HC Deb 13 July 1950 vol 477 cc1556-675

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1949. We are to discuss today the Annual Report of the National Coal Board for 1949. 1949 was the third year of their existence. In the third year they were at the beginning of their enormous task: yet people often say that the policy of nationalisation has already been proved to be a failure. There has been a lot of loose talk—not usually substantiated by many facts—about the Coal Board. I want to examine today the charges that are made against the Coal Board in the light of the facts given in this Report.

In the Report the Board are by no means complacent about what they have done. Nor am I. But let us examine one by one the things for which they are blamed and see what their record really is. It is said, first and foremost. that they have failed because they have not got the coal the nation needs. Well, we do need more coal than we are getting. The Board know it and admit it, and so do I. Total output is the vital test by which all else must stand or fall. But let us look fairly and frankly at what they have done.

In 1949, with full employment and the rising productivity of labour, total home consumption of coal, including factories and electricity and gas and railways, but excluding house coal, was 34 million tons more than it was in 1938. We are building a lot of new refineries in Britain. We are going to use a lot more oil. But nine-tenths of British power and fuel will still come from coal. In 1949 the Coal Board produced 5 million tons more coal than in 1948; 28 million tons more than we got in 1945. The whole recovery of Britain since 1945 has been founded on that recovery of British coal. Without that great extra output, without that great effort, disaster, beyond all question, would have stared us in the face.

Should we have got that extra output if coal had not been nationalised? Can we be certain that we could even have got the 174 million tons which we were getting in 1945? Two divisions last year failed to pay their way. They did much better than in 1948, but still they made a loss. In almost every division there are some pits—there are 467 in all—which still do not pay. What would have happened to those pits if we had gone back to the old system? What would have happened to them if the industry had been drastically decentralised and every area made a separate, independent financial unit, as some people have proposed?

Should we have got the 55 million tons which last year the Coal Board produced from the so-called uneconomic areas? Fifty-five million tons—almost as much as Lord McGowan told us in 1948 we should have lost if the mines had not been nationalised? Anyway, it is certain that it is because the industry has been nationalised, because it has been worked as an integrated whole, because all these pits are part of one financial unit, that we have been sure of this 55 million tons, and that, instead of falling further, total output has risen since 1945 by nearly 30 million tons.

Secondly it is said—and very frequently —that all nationalised industries lose money, that they do not care, that they do not have the profit motive, that they can rely on the taxpayers to see them through. It would unquestionably have been right to have got this extra 30 million tons since 1945, even if by so doing we had made a large financial loss. Indeed, Lord Bruce of Melbourne said the other day that it probably would have been better if we had let the Coal Board make a loss; that we should have given them five or ten years to modernise, re-organise and re-equip the mines before we expected them to show any profit at all. Well, the Act of 1946 gave them no such latitude as that; it said that they must pay their way "on an average of good and bad years.

" In 1947 they made a stupendous effort to do what Lord Bruce said—to raise output almost irrespective of the cost—and in consequence they made a loss of £23½ million. In 1948, they made a modest surplus of £.1½ million; in 1949, they made a surplus of £9½ million. And that was after they had made all the payments due to the Exchequer in respect of the assets which had been handed over to them by the State, after they had allowed for Profits Tax of £½ million, after they had made additional provision for workmen's compensation of £4 million, and after they had allowed more generously for depreciation of their capital assets than the previous owners used to do.

Mr. Brendan Bracken (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

Might I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? I thought that the country would benefit today by a discussion of the Report of the Coal Board, and not by controversy about the merits or demerits of nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman does no service to the coal industry by again dragging nationalisation into the centre of politics.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Nobody will be more delighted than hon. Members on this side of the House when nationalisation is accepted by all parties, and when nobody tries to make party capital out of it.

Mr. Bracken

What are you doing?

Mr. Noel-Baker

I am answering the charges that are constantly made against the nationalisation of the coal industry, and by nobody more than by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I shall give him the facts from the Report for 1949 which answer his charges, and I hope he will listen to them with the patience he always shows.

I was saying that the Coal Board are already halfway towards the liquidation of the loss they made in 1947; they hope to wipe it out this year and to start to build up a reserve. If the Board is regarded purely as a business undertaking it cannot be denied that that is sound finance by any test. A profit of £9½ million in the third year is pretty good, and it makes nonsense of a lot of what the critics say.

It is urged—and I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will urge it today—that the Board have only earned their profit by raising prices—as, of course, private owners would never have done!—that they have done it, in fact, by overcharging their customers, British and foreign,. for the coal they sell. Indeed, it is often said that British industry is handicapped in the markets of the world because, thanks to nationalisation, their costs for fuel and power are so very high. Let us look at that for a moment.

Taking industry in general, as a whole the cost of fuel and power today—gas, electricity and coal together—is something between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. of total costs. That is just about the same as it was in 1938. If fuel costs have gone up since then, other costs have gone up just as much; indeed, if anything they have gone up more. Between 1938 and April, 1950, the Board of Trade wholesale price index for coal rose by 148 per cent., but over the same period the average increase in the index numbers of manufactures and basic materials was 157 per cent. Leaving out manufactures and coal, the increase in other basic industrial materials was 260 per cent.

Let us look more closely at what has happened since 1946. Between vesting day and April, 1950, the wholesale coal price index rose by 25 per cent.; the average increase of the index numbers for industrial materials and manufactures in the same period was not 25 per cent. but 38 per cent.; the increase for basic industrial materials, excluding coal, was 62 per cent. There is really no answer to these figures. The price of British coal has not risen under nationalisation more than the price of many other commodities that have not been nationalised: it has risen less.

Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley)

Steel?

Mr. Noel-Baker

British industry is not handicapped by high coal prices as against the outside world. In fact, we have the lowest coal prices in Western Europe.

Mr. Bracken

Lower than the Saar, for instance?

Mr. Noel-Baker

Nor has the Coal Board overcharged their foreign customers. I utterly repudiate that suggestion. The Coal Board have sold our coal abroad because the foreigners want to buy it. They have not extracted the last farthing those people could be made to pay; it would be bad business if they did. Their present prices do not endanger good will for future trade. Their prices are at the world market level—about the same as the price which Poland is charging in the European market and below the price charged for American coal delivered at European ports.

No charge of exploitation can possibly be laid against the Coal Board. They follow the practice of other industries which export British goods; in the national interest they earn as much foreign currency as they rightly can; they have increased their exports in 1949 by three million tons, and they made a splendid contribution to the earning of foreign exchange—£50 million—apart from other earnings on freight and on insurance of cargoes. It is true, however, that if all the coal had been sold in Britain at present internal prices the Board would not have made their present profit. It is true that in future years the level of world prices may come down, and that makes it important to look not only at prices but at costs.

