HC Deb 08 April 1957 vol 568 cc914-34

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley)

I am very pleased indeed that the opportunity for debate on the Adjournment has arisen tonight rather earlier than usual. I wish to raise an issue which, in my opinion, is one of considerable importance to the cloa mining industry, and which arises out of recommendations of the Fleck Report. When I questioned the Paymaster-General when he was speaking in the debate we had in February on the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1955, he said that I should receive a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, who is to wind up this debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his reply, said: No doubt in the 1956 Report we shall have information on what the Coal Board has done in implementing the Fleck Report. That will be the right occasion for putting forward the full figures …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February. 1957; Vol. 565, c. 1522.] I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not attempt to hide behind that statement this evening, because the 1955 Report was debated in February. 1957, and the 1956 Report may have to wait for debate until 1958.

I further questioned the Paymaster-General, following that debate, about the number of administrative personnel added to the Board since the Fleck recommendations were put into effect. The right hon. Gentleman at that time said that there were 750. Mainly for these reasons. I do not think that I have been presumptious in asking for an Adjournment debate this evening.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the first page of the Fleck Report, which says that the task of the Advisory Committee on organisation was: To consider the organisation of the National Coal Board and to make recommendations to the Board. That is certainly brief and to the point, and is probably the shortest reference on record. The Report, however, produced 61 recommendations, the majority of which have been accepted by the National Union of Mineworkers and the Board and have been put into effect.

I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to page 2 of the Report, which states: The industry's age and history and the immense changes inherent in national ownership and single management, have created difficulties unparalleled in any other industry of which we have knowledge. The public is only now beginning to grasp the facts about the industry, and much of the criticism of the Board and their organisation has been ill-informed. We ourselves think that, on the whole, it is remarkable how much has been done since the Board was set up in 1946. In particular the new organisation for managing a thousand pits previously run by eight hundred companies, was planned and brought into being in a matter of months. Those who performed this task did a remarkable job in the face of difficulties that could have been overwhelming. I appreciate and fully recognise the task that confronted the Board. I was in the industry at the time, and I particularly well remember how stocks were run down at all the individual units six months before vesting day. That, alone, was a severe headache for any new organisation to take over.

Some of the reorganisation was misunderstood. The mineworker, not anticipating the increase in officials, was taken aback when gradually the trickle became a swarm, buzzing in and out of colliery yards like bees, hesitant and uncertain of what they should do. The Board was doing what the private mine-owner never did and could not do. It was looking after the miners' interests, in welfare, health and safety. Safety officers and their staffs were appointed at every unit. There were dust suppression officers, particularly in the South Wales area, training officers, and the large increase in staff which followed to make the training system effective. All this was to the good and very necessary, but I submit now that this new reorganisation may be the last straw.

It will not have the same ring of necessity in its appeal to the miner to understand. Once again he is being asked to receive this addition to the hierarchy for his own benefit, but he, in turn, and quite rightly so, wants the Board to prove to him precisely their task and to what extent the miner, the industry and the nation will benefit. It would be unwise to disregard the fact that the Report states that the main structure of the Board's organisation is sound, bat it is admitted, however, that there has been a complete failure within the Board's organisation to develop uniform or standarised methods of administration.

On the simple issue of receipts, for example, it is the fact that after ten years of nationalisation practically every area of the National Coal Board uses a different type of receipt. Far too many of the people who were put into responsible positions in the different divisions and areas in the early years of nationalisation were capable only of continuing the methods of organisation that they themselves had operated under the different companies. No lead was given from national level and little from divisional level.

Obviously something had to be done to introduce modern methods. In that situation it was inevitable that the Board had to introduce new blood. However, it seems that it went from the sublime to the ridiculous. It created scores of posts, which will not necessarily lead to greater efficiency in the Board's administration, and filled them by people from private industries, who are absolutely lost. Many of these people have now held those jobs for the best part of twelve months and have not as yet made the slightest impression on the industry.

I could quote examples of cases in which they have come from firms like Lucas's of Birmingham, the Bristol Aeroplane Company, and so on, and are making the most elementary mistakes in day-to-day dealings with the union. When they are challenged, they plead that they are new to the job. The trouble is that they know absolutely nothing about the atmosphere of the coal mining industry. It might be argued that they have been specially brought from outside to bring about a new atmosphere in the industry, but they cannot hope to do that for the simple reason that they have no real authority or scope to introduce new methods.

