NEW CLAUSE.—(Sinking or opening of new mines.) (Hansard, 30 March 1938)

§ Mr. Bevan
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the new Clause is to give to the Coal Commission extended powers of control over mining industry development. The main result would be to convert the Commission from a passive to an active factor in the organisation of the coal industry. Under the powers proposed to be given to them by the Bill, the Commission will have no right of control or direction of the mining industry; it will have such rights only in areas where coal is not yet proved and where coal may subsequently be proved. Most coal undertakings where coal has been proved have already entered into contracts with the mineral owners, which give them the right to exploit the coal, subject to certain conditions. All that happens under the Bill with respect to that position is that those private contracts will remain untouched. The Coal Commission will become the owners of the coal in place of those who now own it, and those who now own it and those to whom it has been leased will be in full enjoyment of the rights which at the moment they enjoy. The Bill does not set aside any of those rights, so that if a colliery owner wishes to sink a pit, in accordance with the rights he has already obtained, from the mineral owner, the Coal Commission will not have the power to refuse him the right to sink the pit, although the Commission will be the owners of the coal which it is proposed to work.
It is an argument for the national ownership of minerals in this country that these powers should be obtained, because by making one owner in place of a large number it would normally result in a more intelligent and more co-ordinated development of the coal industry. Under the Bill no change will be made in the situation. The Coal Commission will have no right of guiding the development of the coal industry. They will merely have to sit down passively, and they can exercise the rights of control only where some area is proved to have coal and it is not known to have coal now. There may be some instances where existing coal undertakings have not obtained from the mineral owners the right to develop their undertakings. Even where that is not so, those instances will probably be ended before 2043 the Bill becomes law, because it will be to the advantage of such colliery undertakings to make contracts with the mineral owners so that they will not be subject to any restrictions when the Coal Commission enter into possession of the coal.
As I have already indicated, the Coal Commission, under the Bill as it stands, will have no power of direction over the coal industry of Great Britain. That is almost weirdly anomalous, because in the Preamble of the Bill one finds that one of its purposes is: for empowering the Commission to promote a reduction in the number of coal-mining undertakings. The Bill gives the Commission power to reduce the number of undertakings but does not give them the power to prevent an increase in the number of coal mines. That is an absurd position. If the coal industry had had a separate government some years ago some of the coal-fields which now exist would not have been permitted to be set up. The Kent coal-field would not have been permitted. Some of the developments in the newer coalfields would have been postponed, because many new collieries which are coming into production are having the effect of prematurely and often uneconomically closing undertakings which have not yet been fully developed. That is the case in Durham, in South Wales and in some parts of Scotland where the existing coal undertakings, for a variety of reasons, because they are not in the position to raise new money in the market, because they cannot re-equip their undertakings, have been forced out of production before the coal has been properly exhausted, and also because of the competition from powerful new units which have come into existence in places like Yorkshire and the Notts coal-fields.
I should have thought that we would have had the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House in connection with the new Clause, because it would give to the Coal Commission the power to say to a coal company: "We do not think it is desirable in the national interest that this new pit should be sunk, because it will have the effect of increasing the supply of coal from this part of the country, to the detriment of the supply of coal in another part of the country, where coal measures are not yet 2044 exhausted and which could adequately supply the market." The new Clause would bring about an orderly and economic exhaustion of the coal deposits of Great Britain and would introduce some measure of central control in place of the anarchic developments which are taking place. This country has been wantonly prodigal in regard to its coal resources, at the cost of the development of the coal industry, and the coalowners have been criminally responsible in the way in which coal measures have been developed.
Hon. Members who have had experience of coal mining know that every month, every week, every day millions of tons of coal are being buried in the waste, in the gob, because the coalowners have not been prepared to make intelligent wage agreements with their men. When I was working in the pit I was ordered to throw into the gob or the waste tons of coal of a kind which at this moment is making 11s., 12s. and up to 14s. a ton and more from the steel makers. This sort of thing is still going on in our collieries. In the actual working of the coal mines the colliery owners who are, under private enterprise, the stewards and guardians of this valuable national property, are not developing it in the national interest but have been responsible for the irretrievable waste of thousands of millions of tons of coal. Therefore, in the development of the coal industry, in the relations between colliery and colliery and between coalfield and coalfield, they cannot be trusted to see that the coal measures are adequately exploited.
There is not one hon. Member who is prepared to contend that there exists any body not only with power but with even interest to bring about an orderly development of the coal industry of this country. If you are to make this Bill effective, if you are to make any real stride forward in the scientific organisation of the coal industry, some central body will have to be given the power of co-ordinating development, and there is no body more fit to do that than the body to which you are entrusting the ownership of mineral resources under this Bill. These men when they are appointed will be assumed by the Act to have all the technical and commercial knowledge necessary for the discharge of this function. They are 2045 asked by the duties imposed upon them to use their powers in regard to the coal industry, having the national well-being in mind; but the powers they will be given will be hopelessly insufficient to enable them to discharge that task.
There will be hon. Members who will say that this new Clause is a grave limitation of private rights, that colliery owners have acquired their rights in the coal and that this will be a grave limitation of those rights. There is no body of private owners in Great Britain who ought to be readier to submit to limitations of their private rights than the coalowners. There is no body of property owners who have inflicted more damage on the national interests by an irresponsible exercise of their rights, and there is no body of property owners who are enjoying more advantage than the coal-owners from concessions made by this House, and who will do so by the powers contained in this Bill. We are conferring upon them monopoly rights. They have to a large extent the coal-consuming public in their power, subject to certain safeguards, which hon. Members know are not sufficient. If the colliery owners are going to enjoy those monopoly rights it is reasonable to ask that in return for them they should surrender some of their individual property rights, especially when it can be shown that such a surrender is in the public interest.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give to our proposal a more satisfactory reply than he was able to give when we discussed it in Committee. As things stand at the moment from the point of view of the development of the coal industry, the Bill is absolutely valueless. The central ownership of minerals in Great Britain will have no advantage at all unless these additional powers are conferred upon the Coal Commission. It is very doubtful, unless there comes a change of Government, whether we shall have any further coal legislation for some considerable time, because; these big Measures do not arise for years. This is, therefore, the last opportunity we shall have of arming the Coal Commission with some means of intelligently controlling a great industry, of conserving for the community very valuable national wealth, and trying to bring order into an industry the control of which is anarchic, and which is in the hands of people who have never been able to develop for themselves 2046 that co-operative technique which is necessary to an orderly development of the coal industry.