Of course, it is said that, thanks to the Coal Board administration, costs have risen greatly and are far too high. I promised hon. Members the other day at Question Time that I would today discuss the trend of costs per ton since the Coal Board started, and that I would compare them with costs before the war. It is true, as I said then, that for 14 years up to 1948 there was a constant unbroken rise in the costs of producing British coal.

The official published figures show that costs were: in 1935, 13s. 1d; 1938, 16s. 1d.; 1946, 35s. 10d.; 1948, 45s. 6½d. Now those figures are not all on quite the same basis as the present Coal Board figures, but I have had two of the pre-nationalisation years adjusted. In 1938, the cost on the present basis was 15s. 11d., and in 1946 it was 37s. Thus, before the Coal Board took over the cost had risen in nine years by 21s. a ton. In the first two years of the Coal Board's work costs rose by a further 8s. 6½d.

I ask the House to note two things: nearly three-quarters of the rise in costs since 1935 happened before nationalisation, and of the 8s. 6½d. rise since 1946 the greater part, 5s. 5d., is due to higher wages, holidays with pay and other improvements in the conditions of the men. Now will any hon. Member stand up and say that the expenditure of that extra 5s. 5d. has been wrong? Of course not. And if not, we have to pay the bill; it cost the Coal Board £60 million a year.

The basic cause of this rise since 1935 has, of course, been the rise in the earnings of the miners. In 1935, cash wages were 45s. 5d.; in 1938, 55s. 9d.; in 1948, 157s. 10d. That was up to 1948. Two more things happened in 1949. The average cash earnings of the miners went up by 5s. or more. But the costs per ton for the first time for 14 years came down. They came down by 6d. That may not sound a very formidable sum, but it means £5 million saving on the financial result for 1949—half the Coal Board's surplus.

It is said that even so the costs are far too high because the Coal Board has been so inefficient and so badly run. What does efficiency mean in British coal today? We must go back again to the Reid Report. It means re-equipping and re-organsing the mines. The Reid Report set out the magnitude and complexity of the task. It showed that, while some companies, of course, had been progressive and had a good record, many of the productive units were quite wrong, and the industry was "parcelised" in a most uneconomic way. It showed that many of the pits needed more machinery than they had before—better machinery; more capital investment was required than could be made under the old system. The Board have started on that task of bringing in efficiency by capital investment with vigour and imagination.

In 1948, they spent £25 million on new capital investments; in 1949, £31 million. and, for this year, they have authorised £37.5 million. Could these great sums have been found if the old system had remained? Does anyone believe that it could? What would the rate of interest have had to be? The Coal Board, for the first time for many years, have brought to the mines the new capital they required. Much of the new capital went on new machinery; machinery at the face, better haulage, machinery on the surface, new power and preparation plant. The Board sought, in the first place, to bring the coal cutting equipment in every pit up to the highest "conventional" standards of the past, but they have also made a lot of progress with the testing of new machines.

They were experimenting with power loaders. With some of them they are still testing the prototypes—the Gloster getter, the German plough, the Joy Continuous Miner and others. With the Meco-Moore they are further forward. In December, 1949, they had 51 of these machines at work, turning out coal at the rate of four million tons a year. The normal crew of a Meco-Moore is six. A normal face employs about 50 men, including rippers, packers, supervisors and the rest. The O.M.S. at the face is 6.7 tons. There is another new British cutter-loader which has no undercutting, no shot-firing, and no men working under an unsupported roof. That means less dust than even with the old hand pick, more large coal and fewer accidents. The crew of the machine is five with 30 men at the face. It wins 100,000 tons of coal a year. It may be possible in a relatively early future to get six or seven million tons of coal—more large coal—by this machine. In a longer future, it might do better still.

In 1947, the haulage problem was more acute than the problem of the face. The Reid Committee made it clear that, in their view, it was the worst bottle-neck of all. To a considerable extent it is a long-term problem—the driving of new level roadways to take larger mine cars drawn by locomotives. Making roadways is a long and a costly business; so is replacing the equipment. The underground railways had 60 different gauges of varying widths and tubs varying in capacity from 3 cwt. to 3 tons. The Board have to standardise this equipment. They have brought in many miles of new conveyor belts and replaced others, and brought in more locomotives. The statistics show that, while many of the major works have not yet begun to give returns, nevertheless, haulage in general has already notably improved.

On the surface, two main requirements are the introduction of new power plant, and the increase of plant for the preparation and the washing of coal. The Board's long-term policy is to install electric power instead of steam on the surface. In the Rhondda, they have done it, and they have saved 4½d. a ton on costs. Before 1947, the average capacity of the preparation plant was about 80 tons an hour. The new plants have capacities up to 600 or even 800 tons an hour. Since vesting day, 38 new plants have been brought into operation, and at the end of 1949, 27 more plants with an annual capacity of 9½ million tons were under construction. As an interim measure, the Board have sent a lot of coal from collieries where there are no washeries to collieries where there are. That is very costly, but it has helped to clean the coal.

Apart from improved mechanisation on the surface and underground, the Board have re-planned and re-organised a lot of pits. They have joined up pits that used to be divided and made arrangements for the more efficient working of the coal. I will give one illustration. At one pit, Manvers Main, in Yorkshire, they are spending nearly £4 million. When the work is finished, it will raise output from 2¼ million tons per annum to well over 3 million tons.

I ask the House to note the salient facts about this capital investment. Much of it has given a quick short-period return. That is why output has increased and O.M.S. (output per man shift) gone up. The House is familiar with the figures: In 1938 they were 1.14 tons; in 1945 down to 1.00 ton; in 1948, back to 1.11 tons; in 1949, 1.16 tons, and for the first quarter of this year 1.20 tons. I know that hon. Members opposite prefer the output per man year. I will give the figures for that, too. O.M.Y. has risen so far from 246 tons in 1945 to 282 tons in 1949. I know that the hon. Member who takes so great an interest in opencast coal will be glad to know that so far in 1950 O.M.Y. is running at about 294 tons—well over the figure for 1938.

These figures show that much of the capital investment has given a quick return. But many of the schemes, on which a great deal of money has been spent, will only be giving a return towards the end of this year, or next year, or later on. But we can say, I think, with the greatest assurance, that within a period of a few years they give us the hope of more coal—a lot more coal—at lower cost. If we had had none of this development work, output, as the Coal Board show in their Report, would inevitably have gone down and costs, of course, would inevitably have greatly risen.