So many area officials, although receiving salaries of high executives, are in reality mere office boys, except or minor details. Whatever the reason, the fact is that cynicism about promotion prospects has developed to a dangerous level. The Fleck Committee and Board official after Board official have talked about the need to encourage people to make a career in the industry, but those statements are meaningless when the Board passes over those who have spent years in the industry and brings in someone from outside who, more often than not, has to rely on someone who is more junior to "show him the ropes."

Take the case of a vacancy in the marketing department, concerning the sale of bricks. One person with no little experience in the marketing of all types of bricks applied for the post, but the person who was appointed came from outside the industry and, during the previous seventeen years, had had a sports outfitter's business. How can the Board evade criticism of cases like that? My concern is not only about some of the jobs which are being created, but about the people being appointed to them. We are fast reaching the stage in which experience in coal mining industry will count for absolutely nothing, but if one is a university man, an ex-Service officer, or an ex-police officer, one is in.

That is my first, my most serious and, I think, the main criticism of the Board. I understand that at Hobart House 1,500 people are employed. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to correct me if I am wrong. If that is correct, can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what this swarm of people are doing there? Can he imagine the miners' comment on seeing that building so fully occupied, or at least filled, by those 1,500 people? "They are all having to be paid off the pick point."

What of the new invasion of people into the salaries field of machine demonstrators? Starting at a salary of £1,000 a year, they have technicians who are fully conversant with the workings of the machines doing the job for £500 a year. Are those demonstrators really necessary? Three new departments are growing in the Board's organisation—staffing, industrial relations, purchasing and stores. I ask the Minister how many administrative personnel have been added to the Board in those departments? I also ask how many people altogether, including clerks, costing clerks, shorthand typists and so on, have been added to the Board since the recommendations were put into effect.

With reference to the industrial relations department, I would issue a warning. Let not that department be responsible for introducing personnel managers at colliery level, particularly people with no knowledge of the industry, who may act as a barrier between management and men. It has always been understood that the men have direct access to the manager and under-managers when they have a grievance. It would be folly to break that longstanding tradition.

With regard to purchasing and stores, I should like to know whether we have as yet developed a uniform system throughout the whole structure of the Board, and what progress has been made in this respect.

I should like at this stage to quote an interesting letter which I have received indicating that in one area anyway criticisms are just. This relates to tendering for contracts to do colliery work. I did not intend to give a long quotation, but as time is on my sider I think I will read it in full. The letter says: Further to my conversation with you in relation to my approach to the N.C.B. for opportunity to tender in respect of contracts. I have been to … two local area offices— … and am shocked by the treatment which I received and the very obvious lack of business capabilities shown by certain members of the staff at both offices. Upon visiting … one office— … in the first instance and asking to see the sales officer, I got no further than an office clerk, who suggested that I should see … Mr. B— … the mechanical engineer. Mr. B— … was not in but his clerk suggested that I should write giving details of the type of work we were prepared to contract for. I enclose herewith a copy of the letter which I sent. Ten days later, having received no reply, I telephoned … Mr. B, … who appeared to have only a faint recollection and suggested that I see the sales officer. I went over to … the local colliery— … immediately by car and attempted to obtain an interview with him, but was interviewed by a … Mr. N, … who, upon my asking him why we had received no reply to our letter, stated that 'we cannot answer every Tom, Dick and Harry's letters, and in any case you are a London firm.' I pointed out that we were a … local— … firm, paying … local— … rates and employing … local— …labour and that all we were asking was to be given the opportunity to tender for suitable work. When I asked whether we could expect a reply… Mr. N— … stated that the matter would be dealt with … In the second instance I approached … the area office— … and upon inquiring for the mechanical engineer … Mr. D— … I was informed that he was away. I was, however, very well received by the assistant engineer … Mr. L— … who appeared very impressed with our capabilities and photographs shown to him. He told me to write in to … Mr. D— … giving full details. This I did, and three weeks later having received no reply telephoned … the area office— … and asked to speak to … Mr. D. I was informed that he was on another line and would I hold on. After waiting for seven minutes I put the receiver down and put another call through to… the area office. I was told that … Mr. D— … was due back at 3.30 p.m. I then pointed out that I had been told to hold on the line. The position was most unsatisfactory and I decided to go immediately and seek an interview with … Mr. D. I met… Mr. D— … in his office; it would take too much time to go into all the details of the interview, but in brief this is an account of the interview. Mr. D: … said he couldn't answer everybody's letters, appeared to have no recollection of our letter, hinted that we had no knowledge of their kind of work, suggested that only one company could make the plants, stated that competition was not of any importance, and made it quite plain that he was not interested In view of his attitude I informed… Mr. D— … that the only thing I could do was, in the first place, to write to seek an interview should there be no reply to our letter, and then finally to apply to a higher authority. This was not said in anger but purely in a business like manner. There has been no letter received from … Mr. D— … in reply to our original one and the matter, I feel, is most unsatisfactory. Do I take it from that letter that the Board does not allow tendering and does not believe in competition and that a bureaucratic monopoly is developing? Does not the Minister realise how easy it is for dishonest dealing to creep in in such circumstances.

