HC Deb 28 June 1948 vol 452 cc1958-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stone)

I wish to raise the question of the small licensed coalmine. It is a platitude today to say that the country is in dire need of more and better coal; but it is the paradox of the situation today that while there is a great need for and a great dearth of coal, there are in the small mines in this country a considerable body of men, some 4,000 in number, and a considerable number of small and efficient units—some 340—which at the moment are either going out of production or are losing their men or going on half time. The amount of coal which could be produced, and which they have produced in the past, is something like a million tons a year. That amount is being denied to the country today, and there is this extraordinary situation of a declining output in these small mines when there should be a considerable increase, which would be of benefit to everyone.

There is no need to stress the fact that there is a shortage of coal. There is a grave, almost critical situation, despite the rather false, almost ruthless complacency with which the Minister treated the whole matter a few days ago. That attitude compares oddly with some of the statements which have been put out. There was the statement demanding economy in electricity, and that demanding that people should use less coke. Again, there was the question of the Government having rejected the idea of increasing the domestic ration. In addition, in the City of Stoke-on-Trent only a few days ago a man was fined £15 for obtaining coal above his personal allocation by false pretences. All these things point to the great necessity for increased coal production. At the same time, we have the fantastic paradox that production is actually declining in these mines.

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, and certainly some hon. Members opposite, have in their time attempted to denigrate—if one can denigrate a coalmine—the output from some of these small mines. I agree that it is difficult to generalise on some three or four hundred of these small units which employ between 30 and 40 and, in one or two cases, up to 80 men. However, I think that one can make one or two fair generalisations. Obviously the output and quality of coal vary from mine to mine. But one or two things bear consideration when hon. Members opposite, people in the National Union of Mineworkers, or others outside the House say that these units are not worth while. I do not support these units tonight merely because one has a regard for private initiative or enterprise, or because one has a liking for the small against the great mine. I support them because I believe that, for the production of coal in a certain way, they are the optimum unit, probably superior to the form of opencast mining.

In order to examine the value of the coal being produced today from these mines, it is worth while to bear certain things in mind. First, on the question of cost, the coal produced from the small mines is, on the whole, the only coal produced in this country which is produced without a heavy subsidy in the form of loss or additional cost to the taxpayer or consumer. In point of fact, these small mines as a group, by means of differential royalties, rents, and all the other rather difficult means of payment, actually pay £100,000 a year and more to the Coal Board. I think that that can be said of very few other mining enterprises in the country today. Again, on the question of cost, I am informed that some of these small mines in private hands could undoubtedly at the moment compete, and compete effectively, with the coal which is being sold on the Continent today if they were not forced to pay the levy subsidy of 22s. 6d. per ton which all coal going out of this country has to pay.

As to quality, I would like to quote from a letter which I have received from a manufacturer in Lancashire in reference to the coal supplied from a small colliery. This is a letter from a manufacturer who has a large industrial concern in Lancashire, and he says: We analysed a sample of your fuel from each of the loads sent in, and, in each case, the ash content worked out at never more than 10 per cent. and the calorific value never less than 11,000 B.T.Us. In addition to this, the chemist showed us the analysis of a deep mine coal from a Lancashire colliery, of which they are having to take hundreds of tons weekly, which showed an ash content of 28 per cent. and a calorific value of never more than 9,000 B.T.Us. I suggest that that letter, on the question of quality, must be fairly telling, especially when we know the quality of some of the opencast coal which is used in industry today. In regard to the question of employment, hon. Gentlemen opposite who either come from North Staffordshire or know the conditions in Wales and elsewhere, where these small mines are scattered, will know that the people employed in them could not be employed in deep mining, so that there is no direct loss to the deep-mined output.

Lastly, in rebutting this denigration of the small mines, let me say that the output from them is fairly high. In North Staffordshire, it is as much as 28 cwt. per man-shift, which is even higher than that for deep-mined coal. Further, may I say that responsibility for licensing mines depends upon the National Coal Board. If they license a mine, presumably they do it with their eyes open and with the intention and knowledge that that mine will be successful. These mines, if properly developed, could produce as much as two million tons of coal a year. At the moment, their output of one million tons a year is falling fairly rapidly.