I think that is the real answer to what is said against the Coal Board about man-power. They have shown already by the schemes which they have carried through, what great economies of manpower can be made. The figures which I gave about the cutter-loaders show what saving there may be in the future at the face, if these new machines develop as we hope. Better haulage releases many men. At Markham, in the East Midlands, trunk conveyors were installed and 100 men were freed in one pit for upgrading to the face. At Ellington, in the North, one diesel locomotive released 30 men to go to the face. By the end of 1949, the National Coal Board had put 330 new locomotives in the mines.

These are only illustrations of how more coal is being got with fewer men. They show why the National Coal Board are not worried about the long-term manpower problem. Of course, there is in some coalfields, but not all, a short-term problem of getting men. There has been a heavy fall in the total manpower since January, 1949. I will give the House the figures. They are: January, 1949, 727,000 men, December, 709,000 men and, today, 698,000 men.

These figures may seem alarming, but I ask the House to note these things. In 1949, the National Coal Board dismissed from their service 8,000 men who were unsuited to the mines. In 1948, they had recruited 8,500 Polish and other European workers. In 1949, it was only 2,500, which is 6,000 fewer, and last year it was none at all. In January this year the ring fence was lifted, and men who wanted to leave the industry were free to do so, and several thousand did. In 1949, and still today, the men and the Board are much more careful about the new recruits they take on. As the Report says, miners must be men of "good physique and sound sense," which is quite true. In the south, they accepted last year only 65 per cent. of the new recruits who offered to join their services.

Having said that, I do not disguise the fact that the National Coal Board now want more men. They are taking vigorous measures to recruit the right type of miner and prevent the wastage of the better men. They are also striving, with the National Union of Mineworkers, to reduce absenteeism, which is less now than it was a year ago. Many unjust things are said about the miners, but the vast majority of them are doing a splendid job, although there are still bad attendees. There are some pits in which absenteeism is much too high. As I have said before, I hope that the efforts of the National Coal Board and of the National Union of Mineworkers will together reduce absenteeism.

There are some other encouraging features about the manpower situation. The recruitment of juveniles this year is as much as it was last. The number of trained ex-miners who are coming back is greater. The quality of the men, thanks to the action of the National Coal Board, is constantly improving, and the rate of the fall of manpower is slowing down; indeed, if the present trend continues, the manpower may well be higher at the end of 1950 than the total forecast in the Economic Survey for the year. I believe that as time goes on, as the men gain confidence, we shall get more recruits, and as they form better habits attendance will improve.

No doubt it is said—it has often been said outside, "The National Coal Board have not won the confidence of the men; that is just the point. The National Coal Board are too remote, and that is why men are going and why attendance still leaves much to be desired." Of course their labour relations, as the Reid Report says, were the toughest problems they had to face, but I ask the House to consider what the National Coal Board have done to win the confidence of the men.

Health and safety have always been a grievous problem in the mine. We always thought that greater safety ought to be a natural by-product of nationalisation. I am not saying anything against the previous owners, but the National Coal Board are able to maintain a national safety service, and the best practices now spread quickly to other pits. Higher standards of scientific control are very easily applied. In fact, last year the figures of killed and seriously injured were a record low.

If over the last 11 years the figures of killed and seriously injured had been the same as they were last year, it is probable that there would be 4,000 to 5,000 more men in the pits today. As I have said, last year was a record low, and I am glad to be able to say that in the first half of 1950 there have been 40 fewer deaths and 100 fewer seriously injured than there were a year ago. Intensified large-scale work is going on to suppress dust diseases, and in due course results are sure to come.

The National Coal Board attach supreme importance to consultation. They have it at every level—national, divisional, area and pit. It is safe to say that it is more developed in British coal than in any other major industry in the world. Of course, consultation is patchy, but it has made great progress in the last 12 months. No one who sits and listens to the deliberations of a pit consultative committee can doubt that these committees have begun to play a tremendous part in bringing a new spirit into the mines.

The National Coal Board also attach supreme importance to miners' welfare. They have made a very deep impression on the miners by adding of their own free will 4d. per ton to the statutory penny for the Welfare Fund. They have relieved the Fund of the cost of pithead baths and already two-thirds of the miners have pithead baths. I believe that time will show that their ladder plan of education is, up to date, their most important single work.

I ask whether any of these things could have happened if coal had not been nationalised. Does anyone seriously believe that there would have been more manpower if the National Coal Board had not been in charge? The acid test of labour relations is the number of days lost by industrial disputes. The House knows the figures—on the average many millions every year for 20 years between the wars; 710,000 on the average from 1947 to 1949, and 110,000 only in the first six months of 1950.

I have tried to summarise the facts about the work of the National Coal Board, and to show, in particular, what they did in 1949. They have increased the output by nearly 30 million tons since 1945, and thereby saved us from disaster. They have raised the O.M.S. and the O.M.Y. They have begun the longterm task of capital investment which the Reid Report describes. They have made a profit on their last year's work. They have raised wages and done much more for welfare. They have sold their coal at reasonable prices. They have begun to reduce their costs. They have revolutionised the labour relations in the mines.

They have present anxieties—of course they have—but rising hopes. The number of students in the mining schools of the universities is double what it was. The miners feel that they are respected. The miners' wives are ready for their sons to follow in their fathers' footsteps and go down the pits. That is the greatest tribute to the National Coal Board, and it is the greatest guarantee for the future of British coal, and thereby, as I believe, for British leadership in world affairs.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

The Minister of Fuel and Power has done no service to the coal industry, or, indeed, to the public by dragging the old controversies of nationalisation into the day that was meant for the examination of the Annual Report of the Coal Board. We hoped that this Debate could have been conducted without reference either to private enterprise or to nationalisation. That hope has disappeared after the Minister's speech; nor has the Minister created a good precedent by speaking today as the proprietor of the Coal Board.

We are told that the Coal Board is set apart from party politics but about one-third of the Minister's speech was given over to party politics. If we are considering the Coal Board's Report, why should the Minister drag in his propaganda about nationalisation? It was the Minister's duty to present the Report and leave it to the House to discuss it. There are many hon. Members on both sides with a vast knowledge of the industry, who would like to discuss the Board's Report on its merits. They are not very interested in nationalisation or private enterprise: at least I hope they are not.

The Minister's speech makes it clear that he regards the Coal Board as his creature. It was a deeply disappointing speech. It ignored the grim facts of the present coal situation and flatly contradicted the very serious statement made by the Chairman of the Coal Board, Lord Hyndley. It was reeking in super-optimism and positive encouragement to elements of the National Union of Mineworkers, who are making heavy demands on the Coal Board now—demands that had been flatly rejected by Lord Hyndley and the Board. The unofficial strikers tomorrow will applaud the Minister's speech. He has done much disservice to the Board and to the coal industry.

