South Yorkshire Times, October 10, 1942

The Coal Debate

The Coal Debate in the House of Commons provided no promise of an early solution to the fuel problem which will grow more acute as the war progresses. Mechanised warfare on the scale of the present conflict makes unprecedented demands on the industrial potential of the countries involved. Industry in turn depends for its power on fuel, of which coal is the fundamental.

Mobilised as we now are for vast cycles of armament production, we are finding a tendency for our war-time economy to become top-heavy. The scope of our industrial effort is outrunning the present capacity of our mines to feed it with coal or the equivalent. There are, of course, aggravating factors, but no matter what recriminations are bandied back and forth across the floor of the House of Commons, the colliers and the collieries cannot be expected to produce sufficient coal to meet the maximum needs of all consumers.

Wastage and age mean that the man-power available will as the war goes on produce a less rather than a greater quantity of coal. During the summer a fall in output was recorded, but Major Lloyd George was able to state on Tuesday that this had been checked and that since June average weekly output had risen from 3,921,000 to 4,085,000 tons. This is gratifying as far as it goes, but Sir John Anderson, winding up the debate, made it clear that there is no great reserve reservoir of coal face workers, even in the Forces, on which to rely. So despite every device calculated to increase the efficiency of the industry, and in other ways get bigger output without substantially expanding man-power, it appears certain that we must make do with less coal for domestic use, and must contrive to get industry to make its fuel go further.

Many of the Members who spoke this week in the House advanced their pet panaceas. In general these solutions varied according to political persuasions. One member thought the miners would thrive on discipline and ought to have more of it, others inveighed against absenteeism, bringing back miners from the Forces was insistently urged as a sure remedy by other members, and another view was that other Industries had not been sufficiently combed for ex-miners.

Labour spokesmen flatly demanded immediate rationing and upbraided the Government for allowing the Conservative party to dissuade them from introducing such a scheme. But when all had talked around it and about, compromise was left to have its head, for this winter at any rate. We are left to save as much fuel as we can, and produce as much coal as we can, and from the guarded optimism of the Minister of Fuel, it seems that this will pull us through.

But the future promises sterner discipline. The steel furnaces and power stations have a growing appetite and we dare not stint it. It may be possible, as Sir John Anderson said, to bridge the 11,000,000 ton gap between production and consumption for this winter “with good will all round.” Beyond this winter it will not be done. The approach to victory is through austerity. There is no easy path.