There are two main reasons why output is falling in these small mines and why they are not making a greater contribution to the national economy. First, there is grave uncertainty amongst these 4,000 men engaged in the 300 or 400 pits as to how long these licences are to hold. They were issued for six months, and there was a promise given earlier this year that they would be renewed in July of this year. Now we are told that they will be reviewed in January. The point I am making is that it is impossible for anyone to instal machinery, and especially the essential screening machinery, for any coalmine under these conditions, and no capitalist, unless he is an ass, is prepared to take risks if there is no security of tenure whatever. It is up to the Coal Board to reassure them and to cease acting like an all-embracing octopus. The Coal Board shows few of the characteristics of the giant squid; far more it resembles a large jelly fish, unable to make a decision, though retaining the one characteristic of a large sting in its tail for the taxpayer.

Then, there is the question of the responsibility of the National Coal Board. The second thing which is reducing overall output is undoubtedly the system of allocation for which the Ministry is responsible. When the Minister the other day spoke so complacently, he was defending his own child—or that of his predecessor—the National Coal Board. But tonight I wish to speak of this allocation as a purely Ministerial responsibility. The rationing and distribution of coal are the responsibility of the Minister through the various channels, from the committee here in London—in my case in North Staffordshire—down to Manchester, from Manchester to the North-Western Council, and from the North-Western Council down to the coal supply office. But the directives all come from the Minister in London. Those directives of supply are such that at the moment, owing to rationing, there is being built up in this country a large quantity of small coal which cannot be consumed—the Minister admitted the other day that it amounted to 50,000 tons a week—not for lack of demand, but because it is an artificial surplus which has been created by the regulations of the Ministry in London.

We have seen the whole trend of the 1930's reversed in the most extraordinary manner, so that today we are faced with unobtainable plenty in the midst of dearth. What a triumph of planning! This 50,000 tons a week—it is 2½ million tons a year—paradoxically enough, is not being consumed, for a variety of reasons, the chief of which I believe to be this system of allocation and the refusal of the Minister to carry out the necessary de-rationing of small coal which would lead to greater output and would especially affect the small mines. The small mines are undoubtedly at a disadvantage. If there is a surplus of coal it is natural that the officials at the Ministry allocate coal which is drawn, not from the small mines but from either the National Coal Board or from the opencast mines which are the responsibility of the Ministry. In the coal supply offices, the regional supply boards and so forth there is a national bias in favour of deep-mined coal and opencast coal, because those are intimately connected with the boss of these officials, and the boss is the Minister himself. Therefore, injustice is done whereby the regulations, automatically and naturally, favour the deep-mined and the opencast coal as against the small mine. I do not say that the small mine can make an immense contribution, but at this time any contribution should be accepted, welcomed and worked for. A contribution of 2 million tons of coal a year is not a mere bagatelle. These regulations favour the N.C.B. and the opencast coal.

I now come to a most difficult point; that is, the question of whether or not there has been a breach of faith between the National Coal Board and the small mines. When these licences were issued by the National Coal Board to the small mines, it was laid down that the coal from these small mines would be distributed through the channels of the National Coal Board. That arrangement operated until May of this year. In May of this year the National Coal Board declared that they were no longer responsible for the distribution of this coal, and the Parliamentary Secretary, in a letter to the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross), went so far as to say that the small mines should arrange to dispose of the coal themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary should know that it is physically impossible and against the law for anyone to dispose of coal in this country except through the direction of the Central Committee of the Ministry in London, working through the coal supply offices and the other offices. It is like stamping on the face of a man when he is down to tell these people to dispose of their own coal.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Mr. Fraser

I repeat what I said—it is stamping on the face of a man who is down. It is impossible for these small people to dispose of their coal except with the support of the coal supply officers and officials—in Wales and other areas one hears the same thing—and that support was not forthcoming and they were told that they had to dispose of it themselves.

I know other hon. Members wish to speak and I apologise for taking up so much time. There are, however, one or two things which I would suggest to remedy this situation. The first is on the distributive side, which is now basically the responsibility of the Minister. There should be a directive sent out to see that the consumers' interests are put first, whether the coal comes from the National Coal Board's mines, the opencast mines or from the small mines. We should see that the Consumer Councils are really operative and that the supply officers and other officers of the Ministry see that the coal which is supplied is the best coal available, and not necessarily coal which happens to be opencast or N.C.B. coal.

Beyond that, there are certain other recommendations which I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman. The first is that there is a considerable chance now of stock piling some of this coal from the small mines. That has been taking place on a large scale for opencast mines. Last year, at this time of the year, the quantity of opencast mine coal stocked on the site, or in stocks for stock piling, was, I think, 80,000 tons of saleable coal and 61,000 tons of lower quality coal, presumably not saleable, although why non-saleable coal was stocked heaven only knows. This year the figures are 860,000 tons of saleable coal and 160,000 tons of presumably unsaleable, or lower quality, coal. The coal from the small mines ought to be kept in some of these large dumps which are being built up all over the country.