The report of the Coal Board is a mine of information and a statist's paradise. If the Board could produce coal in quantity and quality equal to their statistics, how happy we should be on both sides of the House. The Report has been criticised because of its complacency. I admit that parts of it are complacent, but it contains much that must cause grave anxiety to considering persons. The Report only deals with the affairs of the industry in 1949. Whether the Board's Report was too complacent or not, there was nothing complacent about the statement made by Lord Hyndley on 30th April last, a statement, if I may remind the Minister, that was absolutely contradicted by him today.

What did Lord Hyndley say? Either we get more coal or the whole basis of British life may be threatened. Things can- not go on like this, and yet everything was good in the garden according to the Minister. Unless the coal industry does a great deal better than we are doing now the odds against Britain in the struggle for new prosperity will be lengthened.…. I doubt if the country realises the gravity of the position.…. It is time that the country realised the hard facts of the position. Would anyone listening to the Minister's speech today believe that it is likely to make the country realise the hard facts of the position?

In a speech at Llandudno last week, the former General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, now a member of the Coal Board, told the Miners' Conference that in the next five years they might have to face wage reductions in the coal industry. He also declared—as I think rightly—that the next 12 months or so might show a big change in the British coal industry's export position. We had nothing about the export position this afternoon from the Minister.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker

On the contrary, I specifically stated that world prices might come down.

Mr. Bracken

The Minister knows now that the Coal Board are anticipating a drop in exports next year, and reasons for that I shall give before I finish. To be fair to the Coal Board, there has been nothing complacent about the recent speeches of its members. On the contrary, one might almost say that they contained a strain of defeatism. Truly, the members of the Board are men of sorrow and acquainted with grief. Labour relations are becoming increasingly unhappy.

Mr. Noel-Baker indicated dissent.

Mr. Bracken

Does the Minister deny it?

Mr. Noel-Baker

Yes.

Mr. Bracken

Will the Minister get up and deny it?

Mr. Noel-Baker

Yes, of course I will. I said specifically that they are getting much better.

Mr. Bracken

That is why the redoubtable Mr. Homer, accompanied by the vice-president of his union, set out to try to get the Scottish miners to return to work. Of course, the Minister knows that labour relations are becoming increasingly unhappy.

Miss Jennie Lee (Cannock)

Who is controversial now?

Mr. Bracken

if that is regarded as a controversial remark, let me make a point which will be accepted on all sides of the House. Coal is dear, scarce, and dirty. I am glad to find such general agreement. Absenteeism, if the trade union leaders are to be regarded as reliable authorities, is a perpetual plague. The threat of foreign competition looms larger. The financial condition of the Board is precarious. The fact has been fully admitted by the Chairman that without charging higher prices to overseas customers, the Board would have made a heavy loss last year. Many other troubles afflict the National Coal Board, including the increasing desire of old customers to substitute oil for coal. The members of the Board have my sympathy. Job led a sheltered life by comparison with theirs.

The question we must ask ourselves today is what can be done to restore health to this industry, upon which Britain rose to industrial greatness. It is difficult indeed to answer this question and it will never be answered if we waste our energies now by arguing about the advantages or disadvantages of nationalistation. The moving finger has written and we accept that change. The coal industry must be salvaged quickly if Britain is to hold her own as a great industrial power. I doubt if it can ever be salvaged under the present constitution of the National Coal Board. This is no fault of the members of the Coal Board. They perhaps. like politicians, are not without their failings. The fault rests squarely on the politicians who hurriedly created the National Coal Board.

A few years ago Parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom but exercising its undoubted power, decreed "Let there be nationalisation." A Bill was all that was required to do the trick. Ministers, having got their Bill through Parliament, decreed "Let there be management." It is easy for politicians to produce Bills in abundance. Alas, we have not the same power to produce management. In fact, the Minister of Defence, the first holder of the office of Fuel and Power, has told us that when coal was nationalised no plan existed for the management of this vast and complicated industry.

We hold that the industry can never prosper under the rigid organisation laid down in the Act of nationalisation. This organisation may be described as the crudest of Heath Robinson machines. It is probably the worst example of over-centralisation known to man. A great part of the work now being so slowly and painfully done by the National Coal Board in London, ought, of course, to be dealt with in the areas. The regional boards are an absurd anomaly. The Minister might agree with me that they could be well described as a litter of bureaucracies. They are, in fact, mere power misers. They and the top-heavy National Coal Board are a big impediment to the management of the industry. We have constantly pressed for a sweeping measure of devolution in the management of the industry. I believe that many miners in this country share that belief, and so, I think, do a number of hon. Members opposite.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Blyton (Houghton-le-Spring)

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that devolution should be brought about, and that the area boards should go in for district competition such as we had before?

Mr. Bracken

If the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great regard as we had to sit together during our 72-hour deliberations on the Coal Bill, will only listen, he will discover what my plan is. We think that management should be vested in little more than a score of area boards which should have a large measure of home rule. Full executive power should be given to area general managers. The area boards suggested by us would be manageable units in which the badly- needed qualities of initiative and energy could be quickly discovered and encouraged. Of course, the area boards should be based upon the old producing districts of pre-nationalisation days.

I do not think that membership of the area boards should be in the patronage of the Minister of Fuel and Power, more particularly after hearing his speech this afternoon, or in the patronage of any Minister of Fuel and Power. Appointments should be made by a reformed Coal Board, after consultation with area interests. Area boards should be encouraged to co-opt—a power they have not now—the best men they can within their areas. This should lead to a fairly rapid promotion in all the areas and that would be a great encouragement to ability and energy. There is little encouragement to ability and energy under the present system.

By the transference of many of the present powers of the National Coal Board to area boards, Lord Hyndley and the Coal Board, would be freed from a mountain of detail and could give undivided attention to large issues of policy. The Coal Board should be responsible for financial supervision, for the creation of the reserves which are vitally necessary to the industry, and for the research upon which the future of the industry so greatly depends. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite will perhaps agree with me that the by-products of coal are at least as important as the article itself, but are not now being developed with sufficient vigour and imagination. The reason is that the National Coal Board are engaged in using reams, not to say miles, of paper.

Coal is the only great natural resource possessed by Britain. Let me say, by way of digression, how profligate we are in consuming it. A great deal of our coal production is wasted. It goes up in smoke which is harmful to the health and amenities of the land.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

Was not that wastage indiscriminate, uncontrolled and almost unnoticed for more than a century before nationalisation?