Finally, I should like to draw lo the attention of the Minister Dr. Fleck's personal recommendation which is referred to in paragraph 26 of the Report. It begins: One of our recommendations is for an immediate re-organisation of the National Board. Dr. Fleck is of opinion that this reorganisation does not go far enough, and he recommends that, after it has been completed, further changes which the law as it stands would not allow and which are at present not wholly desirable because of organisational circumstances, should be made. In his view, these limitations should be removable within two years. On page 80 the Report states clearly what Dr. Fleck's private recommendation is. It says: My view, however, is that the Board should be enlarged.…I therefore recommend that the Minister be asked to endeavour to obtain powers to enable him to appoint any number of Members of the Board up to a maximum of eighteen. Personally, I am against that recommendation. I do not know what the Board's views are, or even what are the views of the National Union of Mine-workers. I am very much against this recommendation being brought forward. According to the Report, this is the time when the Minister should be considering it. The Report was issued in February, 1955, and it is now 1957, so that the Minister will obviously have given it some consideration. I should like, therefore, Jo ask what are his conclusions or that aspect of the matter.

Those are my observations and criticisms of the changes now taking place in the mining industry. I must express on behalf of all mineworkers their grave concern at the ever-growing numbers of National Coal Board officials invading the colliery yards, adding to the increasing burden of administrative costs. I ask the Minister now to try to alleviate their concern.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton (Houghton-le-Spring)

I dealt with this matter at some length at the close of a debate on the coal industry some weeks ago, and I followed that up by asking the Minister, in a Question, how many appointments had been made since the implementation of the recommendations of the Fleck Committee's Report. He replied that the number was 750.

I was not in a position to look into that Answer at that time, but I have been surprised by it since, because I am almost sure that at least 750 cost clerks must have been appointed since the appearance of the Fleck Committee's Report. What the number of appointments is in the higher line of command we still have no idea, but we do know that in the area offices, as compared with the number of people employed before, the number employed now shows a considerable increase.

I want to say quite frankly to the Minister that I have no objection to any appointments that are made where the job will increase the output of coal, or will help to save the lives or maintain the health of the men in the pits, but we do not believe, as I said myself in the last debate, that many of these appointments will produce any coal. They are most certainly producing plenty of paper, but are not producing coal.

The Fleck Committee's Report, in the main, is imposing a private industry structure upon our nationalised industry. Any man would be foolish if he did not recognise that there would be problems of management in this industry. I think that that is a challenge to all the people in the industry to face up to the task of building up an organisation based on past experience, rather than putting in as many people in command as we have got today.

I notice that a Director of Reconstruction has been appointed and I now want to speak as one who, like so many of my colleagues, has had practical experience of mining. Let us look, first, at the managers' position at the colliery. We are now creating a new set-up extending from Hobart House through the districts, under the Director of Reconstruction.

If the manager of a pit, at the same time as he is concerned with the production of coal, has to think about a reconstruction plan, to whom will he be responsible? Will it be the Director of Production, or the Director of Reconstruction? Where will the line of demarcation between those two lines of command be in a pit where there may be £1 million worth of development and where, at the same time, production is being maintained as far as possible? We are puzzled about where a manager will be in a set-up of this character and where the line of demarcation will be for a pit in production and for which, at the same time, there is a reconstruction scheme.