Here is another suggestion, and it arises from the question of a price cut. I know the Minister talked of that the other day and I know it is under consideration, so I will go no further on that point. I believe there are two things which could help, and one is to de-ration the small types of coal. If this country is to produce the really important coal to sell abroad—the large coal and the other more valuable types—there is bound to be a large amount of coal of the smaller type produced which today, under the present system of rationing, is non-saleable. If we like, we can call it the by-product of producing the best coal—it is marginal coal. Only in one way can the price of coal in this country come down, and that way surely is to de-ration and to allow further quantities of that smaller type of coal to go on to the civilian market.

People are crying out for more coal in their homes, and that will absorb some of the coal which at the moment is surplus to requirements. It has happened with great success in Belgium, if I may add that in parenthesis. Nearly all the coal there has been knocked off the civilian ration, except, I think, the larger nuts, and doubles and various other qualities and types of coal. Lastly, I suggest there is one further course which should be adopted, and that is to de-ration locally. The Minister cannot come here and say that he is such a believer in his policy of misery that, where coal is available, produced by the skill of the people in that locality, that coal should not be allowed to go to the neighbouring industrialists and citizens. It seems to me absurd for that coal to be kept back.

I am sure I have taken too long on this subject, but it is one which appeals to me and I am sure to many hon. Members in this House. There is in this country today coal which is not being dug for, I believe, two reasons. There is confusion and muddle in the Ministry's system in the allocation of coal, and on the part of the National Coal Board there is no lead as to what is to happen with the small mines. Given a lead and security of tenure they would produce at least another million tons of coal, and screening plant could be bought with which to make that coal as good as any other in the country, and better than coal from the opencast workings, for, because of the metabolism of Mother Earth, the coal drawn from the depths is infinitely superior to that scratched from the surface. These things can be put right, employment can be given to the men, and the country could benefit by having a million or two million tons of coal more a year.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

I should like to support the plea of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser). If the Parliamentary Secretary came to North Staffordshire, to the part in which I was born, bred and reared, he would see for himself the difficulties which confront the workmen in the small mines. It is true to say that 50 per cent.—if not more—of the men employed in the mines have been victims of nystagmus or of serious accidents in the deep mines. Consequently, they are not physically capable of performing the work the miners in North Staffordshire are expected to perform. The small mines are in the main in very isolated parts and that means that if a miner loses his employment, there is no other work to which he can go alternatively. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that it should be a very simple thing for the Ministry to agree that the owners of the small mines be allowed to sell their coal to whoever would purchase it to keep those men in employment.

I cannot see the difference between allowing people—as the Ministry now permits—to acquire 40 cwt. of coke or 40 cwt. of anthracite, and allowing them to acquire 40 cwt. of coal from those mines. If he would lift the ban and case the rationing, so that people could buy that coal over and above the ration, it would mean not only full employment for the men, but it would mean easing the anxieties of domestic consumers. In those areas, the mining villages are old, and there is no other means of heating water than by the ordinary fire. Consequently, with all the need there is for coal in those parts, there is a constant struggle to eke out the present coal ration. The stocks which are piling up each week, and which I pass every time I go to my home, would be liquidated, I should say, within a week if the domestic consumers in the area were allowed to buy them. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will realise what such a concession would mean to the men. Some of them are old and can find no alternative employment. For the benefit of those men alone, apart altogether from the question of easing the situation for the domestic consumers, I hope my hon. Friend will find it possible to permit coal from those small mines to be sold off the ration.

10.10 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)

In the few moments left before the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I want to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) and to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) for ventilating an important question. It has turned the limelight on to something which to me, and, I think, to the country is obscure and unsatisfactory. There are some odd incidents going on in the treatment of these small mines. While I cannot expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to reply to this particular instance, I should be obliged if he would look into it. I cite it as an example of the sort of unsatisfactory thing that is going on at the present time.

It is the case of a small mine in Scotland called the Langside Coal Company which employs 22 men. In January of this year, the company, not satisfied with the way in which explosives were being used, gave seven days' notice to the men in order to instal coal-cutting machinery. A few weeks afterwards, the company were informed by the National Coal Board that their licence would terminate on the expiry of its existing period, namely, in August of this year. The company protested, but could get no satisfactory explanation of why the licence should be terminated in August. It is perfectly true that in the first clause of the licence the contract or licence could be terminated on six months' notice, but Clause 26 says that in the event of disagreement or differences between the Board and the licensee, the matter shall be submitted to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be agreed by the parties.

