing with the crisis and from its lack of a decisive policy for the future. The immediate causes of the crisis were inadequate coal production and the severe weather, for neither of which the Government could be blamed; the complaint against the Government was that it allowed a shortage to become a crisis. As the “ Economist ” pointed out, there had been a superabundance of prophecies from all the experts of what was coming. The point had been made, ad nauseam, that unless fuel supplies were more strictly allocated between essential and unessential users, all users, necessary and unnecessary alike, would eventually have to go without. But those who urged this elementary prudence on the Cabinet were overborne. Rationing would be unpopular, restriction of supplies to less essential users would cause unemployment, might even interrupt the sacred nationalisation programme. “It was far better to leave it alone—after all, “ there might be a mild winter. “ Never was there a clearer case of “ improvidence meeting its own re- “ ward ”, added the “ Economist ”. The debate precipitated in the House of Commons just before Easter left Britain with no conviction that the coal situation is being tackled in such a way as to make another crisis next winter unlikely or to ensure sufficient coal for Britain to achieve her vital export production targets. One of the big doubts is the effect of the five-day working week in the mines, which comes into effect on May 1. Mr Shinwell justified the five-day week by saying that last year many miners took Saturdays off or worked short shifts; but on the average about 350,000 tons of coal were produced on a Saturday. He admitted that, in spite of all safeguards and assurances, the Government did not really know whether the five-day week would have an adverse effect on production. Although he found the present trend of output and recruitment favourable, Mr Shinwell’s forecast of the prospect of reaching the minimum production target of 200,000,000 tons of coal in the year was hedged about with a formidable and discouraging barrier of conditions and qualifications. It was fairly certain, he said, that “ after “ October we shall be producing “ coal—all things being equal and “ everything proceeding smoothly—“at the rate of rather more than “4,000,000 tons a week. ... If we “ get the men, if the present rate “of recruitment continues, and if “ we get the right spirit in the indus- “ try, and if the mining machinery “ comes along as we hope it will “ come along ... it may well be “that w*e can get some further pro- “ duction which will enable us to “ cover a part of the deficit ”. Nor was Mr Shinwell much more hopeful about the prospects of importing coal from America or South Africa., American exports available for the second quarter of the year are already allocated through the European Coal Organisation, and both countries are suffering from acute shortages of waggons. Commenting that the chastening effect of past events was only too evident in these cautious statements, “ The Times ” pointed out that the extent to which coal stocks could be built up to the lowest level essential to avoid another catastrophe next winter depended on so many uncertainties that the Government was no longer willing to take the risk of arousing false hopes. After saying that Mr Shinwell’s review gave at least a little hope of an addition to the summer coal budget, “ The Times ” emphasised the urgency of the problems that arise from the continued shortage of coal:

It is clear that there will not be sufficient fuel and power for months to come to guarantee full employment to the whole community. How is the inevitable unemployment to be distributed? Which industries are to suffer most and in what degree? Industry must know, and know quickly, what supply of fuel it can count upon. The Government’s fuel policy is still in process of formation in this as in so many other respects, and time is too short and too precious for long delays in reaching these vital decisions.