§ Mr. James Griffiths
I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has moved the new Clause in a most lucid speech, but, as a Welshman, I must call his attention to an omission which I am sure is not intentional, and that is that the country which he and I represent is omitted from the new Clause. Wales is not quite a part of England yet, because we have our own language and characteristics. The new Clause, in our opinion, is essential if the Bill is to give to the Commission powers which it should have to plan the mining industry for the future. When we considered the Bill in Committee I said that the Government ought not to let the Bill go through as it was drafted; otherwise we were legislating to give the Commission power to go about the country closing mines without having power to open new mines. I said that we were giving the Commission power to go about the country depriving people of their livelihood. They have the power, under certain safeguards, to close pits, and the argument put forward is that it is essential that this industry, which has suffered for generations and particularly since the end of the War from individualism and disastrous competition, should be subject to some control. On that the industry is agreed; and we have, therefore, set up the Coal Commission with wide powers to control the industry.
We are making coal the property of the nation and the working of the coal subject to the control of the Commission. If that is the intention of the Government and Parliament, how can it be suggested that the Commission shall plan the industry unless it has a power to open new pits, the power to determine where a new pit shall be opened? Actually we are proposing that the power to open new mines shall be controlled by the Commission who will be responsible to the nation, and whose guiding principle will be the public interest. There is not much power to open new pits at the present time. Under existing legislation the coalowners can prevent a new pit being opened. If there is a body of men who think that a new pit should be opened they apply for a quota, and the owners can refuse to 2047 give them a quota. It is true that there is a right of appeal to arbitration, but, generally speaking, the coalowners, with all their powers, can prevent the opening of a new pit. If that power exists we suggest that the power to determine whether a new pit-shaft shall be sunk should be in the hands of the Commission, who will at all times consult the interests of the industry as a whole.
I do not think there is much likelihood of new areas of coal being discovered. The new pits which will be opened will be in existing areas, and we know from our experience that when new pits are opened they affect existing collieries, particularly the smaller collieries. It may be argued that in the interests of the industry it is better that the production of coal should be concentrated in the hands of larger bodies, rather than in a large number of small pits. That may be a good argument, but when new pits are sunk they are bound to affect the small collieries, and we think that the decision should not be left entirely to private enterprise, but should be in the hands of the Commission. We are hoping that the Commission will introduce some sense and plan into the mining industry, and that it will use its power to close collieries with a good deal of discretion and realise all the social implicatons which follow the closing of a pit. At the same time we believe that the Commission should be given these added powers and that the future development of the industry, the planning of new pits, should be in the hands of the Commission. Without these new powers the Bill will not do much for the future development of the industry.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
I hope the Government will not accept this new Clause. It is a little surprising that although it has been drafted by two Welsh Members they have been so careless in the drafting that they have left out their own country. I have always understood that the word "England" included Wales—[Interruption]—and apparently the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was under the same misapprehension. The new Clause is based on the assumption that this magic Commission is in the long run wiser than the people who have for years examined the circumstances in 2048 which they have to trade, and who come to the conclusion that here or there is the right place to open a new pit.