Mr. Bracken

Yes, but it is happening still under the wonderful auspices of the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Another important task for a reformed Coal Board is much wider medical research. Silicosis is a horrible disease, but if diagnosed early it can be cured. The recent advances in treatment are extremely encouraging. I know something about this matter in mining operations in other parts of the world, and I am surprised that a much greater drive has not been put behind the campaign against silicosis.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I should like to know the right hon. Gentleman's authority for the statement that silicosis can be cured in the early stages, if taken in time.

Mr. Bracken

My authority is that of a considerable number of persons whom I have seen and who might have died as a result of the disease had it not been checked early. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may take no interest in this matter, but I am pressing the necessity for the National Coal Board to study recent advances in treatment, because these are highly encouraging. A preliminary, or an essential, to this treatment is that every miner should be periodically X-rayed by the new and quite easily managed process worked successfully in the United States, South Africa, and other countries.

No effective reform of the constitution of the Coal Board can be made without re-defining its relationship with the Government. That indeed is made clear by the Minister's speech this afternoon. No one can pierce the mystery of the relationship between the Coal Board and the Minister of Fuel and Power. Ministers have power to give instructions to the Board and to influence the Board in many subtle ways. Today the Minister and the Board are sickly Siamese twins, and their relationship is altogether harmful to the mining industry. If Parliament agrees that it must face the fact that we must radically improve the constitution of the Coal Board, and must try to do so before the Labour relations become worse and before we price coal, and therefore many other British industries, out of old-established markets, one of its duties must be to make the Coal Board much more independent of Ministerial control or Ministerial blandishments.

Before I deal as quickly as I can with some of the important points in the Board's Report for 1949, I want once again to repeat that there is no use tinkering with the odd organisation so hurriedly created after the Act of nationalisation. I agree with Lord Hyndley that "things cannot go on like this," and with the statement of the Vice-Chairman of the National Coal Board, Sir Arthur Street, that "The Board is trying to make honey before properly building their hive." What an admission of the need for drastically reorganising the National Coal Board! Why, Lord Hyndley's speech and Sir Arthur Street's statement are far more severe condemnations of nationalisation than any thing ever said on this side of the House.

I want now to say a few words about output. This is a most important aspect of the coal industry. There is nothing encouraging in the Board's reference to output. Sad indeed is the recollection that output per man-year in 1939 was 302 tons, and 10 years later that is, last year—the output was 281 tons, despite the fact that during the last few years a great amount of labour-saving machinery has, to the great expense of the Board and the taxpayer, been installed in the mines.

Mr. Pryde (Midlothian and Peebles)

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many new pits were sunk in the 10 years?

Mr. Bracken

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to go on with my speech he will, I hope, have full opportunity to deal with that later.

Mr. James Glanville (Consett)

How does the taxpayer come into this? Is not the National Coal Board and the nationalised industry self-supporting?

Mr. Bracken

The Coal Board does not claim to be self-supporting at present because it still owes a large sum of money to the Treasury. Hon. Gentlemen must wait until that is paid off before they make any such declaration. The taxpayer has to stanch the losses of the Treasury.

The late Minister of Fuel and Power often said that output per man-year was not the best test. How often have we heard from the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of State for Economic Affairs that output per man-year is not really a good test. I think that at the time that he made that statement the National Coal Board probably agreed with him; at any rate, they did not dare dissent from him. We happen to hold that it is the best of all tests, and if we want any reinforcement for our opinion we can turn to the National Coal Board, for they have been converted to the merits of this test. In the version of their Report sent out to employees—not the one given to Members of Parliament—

Mr. Noel-Baker

Both have been sent to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Bracken

But both have not been sent to the miners.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Copies of the full Report have gone to all members of pit consultative committees.

Mr. Bracken

There are about 730,000 miners and I shall have a word to say about the consultative committees in a minute. I would remind the Minister that in the popular version of the Report, the following statement appears: The most important productivity figure of all is output per man year.… Here the record is not too good. I shall leave it at that.

Now I want to say a word about quality. I recognise that there has been some improvement in the quality of coal delivered to industry but it still abounds in dirt, slate and other strange stuff. The coal delivered to housewives is enough to break up or set on fire many a home. The best description which I have read of the coal delivered to British homes is to be found in a speech made last year by Mr. Thomas, the Board's deputy director of marketing. Mr. Thomas said: We are driven to send to the domestic market qualities we should never get accepted in normal times. We are doing our best to 'allocate' the inferior coals in fair proportions. What a tribute to the Coal Board!

Mr. Slater (Sedgefield)

It is fair shares for all.

Mr. Bracken

It is not fair shares for all; it is dirt and dust for all. I cannot better this description of the lot of British homes who must take the costly, ghastly coal produced by the Board.

The Minister made some very tactful —some people might have thought them disingenuous—references to prices this afternoon. I want now to deal with the home price policy of the Board. Some illuminating figures were given in another place by Lord Bilsland, an eminent Scottish industrialist known to many hon. Members, more particularly right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me when I say that there are few more public-spirited men in Scotland than Lord Bilsland, and that is saying a lot. I commend Lord Bilsland's authority to the House by reminding hon. Gentlemen opposite that he has been most worthily raised to the peerage by the present Prime Minister. Here is a quotation from a report of what Lord Bilsland has said about coal prices: The price, said Lord Bilsland, which the Scottish steel industry was asked to pay for coal delivered to the works during 1949 was 54s. 9d. per ton compared with 18s. 7d. per ton during 1939—that is, the price was nearly three times greater.

Mr. Blyton

But were the wages?

Mr. Bracken

What a handicap on British industry in the buyers' market ahead. The British housewife knows to her cost that she is equally at the mercy of the Coal Board's price policy. I should like the Minister to explain, if he can, the meaning of some of the broad hints which have been given by members of the Coal Board that the cost of domestic coal may again increase. Is there to be no end to this process of government monopolies pushing up the cost of living? Today the consumer has no protection against nationalised monopolies who can conceal their lack of managerial skill or their desire to appease the more extreme elements in the unions by remorselessly raising their prices against the customer. the customer being the British industrialist and the British housewife; indeed, the whole British public, for unfortunately we are all the compulsory customers of the Coal Board. The Minister made some reference to consumers' councils, and pointed with some pride to his litter of consumers' councils as protectors—

Mr. Noel-Baker

I was talking about the consultative committees between the Coal Board and the miners for consultation on the conduct of the industry.