The Fleck Report refers to personnel managers. I strongly urge the Parliamentary Secretary to impress upon the National Coal Board the miners' opposition to personnel managers. Miners regard the appointment of personnel managers as a further barrier between the men's representatives in the trade union and the manager who is responsible for the running of the pit. The Parliamentary Secretary must not forget that it is because there is direct contact between the men's local representatives and the manager around the table that the everyday problems of mining can be solved. If a personnel manager is jammed into that negotiation machinery, so that the manager hides behind a personnel officer, there will be more trouble with pit disputes than there is now, and a solution for disputes will be many times more difficult to settle than at present.

To maintain that long-standing human relationship between the local trade union branch and the manager responsible for the pit I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, whatever may be our criticisms on other matters, not to uphold for one minute the suggestion that collieries should have personnel officers between miners' representatives and managers when there is a dispute.

The Parliamentary Secretary may hear more of this in due course, but I want to say now that there ought to be a committee, composed of members of the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board, to assess the value of what we are getting from all the appointments which have been made as a result of the Fleck Report in the last 18 months. Sufficient time has now passed for those appointments to be assessed. If we are to clear the suspicion now permeating through men's minds and the minds of the miners' leaders not only at district but at national level, there should be a committee of the two sides of the industry to investigate those appointments.

If the committee proves to the satisfaction of the men themselves that the appointments are necessary, that will be all to the good and will clear away many suspicions in the industry. If it proves the contrary, and shows that the appointments are unnecessary, it will be all to the good that that should have been shown. No matter which way we look at the problem, we have to give the men some satisfaction while they believe that the appointments are unnecessary. We should accept the principle of that committee which I recommended at the end of the debate four weeks ago.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider what has been said in the Fleck Report. We accepted its proposals in good faith. The Committee was appointed by the Board, which had no option but to implement its proposals. I see no harm in investigating the appointments, the functions and the salaries in these cases. There are many jobs at high salaries which we think are quite unnecessary. It is very necessary to get clear in our minds what we think are the necessary appointments.

9.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton):

The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has done a good service by raising this matter. I am glad that we have a bit of time in which to consider it; there is an awful lot to do. It is not the sort of thing one can deal with in a very great hurry.

The hon. Member for Barnsley and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) raised many matters of detail. I knew that some of them were to be raised, and I hope to give as full information on them as they would wish. There are some matters on which, I say candidly, I could not answer without notice, but due note will, I have no doubt, be taken of them by the National Coal Board.

It will be within the recollection of the House that the Fleck Report was published in February, 1955, after about two years' work, and that it made no fewer than sixty-one separate recommendations. The National Coal Board has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations, and since February, 1955, when it has had the Report in its hands, it has been steadily acting upon the recommendations which it has accepted. Most of them concern the Board's administration at different levels, rather than questions of production in the pit. We know well in these days that for effective production in the pit we must make sure that organisation on the surface and at the various headquarters, from Hobart House downwards, is effective.

We have to remember also that these are days of scientific development and greatly improved safety. A body like the National Coal Board is now expected to give far more attention to research than was given in the past. These are days of mechanisation and—I hope trade unionists will not forget this—days when there is greater consciousness of what has to be learned in the management of men. All these factors must be borne in mind when considering the Fleck Committee's Report, its recommendations and what has happened by way of implementing them.

On the number of administrative staff the Fleck Committee said something which has been quoted several times in this House and which I am going to be so bold as to quote again. On page 24, paragraph 113, the Report says: We have considered the criticism that the number of staff is too large. The proportion of staff—40,000 out of a total 'payroll' of about three-quarters of a million—is certainly not too high. Indeed, we believe that the efficient management of the industry requires a higher ratio, as well as a higher average quality. I should also invite attention to the fact that the Fleck Committee recommended that the headquarters administration of the Board was defective in various respects in that it lacked special departments with responsibility for special subjects. It recommended, particularly in paragraph 128, that the Board should create a Staff Department which would be represented at Headquarters, on Divisional Boards and at Areas. It recommended in paragraph 130 that an Industrial Relations Department should be set up. Formerly, both those tasks had been looked after by an establishments department which I should tell the House, confirming what the hon. Member said, has now been abolished and has been replaced by separate departments looking after staff on the one hand and industrial personnel on the other hand. Following the Fleck Report, the National Coal Board "has established a new department for stores and purchasing besides setting up various other specialist organisations at the centre with their counterparts all the way down.