§ Mr. Bevan
They do not open new pits. What body exists in Great Britain which is able to take into account the considerations which the hon. Member suggests?

§ Mr. Williams
The people who take the decision are inspired by their own selfish interests, and I contend that that is a much better guide than any considerations which will influence the Coal Commission. I am not a supporter of the Coal Commission. I do not like any part of Part I, and if hon. Members opposite want to make it worse surely I can join the Government in resisting a proposal which does make the Bill worse. I do not think these commissions are ever a success. I do not know one example of Government rationalisation which has succeeded.

§ Mr. Bevan
The Post Office.

§ Mr. Williams
That is a monopoly which does not allow anybody to compete. Fifty years ago the London District Messenger Service was set up to carry our letters for a halfpenny, but the Post Office would not allow it.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
Will not the coalmining industry be a monopoly too?

§ Mr. Williams
I agree, and that is what I object to. I have been consistent. I have opposed Part I, Part II and Part III, and hon. Members are proposing a new Clause which makes the Bill even worse.

§ Mr. Bevan
It means the control of a monopoly.

§ Mr. Williams
This is not the control of a monopoly. It becomes stronger certainly, so far as the monopoly is vested in the Coal Commission. If the new Clause is passed a large number of people will be able to exercise their own decision as to whether they will or will not start a pit in a particular spot. I believe in the long run, that individuals who know the circumstances of the trade, who know the markets in which they will seek for their trade, will come to a much better decision than an autocratic Commission sitting in London. The hon. and learned Member opposite gave us one example of such a commission which he said had proved successful.

§ Sir S. Cripps
I said there were lots of others. There is the Port of London Authority.

§ Mr. Williams
The hon. and learned Member took the one which he thought was the best, and as that is not a very good one he now chooses another. I cannot chase him all round the place while he makes up his mind. What evidence is there that this kind of control has ever resulted in success? Imagine what will happen. You have a district where a coalowner desires to sink a new pit in a place where existing pits are being worked out. For some reason the Commission denies that coalowner the right to open the new pit. You can visualise cases where the Commission will say, "No, you must not open a new pit here." In such a case employment is going to be denied to a particular area because in the judgment of the Commission it is better to stimulate employment in another area. That is the kind of thing which will arise, and you will have every conceivable kind of trouble. Are we going to be in a position to interrogate some Minister with regard to the act of the Commission in refusing to give permission to sink a new pit? We have enough trouble now in regard to complaints about the British Broadcasting Corporation, another dangerous monopoly. Many of us have criticised the autocratic powers which have been conferred on the British Broadcasting Corporation, who are able to choose whether the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) or I shall broadcast. In either case the public would be entertained.