Mr. Bracken

I am glad to hear from the Minister that he admits that the consumers' councils are not even worth while mentioning in his speech. I think he was absolutely right. As protectors of the consumer, consumers' councils are about as effective as ageing rabbits whose teeth have been pulled out by the Minister of Health in person.

Now I shall ask a question to which I shall provide the answer. Who appoints the consumers' councils, which were described by the predecessor of the Minister as the public's only protector against the price policies of his own Department and his hand-picked nominees on the Coal Board? "Alice in Wonderland" contains nothing so wonderful as these Government contraptions called consumers' councils. Who, do hon. Members think, adorns the centre of the two most important consumers' councils that were created for their independence of the Coal Board and for their force in ventilating the grievances of the consumers to the Coal Board? None other than the Vice-Chairman of the National Coal Board, Sir Arthur Street That is a fine consultative council.

These farcical consumers' councils should be ended and replaced by a really independent and effective body modelled on the Transport Tribunal. The Transport Tribunal is an inheritance, and a good one, from the reign of Queen Victoria. [Laughter.] Yes, indeed. it has been a great help to the travelling public and has exercised some real authority over the railways in the past and under nationalisation.

Now I want to say something about consumption. All I need say about the cheap and abundant coal promised by the nationalisers is to read an extract from a speech made by the Chairman of the Scottish Division of the Coal Board: Domestic consumers are still making do with an amount which I believe would have been described before the war as impossibly inadequate Could you find a worse condemnation of the Coal Board than that made by its Scottish Divisional Chairman? The Minister talked a good deal about exports —[An HON. MEMBER: "You said he did not"] Wait a minute. The Minister talked a good deal about exports, about the success of the Coal Board in maintaining what he called fair prices. It all depends on what he calls a fair price. I say this about the export policy of the Coal Board. Alas, how many golden opportunities have been missed during the last three years. During this century Britain exported annually about three times as much coal as we exported last year. What a deterioration in our affairs. And we are still casting away opportunities that may never recur.

Today's "Times"—a paper not particularly unfriendly to the Government —contains another warning of our folly in disappointing foreign customers. It says that allocations of definite quantities of coal to be shipped by particular dates have not been fulfilled. It goes on to say that British ships, which could have carried coal, have been sent from this country in ballast. In the absence of British coal cargoes, some of our ships have been able to go Rotterdam, there to load German coal for Italy and other destinations. I could give many examples to supplement that statement made in "The Times" of the failure of Britain to supply good export markets. The world is full of disillusioned consumers of the National Coal Board, people who have been allowed to believe that they could expect deliveries of coal and have not got them. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies tonight, will tell us exactly what the Government of Eire said about the promises of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Murray (Durham, North-West)

Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? Paragraph 251 of the Report, which is what we are discussing I understand, says definitely: In 1949 three million tons more coal were exported than in 1948, and there had to be more sampling and analysis of cargoes at the docks. In the Northern Division 1,500 cargoes of coal were tested, compared with 1,000 in 1948. In the South-Western Division 900 cargoes were tested—double the number in 1948; some 140 cargoes of patent fuel were sampled also. There were few complaints from foreign buyers about the quality of the coal they received.

Mr. Bracken

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he does not appear to have taken in what I have been trying to point out, that our coal exports in 1949 were nearly 200 per cent. lower than they were in the average annual exportation of this century.

Mr. Murray

All I was wanting to raise with the right hon. Gentleman was that there are few complaints from foreign buyers, which is the opposite of what he was saying.

Mr. Bracken

Perhaps in a few moments the hon. Gentleman will quote another part of the Report to show that the coal exports in 1948 were better than in 1947 when we had the famous Shinwell freeze-out. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would take some interest in the fact that we are grossly failing to supply former good export markets. Today we are positively advantaging our German, Polish and other competitors. We are giving them their opportunity, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are supporting the Government in that policy. Was there ever such industrial folly?

We are handing over well-tried, old-established markets to competitors and it will be exceedingly hard to regain them. Let me say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that many miners who sent hon. Gentlemen to this House will resent the kind of interruption made by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray). Apparently it does not matter if the Germans and the Poles have a better opportunity of taking our markets away—

Mr. Murray

There was unemployment because the markets went in 1920.

Mr. Bracken

We must expect lively competition not only from European exporters but also from Commonwealth countries like South Africa, which can produce clean coal at a cost that can be said to compete with British prices even though the coal must be brought 6,000 miles by sea. I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite to weigh well the dangers of our present situation. By failing to produce enough coal we are gradually helping our competitors, and the day will come when the miners will rue that policy.

Now I want to say a word or two on the Minister's remarks about mechanisation, which were extremely interesting. As a matter of fact, only last Monday the right hon. Gentleman spoke rapturously of a new all-British machine, the Sampson stripper, which, he declared, would win 100,000 tons of coal a year with only five men at the face—

Mr. Noel-Baker

Five men on the machine.

Mr. Bracken

I am quoting from the newspapers.

Mr. Noel-Baker

It was a slip in the newspapers. It was my fault. I let it go out in the wrong form. It was five men on the machine and 30 at the face.

Mr. Bracken

I am sorry this is another "plot" story—

Mr. Noel-Baker

—It was my fault.

Mr. Bracken

—but this statement comes from a handout to the Press. How long are we to go on with Ministers who, when they are proved to have been wrong in their public statements, cast the blame on the Press?

Mr. Noel-Baker

The right hon. Gentleman really must allow me to say that I have just said, that it was entirely my fault. The handout did say "at the face"; it should have said "on the machine." I have given the House the proper figures this afternoon.

Mr. Bracken

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I very much hope that he will shortly be transferred to the War Office in order to set a good example to other Ministers.

The Minister also declared that in time 40 million tons could be won by this machine with a labour force of only 4,000. That is fine news, and we on all sides ought to rejoice to hear it. Will the Minister now tell us whether the unions have agreed to work the Sampson stripper and the other labour-saving machinery which he mentioned? Have they agreed to work it all out?

Mr. Noel-Baker

Yes, they have agreed to work every machine that is being worked and to carry forward every experiment that is being made.

Mr. Bracken

Full out?

Mr. Noel-Baker

Yes, full out.

Mr. Bracken

This is the best news we have had for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheer up."] It means, of course, a complete reversal of the mulish attitude of many in the mining industry to mechanisation.

Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any one occasion when the miners refused to work improved machinery in the mines if the conditions were commensurate with the safety required to work that machine?

Mr. Bracken

I cannot answer that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh:]— unless the hon. Member will give me a specific instance.

Mr. Brown

The right hon. Gentleman made a general statement. On that I have questioned whether he could give to the House any date or time when the miners refused to operate any machine, provided that safety conditions were what they desired.

