HC Deb 15 November 1932 vol 270 cc931-4
43. Mr. MARTIN

asked the Secretary for Mines if he will request the Central Council set up under the 1930 Mines Act to make a report to him within a specified time as to the way in which the quota and minimum price restrictions are operating in the inland and exporting districts, respectively, and as to whether the restrictions are being properly observed; and whether any action should be taken to increase the volume of exports of coal from this country?

Mr. E. BROWN

The Central Council and the District Executive Boards furnish me with a quarterly report on the working of the schemes, on which the three reports already presented to Parliament have been based. A report covering the first three quarters of this year is now in course of preparation and I hope to publish it before the end of the year. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that possible action which might be taken by the Coal Industry is under the active consideration of the Central Council and the District Executive Boards.

Mr. MARTIN

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there have been any official complaints about the working of Part 1 of the Act of 1930 on the lines of those which have appeared widespread in the Press?

Mr. BROWN

The answer is that, of course, there is machinery under the Act for complaints to be made, but up to the moment very few have been made. There is one particular case, I understand, now connected with the Wemyss Colliery which will be sub judice, because I believe a co-operative society have laid a complaint.

Miss WARD

Is there any difference in the tonnage allocated by the Central Council to the respective districts and the tonnage worked by the respective districts?

Mr. BROWN

In every quarter since the regulation of output has been in force there has been a very large gap between allocation and coal output in practically every exporting district.

Miss WARD

With regard to the complaint about minimum prices, may I also ask whether the reduction of minimum prices is not in the hands of the coal-owners in the respective districts?

Mr. BROWN

Of course, the coal-owners are responsible for operating the Act, and I would point out that some of the complaints as to evasion are complaints as to evasion not altogether of the letter of the law but of its spirit.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE

In view of the numerous complaints against the working of Part 1 of the Coal Mines Act, will my hon. Friend advise the Government to undertake its repeal?

Mr. BROWN

I should be unwise to do any such thing until I have received from those responsible for the working of the Act a full statement of their views. I may add that I have had every letter written in the Press and every supplementary question put in the House analysed and I find that there are a good many errors of fact in them, and in addition to that it is not always easy to distinguish between assertion and fact.

44. Mrs. WARD

asked the Secretary for Mines how many amalgamation schemes have been effected under Part II of the Coal Mines Act; and what has been the total cost to the Exchequer?

Mr. BROWN

Seven amalagamation schemes have been effected since the passing of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. The total cost of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission up to 31st October, 1932, has been £36,570, but the work of the Commission has, of course, covered a much wider field than that affected by the schemes mentioned.

52. Mrs. WARD

asked the Secretary for Mines if there has been any unemployment as a result of amalgamations under Part III of the Coal Mines Act; and, if so, how much?

Mr. BROWN

No pits have been permanently closed under any of the amalgamation schemes effected since the setting up of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, and the information at my disposal indicates that the total volume of employment has not been materially affected.

54. Mr. MARTIN

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the House information of any cases which have come to his notice showing that the operation of the Mines Act of 1930 has so restricted the expansion of a colliery company's undertakings that miners are thrown out of employment; and will he state whether his Department is possessed of information showing that in such cases there would be a market for the coal that such concerns might raise if they were not restricted by the provisions of the 1930 Mines Act?

Mr. BROWN

I have seen references in the Press and elsewhere to cases in which it is alleged that the expansion of a colliery company's undertakings has been restricted owing to the operation of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, but I have no information to show that the output of the country as a whole would be increased if the undertakings were not subject to the provisions of the Act.

Mr. MARTIN

Is it not a fact that in many of the cases which have received publicity in the Press there is a complete mis-statement of fact, and that there is a surplus quota which has not been disposed of?

Mr. BROWN

The productive capacity of the industry is still greatly in excess of the present demand. The fact is, that with one or two exceptions, the allocations on the whole have exceeded the permitted output.

Mr. MARTIN

Is it not a fact that the very people who protest in the Press against the Act of 1930 are the very people who are responsible for administering the Act?

Mr. BROWN

The coal-owners of the country, of course, are responsible. Such evasions as occur—a grave matter—are mainly evasions of the spirit rather than the letter of the Act.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON

Cannot the Government give a lead in this matter?