§ Mr. Bevan
And instructed.

§ Mr. Williams
Yes, instructed in my case, and entertained in the case of the hon. Member. But that is not the issue. The question is that some body is to have the power to deny to the individual the right to take his chance with regard to the development of an enterprise. That is the point I have in mind.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
If the hon. Member and his friends want to open a new pit, who does he suggest shall decide?

§ Mr. Williams
If I want to open a new pit I have to enter into negotiations with some royalty owner. There are a large number of royalty owners, and they all want to get an income and that enables 2050 me to arrive at reasonable terms. I am opposed to the kind of legislation which seeks to deprive the individual of the right to choose his occupation, or where he shall carry on his trade.

§ Mr. Bevan
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but I think I am entitled to put a point to him. The difficulty about the coal industry is that there is a number of different undertakings having different costs of production. In any other industry, quite properly, the most inefficient undertaking is driven to the wall and the most efficient undertaking takes its place. The hon. Member wants to have the same state of affairs in the mining industry. In that industry, however, the moment the undertaking having the highest costs of production is forced to the wall, the nation irretrievably loses an important asset; the pit is closed down, the whole area is not developed, and probably the pit will never be exploited again. We are trying to secure for the nation the full exhaustion of the coal seams in one pit before the pit is closed down, to the detriment of the nation, in favour of temporarily more efficient pits in another area.

§ Mr. Williams
I am not unfamiliar with that aspect of the matter. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who is familiar with the sinking of coal mines, knows that the sinking and development of a great modem pit may take five years, and perhaps involve the expenditure of £1,000,000. For the first two or three years of work, the returns are moderate and then for a period of anything from 10 to 40 years there are high profits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or no profits."] Even in the most depressed times the mines which are working under conditions of maximum efficiency make money. There is then a long period of decline into old age during which the mine is profitable when coal happens to be dear and unprofitable when prices are depressed; and the result is that the pit goes on for a considerable period after it has ceased to be profitable all the time. The purpose of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is to make sure that a large number of pits the costs of production of which are abnormally high shall be kept in being. Therefore, the net result of the achievement of his purpose would be to raise the average price of coal to the consumer.

§ Mr. Bevan
No.

§ Mr. Williams
The hon. Member has said that his object is to keep pits working after the cost of working them has become extravagant. I am glad that he does not deny that.

§ Mr. Bevan
Of course, I deny it.

§ Mr. Williams
In any case, the hon. Member said that if the Coal Commission do not have this power, the pits will close down when the costs of production become high. The object of the new Clause, if interpreted in that sense, is to keep in operation a great many pits the costs of production of which are high; and the effect of that would be to raise the average cost of production of coal.

§ Mr. Bevan
In the coal-mining industry the costs of production of a pit might be high because of purely temporary geological circumstances which two or three years more working would cause to pass away. It is undesirable that a colliery, at a time when it is meeting adverse circumstances, should be forced out of production by more favourably situated pits somewhere else, and that the nation should irretrievably lose the whole of the coal in that pit.

§ Mr. Williams
Because the hon. Member's initial argument landed him in trouble, he introduced into his coal mine the geological obstacle of a lot of rock which was not previously there. That happens not only in coal mining, but in slate quarrying, with which I am more familiar. There are times when one works through a difficult part because, although it means losing money for a time, one knows that beyond there are new and rich seams. However, that is not the case which the hon. Member has in mind. Every enterprising person knows that in the development of a mine, there comes a period when there has to be new development, and when one has to incur a substantial amount of new capital expenditure in order to get to the good seams.

§ Mr. A. Jenkins
Supposing that is impossible because the financial position of the company is such that it cannot raise the necessary capital for development?

§ Mr. Williams
If the company is in such a mess, it will not be helped if somebody 2052 who has capital is stopped from opening a pit. The hon. Member's interruption was another bad one. I wish that hon. Members had thought out what the new Clause meant before making speeches in favour of it, and had thought out a little more carefully what their interruptions meant before indulging in them. For those reasons, and for many others which I have not time to give, I hope the House will not agree to the new Clause.