Mr. Bracken

I am going to make an assertion that will anger the hon. Gentleman even more. During the last few years vast sums have been spent on mechanising mines and, alas, many of these costly machines have not been fully worked. Does the Minister deny that?

Mr. Noel-Baker

Yes, I do.

Mr. Bracken

With the authority of the Coal Board?

Mr. Noel-Baker

Yes.

Mr. Bracken

Good. We shall read some supplementary corrections tomorrow.

Has the Minister at last obtained a clear understanding from the unions to put an end to restrictive practices? I ask the House to note the statements by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. He tells us that the unions—the National Union of Mineworkers and others—in the industry have now agreed to abolish all restrictive practices. [An HON. MEMBER: "He never said that."] It is well within the recollection of the House that he did, and I must say that this is a tremendous reform. How delighted we are—[An HON. MEMBER: "You look it."]—and I hope that every other industry will follow suit, because there have been too many men with Luddite views in the coal and other industries.

Mr. Padley (Ogmore)

On the owners' side.

Mr. Bracken

I hope that the hon. Member will have the chance to make a speech later on. I have some sympathy with the attitude of some miners to restrictive practices which have now, happily, been abolished by the Ministers, —a masterly development. I beg of them, however, to remember that the machine is the friend of man, and, above all, of the miner. It is his best means of maintaining and expanding his standard of living, as American workers have abundantly proved.

Lord Hyndley was right when he said that for lack of coal the whole basis of English life may be threatened. Workers in our export industries will suffer unless we produce plentiful coal at reasonable prices, and the workers that will suffer most are the miners themselves, for they have most at stake. I wish that some of them showed a greater awareness of this and I wish that the National Coal Board had been more successful in proving it to them. Windy exhortations from the headquarters of the National Coal Board, over-looking Buckingham Palace Gardens, merely irritate the miners. The miners are fed to the teeth with exhortations. The best way of securing cooperation from the miners is to give them opportunities for contact with a boss they can see. [Laughter] Is the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, laughing?

Mr. Murray

The miner lost that a long time since.

Mr. Bracken

What an attack on the officials of the National Coal Board! The hon. Member had better be careful or he may lose the Whip. The mandarins in Hobart House and on the regional boards are about as well known to most miners as the Lama of Tibet.

To sum up, the management of this great industry should be brought nearer to the pits, and this can be done only by a radical devolution of responsibilities from the National Coal Board and the regional boards—the latter litter, of course, should be abolished—to manageable areas. Until this is done, there can be no health in the industry.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Henry White (Derbyshire, North-East)

It is only on rare occasions, Mr. Speaker, that I try to catch your eye. This afternoon, once more in the history of this Parliament, we have had the pleasure and the entertainment of listening to the right hon. Member for Bourne mouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). He has come into the fray once more with a bladder and a feather. He has lambasted the Coal Board with the bladder and he has tried to tickle the Minister with the feather. If he were as tricky with his feet as he is with his tongue, then in the theatrical world he would be billed as a "terpsichorean eccentric." In the coal mining villages of Derbyshire we have a quaint saying which goes something like this: If there wasn't such as him, there wouldn't be all sorts. This afternoon the right hon. Member has made the charge that the Minister in his speech, which the right hon. Member described as almost a recitation of the Report, had done no service to the Coal Board. I have listened many times and in many Committees to the right hon. Member and to no one connected with any nationalised undertaking has he at any time done any service. Then the right hon. Gentleman made the inference that we on this side are this afternoon interested in the Report, and not in nationalisation. Friends and foes.—

Mr. Bracken

And Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. White

There is no reflection on Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Let me say this, if any one is grateful for the intrusion of nationalisation, it is not only the miners and their wives in the mining villages, but also tradesmen and everyone connected with village life. Since 1942 the same story about ugly relationships in the coal mining industry have been repeated from the other side of the House while all the time we of the industry have been trying our best to get a better state of affairs in the industry than existed when I was in it many years ago. When hon. Members opposite make these charges against us we are ready to refute them.

I have not time to cover all the points made by the right hon. Member, but I honestly think the charge of absenteeism, 'which everyone regrets is happening to the present extent, should be answered. The local officials in the N.U.M., the Minister and the Coal Board regret it, but it is surprising that there should be this keen interest in absenteeism in this House when the figures have gone up and down over the years and when even while the Minister was discussing this Report there were not more than 25 to 30 hon. Members opposite who thought fit to be here to listen. On the question of output, I ask the right hon. Member, if he is definite that that is the determining factor, would he suggest we should do away with the five-day week, because there has been an increased output per man-shift during the last few years.

Mr. Bracken

I was quoting the statement made by the Coal Board and that question, therefore, should be addressed to the Coal Board which, no doubt, will give the hon. Member an answer. I have no responsibility for the Coal Board; I would clean it up pretty quickly if I had.

Mr. White

It is a fact that on many occasions that point has been put forward from hon. Members opposite, but we maintain developments are going in the right direction now we have arrived at the point where there is increased output per man-shift.

There are many features of the Report which give us pleasure, especially those of us in the coal mining community. The Minister mentioned that a further £4 million had been set aside for increased provision for workmen's compensation. This has come about through a rearrangement of the affairs of the industry because the liability took place between the vesting day and the passing of the 1948 Act. We in the industry are glad of that and we are also pleased that in the Report it is proved that output has gone up by five million tons more than in 1948. The output per man-shift at the coal face and overall is above pre-war level and that is something of which we ought to be proud. The Minister also mentioned the rising cost. We are also justly proud that that has been stayed although only to the extent of 6d. a ton.

My right hon. Friend mentioned that capital expenditure was to the tune of £31 million in improvements and additions against £25 million in 1948. The Board report that they earmarked £63 million for new projects. I maintain that, while that is enterprising to a degree, it is not sufficiently enterprising in view of what the industry has to face in the future. We are pleased with the exploration work; only a nationalised body could have undertaken the huge number of borings which have taken place during this one year. That is an expensive job and I am glad that the industry have been able to face up to it. One regrets that, though 50-odd Meco-Moore machines have been installed, they cannot be in- stalled in every seam and it is hoped that there will be that drive and initiative through the Coal Board to increase the numbers as far as possible, so that productivity can increase.

I was interested and pleased with the report of the Board's scientific control and research department. They are doing a good job and everyone will be glad if they can obviate those features in mining which have caused so much trouble, distress and suffering, by continuing to work in collaboration with the hospitals, universities and so forth.