The company has applied for that arbitration and has had no satisfaction. It is undesirable that the Coal Board should make use of one clause in the licence and not make use of another clause. It is the merest common form of justice that the company should be able to plead its own case and avoid the cost of litigation, because if no arbitration takes place, I understand that litigation is available. What is the chance of installing coal cutting machinery or of modernising these small mines if their security of tenure is limited to six months? That is a matter which wants to be reviewed and altered, if, indeed, it is intended that these mines should continue.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us—because we are all interested and many people in the country are interested—what is to happen to these mines when the licence has been terminated. Is it intended that the mines shall go out of production, or is it intended that the Coal Board shall take them over? If that is so, why were they not made the subject of legislation under the Coal Act?

Mr. Speaker

The question of legislation is out of order on the Adjournment.

Colonel Hutchison

I will conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what is going to happen to these small mines if the licences are terminated. Are we to lose the coal, or are they to be managed in some other way?

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Mack (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) will not misunderstand me if I join issue with him on the suggested maladministration of the National Coal Board. I recognise that everything has not gone perfectly so far as they are concerned, but having regard to the immense task in front of them and their difficulties, I think that on balance they have done a good job. I am not critical in that sense.

A great number of these small opencast mines and small mineowners are in my constituency. I have a letter from the Black Bank Colliery at Knutton. This colliery has been working for six years, and they have stocked up about 200 tons of fuel. Their orders have been stopped, and they have had to give their employees 14 days' notice. Their output was four or five tons per man-shift. I understand that is a better output than in some of the larger collieries. They have been to see me, and I have been in communication with the National Coal Board and Lord Hyndley. I have discovered that one of the difficulties with which the Coal Board are faced is the quality, or lack of quality, of the coal. Many of the pits produce and sell coal of inferior quality. At some of these mines there is opencast coal which is particularly poor. There is foot-rail or drift-pit coal. In the case of one of these collieries the sale was cut by 50 per cent.

I am told that if they have to close their pits it will be difficult to re-open them because of difficulties such as those connected with flooding. About 50 per cent. of the men—75 per cent. in some cases—are unfit for working in deep-pit coal-mining. If they remain in their present employment it will not affect the production of the more important deep-pit coal of which the country is so much in need. I have had a letter from one of my constituents, a practical miner, complaining bitterly in regard to this matter. He says: The Government exhorts us to produce every ton of coal possible, yet these foot rails must cut production, even cease in some cases, because they are not allowed to sell their product, even if they can find customers. And yet the opencast sites continue to be opened, and while many who have spent a lifetime in mining face the prospect of unemployment, this opencast stuff continues to be produced at a cost out of all proportion to its commercial value. He demands that opencast coal mining should be the first to be cut, on grounds both of economy and quality. My final question to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether he is prepared to explore the question which was put to him by preceding speakers that coal should be de-rationed so that it should not be wasted and that the community as a whole should benefit?

10.18 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Hanley)

I wish to speak on the human side of the problem. I have known many of the men from the North Staffordshire Miners' Federation for more than 20 years. I know the type of man involved in this matter and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take into account the fact that 70 per cent. of them are unfit for work in deep mines owing to industrial disease, age, or serious injury in other types of mining. It is difficult, if not impossible, for these men to obtain alternative employment. I am not concerned so much with the economic aspects of the matter, which can be exaggerated, as with the human aspect of it, which it is not possible to exaggerate. It is hardly possible to divorce the two aspects. For these reasons, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to find a way to accommodate these men under employers so that the industry may go on.

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)

We have had a rather interesting Debate on the Adjournment by reason of the extra time which has enabled hon. Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends who have a very great interest in this matter, to deal with points which they have raised with me from time to time in correspondence. There is nothing in the Ministry's reaction to the small mine which is unfavourable, nor indeed is there an unfavourable reaction by the National Coal Board. There were a number of inaccuracies in the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) and I will pick up those as I deal with the points which have been made.

It is true that the output of the small mines is about 2 million tons per annum and it represents 1 per cent. of the national output. I want to make it quite clear that there is no suggestion whatever that the whole of this output is being lost. We have been talking about North Staffordshire, where there is a peculiar problem in regard to the small mines. Between the week ending 24th April and the week ending 12th June, 21,000 tons of coal were produced from the small mines, and 19,000 tons of that coal was actually sold. There can be no question, even in North Staffordshire where there is a most difficult situation, of the whole of the output being lost.