§ Mr. T. Smith
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) always tries to give the impression that he has a progressive outlook on life, but the fact is that he is still in the nineteenth century, as was shown by his attitude towards this new Clause. The hon. Member said that he was opposed to the new Clause because he wanted the present practice to continue. What has been the practice in the mining industry during the last 50 years? It has not been that the nation needed coal or that it was in the best interests of the nation to work a given pit in a given district; the one dominating question in the sinking of pits has been whether they would give a return on the capital invested.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
If the Coal Commission had been in existence 30 years ago, would the hon. Member have wished it to prohibit the opening of the South Yorkshire coalfield until every ton of coal had been extracted from the worn-out pits of Durham?

§ Mr. Smith
If the Coal Commission had been in operation 30 years ago, millions of pounds of invested money would have been saved. I challenge the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Williams) to disprove that statement. The hon. Member is so hostile to the Government's policy with regard to legislation for industry that I am surprised that he continues to sit on that side of the House. What sort of legislation have we had during the last seven or eight years? The Government restricted the number of spindles that could be worked in Lancashire.

§ Mr. Williams
I voted against that.

§ Mr. Smith
The hon. Member's interruption proves my statement. I am surprised that he remains a supporter of the Government. If the hon. Member will read the history of the mining industry, 2053 he will find that in 1930 the House placed a Coal Mines Act on the Statute Book because the potential production of coal was very greatly in excess of the demand. Hon. Members who know the history of the mining industry know that the indiscriminate sinking of pits during the last 50 years has been one of the main causes of the distressed areas which we have to-day. Since 1922, there must have been at least 800 pits that have gone out of production. Question after question has been answered from the Government Front Bench to the effect that there has been such a decline in the number of persons employed in mining in this country that to-day, with all the boasting about prosperity, there are 450,000 fewer miners than there were 12 years ago. Looking at the matter from the national angle, does any hon. Member imagine that we can allow anybody to decide for himself whether he will sink a pit, without having some regard for the national interest? There are many Conservative Members in the House and many Conservatives in the country who would have laughed if they had been told 10 years ago that they would live to see a Government of which they were supporters purchase mining royalties for the State. The reason for the Bill is not that the Government have suddenly become Socialist in outlook. The Government do not like national ownership—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne)
I think the hon. Member had better get back to the Clause.

§ Mr. Smith
With all due respect to you. Sir, I was coming to the Clause in the next two or three sentences. The real reason for the Bill, as has been stated from the Treasury Bench, is that experience has shown that the private ownership of minerals has become detrimental to the nation and the mining industry. What use is it acquiring the minerals of the country at a cost of more than £60,000,000 and appointing a Commission, and then giving that Commission no say in the matter of the future planning of the industry? Anybody who talked about sinking a pit at the present time would be mad if he did so to make money. Looking at the future development of the mining industry, we say that before any new pit shall be sunk, the Commission shall first of all give permission. I suggest that if hon. Members 2054 believe, as they profess to believe, in planned industry and in a planned economy, what they have in mind would not be achieved if they allowed the Bill to go on to the Statute Book without some new Clause such as we have proposed. I hope the House will accept the new Clause.

§ Mr. Jenkins
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) seemed to indicate that he is against every form of control. I think those hon. Members who are intimately acquainted with the mining industry will agree that the plight in which the industry has found itself over a long period has been due to the fact that the coalowners have held the same view as that which the hon. Member for South Croydon expressed in his speech. During the post-War period, the coalowners thought that they could go on with their competitive methods, sinking pits and cutting prices, and that sooner or later they would be able to restore the industry to something like prosperity. For many years that policy was applied, and the result of it was that many distressed areas were created, where whole villages were rendered derelict. Let it be remembered that it is not only mining capital, but also an enormous amount of social capital, which has been lost as a consequence of the pursuance of that policy. I think I am entitled to say that had it not been for the 1930 Act, the present plight of the industry would have been infinitely worse than it has been throughout the whole of the period in question. I remember very well that efforts were made by foreign countries to get some sort of arrangement with the mining industry and the mining authorities in this country when things were extremely difficult. I remember that Germany sent representatives to this country—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member is going far beyond the Clause.