One feature in the Report which can- not be buried by a flow of words is that whilst the Report showed that at the coal face we lost only something like 2,200 workers, there has been a considerable deterioration up to date. There is the consolation of knowing that during the period covered by this Report the fall was only to the extent of that figure. We must have regard to the fact, how- ever, that we are already on the slope, and that manpower is not being sufficiently maintained to meet the industry's requirements, in spite of the fact that the statement is made that the transfer and upgrading of men in the industry and the re-orientation of manpower has been such as to enable output to be maintained at the figure of the last 12 months.

The manpower position today is even worse, because at the beginning of this year there were 293,600 men at the coal face and at 1st July only 288,400. That is a loss of 5,200 men at the coal face compared with last year's figure, which in turn showed a loss on the corresponding figure for October, 1948. That is a serious position and something must be done about it, because this is a great industry. It is the foundation of the economic life of this land, and its future ought to have the interest and keen attention of everybody in this country, not only that of every Member of Parliament. Something must be done to meet this situation. I have on many occasions referred to my affinity to this industry, as a miner who spent 40 years in two pits, and who has at times in the past heard with regret the sneering of the other side about our efforts. I do not wish to introduce references to the bitterness and sourness that existed in the industry in bygone years; that does no good to the industry or those engaged in it.

When I entered this House, it was; stated that I was the only Member on this side of the House who had a son in the pit. That was our feeling towards the industry in those days. Today wages are good and the men can keep their sons out of the pit, a different state of affairs altogether from that which existed in the old days, when we did not want them to go into the mines. In these circumstances something must be done to make this industry attractive. Our recovery and our future depends upon it and upon the men who enter it. It is not just a question of wages. Something more must be done, and the nation, not merely the Coal Board, must take responsibility for that.

I suggest to the Minister that he should ask the Board to be more careful in applying their concentration schemes and to be more considerate to the victims of redundancy, because we are getting many complaints from the various areas where that takes place. Above all—I do not intend to go into the details of these suggestions at this hour—we must press on with safety measures, aids to health, and last but not least, with a scheme which, no matter what it is called, will compensate for the shortened productive life of the miner, even if it means the giving of a differential pension to those engaged in this hazardous industry.

5.25 p.m.

Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead)

We have all listened with interest and appreciation to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Henry White). He has worked in the pits himself and really knows what he is talking about. I appreciate what he said about not referring too, much to the bitterness of the past, and I shall try in my speech to keep to the present. I wish to declare the floating interest which I always declare in matters to do with coal.

The Minister spoke of dissatisfaction in the country about the work of the Coal Board. His own action in spending 34 minutes out of the 35 minutes he spoke, in defending it, was to my mind the best. proof of the dissatisfaction there must be. Qui s'excuse s'accuse. "Who excuses himself is accusing himself also "I felt that throughout his speech. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Manvers Company. I am sure he did not wish to be unfair, but he gave an example which suggested that the directors of Manvers in the past had never done anything in the matter to which he referred. I am quite certain that he did not mean that, but it is how it must have sounded to many people. Manvers were actually a very modern colliery. I believe that they had skip-winding there before anyone else had it. The N.C.B. spent money to develop Barnborough Pit in order to draw through it coal from another pit, Wath, which was never actually in the possession of Manvers. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to be unfair.

Mr. Noel-Baker

That is exactly why I quoted that example—because it was the reorganisation of two pits together to give a better result than could be obtained from them separately.

Colonel Clarke

But inadvertently the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the former owners of Manvers had not done something which in fact they could not have done.

Mr. Noel-Baker

That is the point I was trying to make, that they could not have done it.

Colonel Clarke

It is not only from people on this side of the House that criticism comes. The other day I was reading again a Fabian pamphlet by Mr. Cole in which he did not appear to be at all satisfied. These criticisms are coming from all sides.

I wish to turn to a more detailed examination of the Report, and to refer first to houses. They are referred to on page 172 of the Annual Report. I am rather distressed to see that the Report devotes only 14½ lines to colliery houses. It states that there are 141,000 colliery houses, and that many of the houses are old and in poor condition.… Many of us would have liked to have heard a little more about what is being done to try to improve those houses. I believe that an improvement of them could be a great step towards improving relations in the coalfields.

I next turn to a matter which is somewhat akin, namely, estates and farms.

Only a little over three-and-a-half lines are devoted to this subject. I understand that the Coal Board are the owners of more than 60,000 acres of land in this country. The only reference in the Report to this subject is that during the last year the net revenue increased by £23,000. I believe that there must have been a net profit of about 30s. per acre.

I should like to know what, if anything, was put back into the land? To take all that out of the land and put nothing back is not good landlordship, if I may coin a word. That leads one to the suspicion which many people have that much of this land is held only in order to prevent there being trouble from the farmers over matters of subsidence. I believe much of it is derelict and water-logged because it is not being farmed properly. I think it should be handed over to the Ministry of Agriculture who have facilities not available to the Coal Board.

An interesting business is being built up between the nationalised coal industry and the Forestry Commission. I have asked a number of Questions of the Ministry of Agriculture on the subject and I have had answers. The Coal Board, of course, are the great unquestionable. One cannot get any answers from them, and therefore I would take this chance of asking three questions on the matter of pit props. Are we still importing pit props or are home supplies sufficient? If we are importing them where are they coming from and how does the price compare with the price paid for home-grown pit props.

I should like to know the price as at the colliery siding. I hope no favour is being given to the Forestry Commission over private growers in the matter of pit props, because if it is it is very wrong. I would remind hon. Members that the whole future of British forestry depends very much on the production of pit props. Pit props take the thinnings and without taking thinnings we shall never have big timber.

A matter which is not referred to in the Report but which is really relevant to the whole future of the coal industry is the attitude of the National Coal Board towards the Schuman Plan. The steel masters have made their position clear, and I shall not refer to that because in doing so I should be out of order. But from the Coal Board we have heard nothing at all. If we asked them, I think the sort of answer we should receive would be, "We are not prepared at present to say anything either for or against the Schuman Plan. Our overseas negotiating Committee is watching the matter carefully. We shall be prepared to consider the matter sympathetically when we know what it is all about." That of course is the answer of a Government Department, and it does not carry us very much further. But I think it only fair to this country in which one of the greatest industries is the production of coal that they should know more about the attitude of the National Coal Board to the Schuman Plan.

On page 9 of the report under the heading of "Planning for the Future" mention is made of the future demand for coal in the different markets at home and overseas. There are one or two things which occur to the outside observer who thinks about the future of coal exports because certain trends are definitely showing themselves. For instance, countries that were purely coal importing countries in the past, and hardly produced any coal at all, are now waking up and producing coal themselves. Spain is producing nearly double the amount that she produced befo