It should be made quite clear, too, that the quality of the coal from the small mines is fairly poor and, after all, consumers are refusing to take today what they were formerly prepared to take when there was a shortage of other coal. We have been able to build up fairly good industrial stocks and so industrial consumers are rather turning against this fairly poor quality coal mined from the small mines. There is a lack of screening facilities, to which hon. Gentlemen have referred, and consequently, in North Staffordshire particularly, we are not getting large and graded coal, which makes it difficult coal to sell.

I want to make this point very clear, because the hon. Member for Stone is evidently under a very grave misapprehension. He made a fairly alarming statement that the National Coal Board were preventing the sale of this coal to people who would buy it. I want to tell him and the House that the National Coal Board do no such thing. The small mine owner can sell his coal to anybody he likes in this country, except the domestic consumer. With regard to the example referred to by the hon. Gentleman, where there was an analysis showing an ash content of less than 10 per cent., and the manufacturer said that he was getting a worse ash content from deep-mined coal, with the intimation that he would buy the small mined coal if possible, there is nothing to stop the manufacturer doing so. It is off the ration. In the main the reason it is not bought is that it is inferior in quality. It is no use the hon. Gentleman making a point that opencast coal is inferior because the small mines coal goes very much deeper. It does not. We go down 150 or more feet for opencast coal but obviously, as the small mine coal varies in quality from place to place, so does the opencast.

We cannot agree that anybody should be exporting poor quality coal from this country. It may well be that a buyer abroad would be very glad to take some of this inferior coal, but we do not know what he would do with it when he got it—at a price. He might mix it with very good quality coal sent from this country and thus undermine the standard of the British coal which we are selling abroad. Hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that we cannot afford to have the standard of quality of coal which we are sending abroad undermined by reason of any mixing on the other side. We must be careful about the quality of coal which we export, in the interests of our markets abroad both now and in the future.

What, then, is the real problem? The problem is that there is being built up a quantity of coal mined from the small mines for which at the moment there is not a market. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) said that if this coal was freed from the domestic ration, they would clear their stocks in a short time—

Mr. Fernyhough

In a week.

Mr. Robens

That is a useful suggestion and it shows how the minds of the Minister and my hon. Friends work closely together, because that is in our minds, too. I can tell the House now that there is a little problem about it because, if we release on to the market a large amount of low-grade coal, we want to be assured that consumers are not sold this coal for better quality coal. Neither do we want it mixed; so we have to be careful how we deal with it.

The hon. Member talked about using the Consumers Council. We thought about that, too. In fact we have put it up to the Consumers Council, which is to give this matter consideration on Wednesday of next week. If its views are along the lines of saying that this would be a welcome addition to the domestic consumer, as long as it is off the ration, my right hon. Friend will be well disposed to give it very favourable consideration. So we will wait to see what the Consumers Council say about this matter, because it will be concerned about the protection of the consumer, as is its duty, and it will give us sound advice. We will consider that advice and what has been said this evening, and it may be that as a result we shall see a betterment of the situation.

I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for South Edinburgh—

Colonel Hutchison

No, Central Glasgow. One is the capital of Scotland; the other only thinks it is.

Mr. Robens

I am sorry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised the question of a certain Scottish small mine. I do not know the details of it and I am sure he would not expect me to be able to give an answer tonight. I will certainly look into that, and I will write to the hon. and gallant Gentleman giving the facts of the situation as we see them.

One last and important point was that these mines, if they want continuity of selling the coal they produce, must produce a better quality coal, and will of necessity have to do as they have done in other parts of the country—put in screening plant and so on. The substance of the argument was about what security of tenure the small mine owners have if they do so. I would say to the small mine owner that, if he is placed in that situation and is prepared to consider putting in machinery in order to turn out a better graded product so that there shall be continuity of sale, he should consult with the marketing officer of the National Coal Board. I can assure him that he will have complete satisfaction in relation to tenure if the proposals in relation to capital and quality of the coal coming from the mine are in line with the grading policy already agreed upon.

The questions revolves around the grading of coal, not only for this but for other matters, too, and the pricing of that coal. The Coal Board are engaged on this grading and re-pricing, and I hope it will not be long now before my right hon. Friend will be able to make some announcement about that. I hope I have said sufficient to bring some degree of hope and comfort to hon. Members who have raised this matter, and to the owners of the small mines. We have had a good discussion, and again I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Ten o'Clock.