§ Mr. Bevan
On a point of Order, Sir. The Clause is drawn in language which is very wide, and Mr. Speaker, in selecting the Amendments on the Report stage of the Bill, has excluded from consideration very many important Amendments which we desired to move. I submit that the powers which it is proposed in the 2055 new Clause to give to the Coal Commission are very extensive indeed, and would change the whole character of the Commission, and that therefore we are entitled to address our remarks to that question.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member is interpreting the language of the new Clause very widely. The new Clause is merely concerned with whether or not in the interval between the passing of this Bill and the vesting of the coal in the Commission, a new pit may be opened without the permission of the Commission.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Further to the point of Order, may I point out that the new Clause is not limited to any such period of time? The opening words of the Clause are general: No new mine of coal shall be sunk or opened in England or Scotland unless the owner of the mineral rights therein has first obtained from the Commission an order authorising the sinking or opening of such mine.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman does not contend that before the coal is vested in the Commission, anybody cannot open a pit with--out permission?

§ Sir S. Cripps
Certainly, every leaseholder has a right to open further pits, and after the terms of the lease are passed, he will continue to exercise those powers. This new Clause does not restrain that.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It is in order for the hon. Member to deal with that, but he was dealing with negotiations with Germany, a matter which hardly comes within the new Clause.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I was attempting to reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). The hon. Member argued that he would prefer that things should remain as they have been for a long time in the mining industry, and that there should be no form of control. I will abide by your Ruling, Sir, and confine myself to what I think is a matter of very great importance, namely, that the Commission, when appointed, should have control over this industry. If the Commission had not this control then it would be possible for any body of people—perhaps a body representing industries which consume coal—to organise themselves and make arrangements with the royalty owners to 2056 sink pits and so create a surplus of coal in the market and cause chaos again in the industry. I hope the new Clause will be adopted by the House because I feel that the Commission will be substantially restricted in organising and planning the industry, unless it has these powers.

Mr. Mitchell
I hope the Minister will resist the proposed new Clause. It would confer very undesirable additional powers on the Commission. This House has set its face against the principle of the nationalisation of the coal industry and this Clause is designed to put more powers into the hands of the Commission. I can see no reason for doing so and I think it would be very harmful to the smooth working of the industry. An hon. Member opposite said that anyone would be mad who opened a new mine at the present time with the idea of working it economically and for profit. In my own experience I have been concerned with the opening of two collieries within the last three years. Not only have those collieries been successful but they have had the effect of providing more employment. I can see no reason why that should be regarded as undesirable. I would deplore the necessity of having to go to the Commission and get permission before one could sink a shaft for a new mine.
Recent legislation has tended to give more and more power to government departments and similar bodies to control the activities of industry, and we must view with apprehension any Clause like this which would confer additional powers of that kind. I would illustrate my meaning by referring to the licensing authorities in connection with road transport. To-day if a man wants to put a lorry on the road he has to go to considerable trouble and expense and waste a great deal of time before he can get the necessary permit. I should deplore the extension of that kind of system to the coal industry. I dare say hon. Members think that the Clause as drafted refers only to large new mines which are going to give employment to large numbers of people and produce large outputs. But as the Clause is drafted, any kind of new shaft, even if only for the purpose of ventilation would come within its terms. If hon. Members refer to the definition Clause in the Bill they will find 2057 that before driving a ventilation shaft or an adit it would be necessary, under this Clause, to go to the Commission and get permission. For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will refuse to accept the new Clause.

§ Sir Hugh Seely
When a similar Clause was brought up at an earlier stage I opposed it, largely because of the argument which was then put forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who said that the point was to prevent people sinking pits in order to prove their right to get some share of the compensation. That struck me as a very poor argument. But I cannot see the force of all the arguments which are now being used against the Clause. The case is being put now as it was put by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams)—as if there was some sinister body which was going to be a great drag on the coal trade.