I am not disputing for one moment—indeed, it would be contrary to all good sense to dispute—either that there has been a steady increase in numbers of staff or that there ought to have been. As I say, the Board must have the staff to advise it and to carry out its policies, and we must bear in mind what is expected in modern conditions. Perhaps I may seem to be repeating what I said in the recent debate, but we must also bear in mind that in modern conditions the proportion of skilled workers to unskilled workers is bound to rise and the proportion of managerial and technical workers to all manual workers is also bound to rise. We have to look at the increases in staff which I am about to mention in the light of those things.

At the end of 1954 there were 40,000 non-manual staff of all grades and at the end of September, 1956, there were just over 50,000, split up into what we might broadly call officials, including not only executive and administrative staff, but also scientists, engineers and technicians, totalling 18,000, and into 32,000 in the clerical grades. That total of 50,000 is out of a manpower total of about 750,000 and is just about 6½ per cent, of the total.

We must have some yardstick, and I am not afraid to make the comparison with industry as a whole, or at any rate with large-scale and centralised industry as a whole, of which we have plenty in this country today in both the public and the private sectors. I am told that the proportion of administrative to manual staff in industry as a whole today is nearly 20 per cent. The figure of 6½ per cent. for the National Coal Board is therefore far from being excessive.

Mr. Joseph Slater (Sedgefield)

I should like this to be clear. The Minister has referred to 50,000 non-manual workers in the industry. Do we take it that the 32,000 in the clerical grades come within that 50,000 non-manual workers?

Mr. Renton

Yes. The 50,000 includes 32,000 in the clerical grades. The remaining 18,000 are made up of officials, as I have described them in a broad way. I believe they are technically described as salaried staff. I understand that the actual figure of the headquarters staff at Hobart House is 1,450. That is small compared with other headquarters. It may interest hon. Members to have their attention invited to a paragraph in a pamphlet, issued by the Board, which has the rather significant title, "Why have Hobart House?" In that pamphlet is contained an address by the late Sir Arthur Street, the first Deputy-Chairman of the National Coal Board. Comparing the size of Hobart House he said—

Mr. Harold Neal (Bolsover)

Is this a quotation from Sir Arthur Street?

Mr. Renton

Yes. He states: For the purpose of comparison, it is interesting to note that one very large industrial combine with headquarters in London and world-wide commitments has a headquarters staff of over 4,000. Another equally renowned for its efficiency and priding itself on the extent to which it is decentralised, has a London staff of 1,750. A famous oil company has 2,000 people at its London office; and so on. I think it fair, therefore, to make those comparisons and to point out that with all the work which this industry has to do—after all, it is responsible for the whole of our coal production—

Mr. Neal

It is fair to add that Sir Arthur Street was dead before the Fleck Report was issued.

Mr. Renton

Well, at the same time, what he was writing about was considered of sufficient relevance to the affairs of the Board for it to wish to publish the address he gave. He spoke with very great knowledge, and I should have thought there was no reason to doubt the point which he makes which seems to me perfectly valid. The fact of what happened to Sir Arthur Street certainly does not lessen the argument he used.

When one considers that the coal industry plays such a vital part in the life of this country; that its production is the largest of any European country; that Hobart House, as the headquarters of the industry, is responsible indirectly to Parliament for everything that the industry does; that when hon. Gentlemen opposite nationalised the industry, they purposely imposed on it a centralised structure which inevitably necessitated there being a bureaucratic pyramid with a necessarily large headquarters at the centre; and the pyramid being filled in all the way down until we get to the collieries—when we bear those facts in mind, I do not think the size of the staff at Hobart House is excessive.

I wish next to deal with the question of colliery personnel officers. I realise that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring who referred to this matter, like other hon. Members who represent mining constituencies—with whatever good reason or lack of reason—has been worried about this. The facts are these. Many collieries have a large labour force of over 2,000 men. Many of those men have personal problems of their own—individual problems, quite apart from the collective problems which give rise to disputes. They have their individual problems relating to pay, conditions of service, welfare, travelling to and from work and a host of other things, and it has been traditional for them to discuss those problems direct with the colliery manager. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] So I have been informed. The right of direct access to the colliery manager has been the subject of pride in the past. Whether it is with the colliery manager or with his deputy, the men have had a right of access to the people responsible for management at the collieries. That is the point.

I am also told—although on my own visits to collieries I have not witnessed this fact myself—that at some of the large collieries, one sees sometimes at the end of a shift a queue of men waiting to see the manager or his deputy to discuss not a collective problem but individual problems of their own. The discussion of these individual problems necessarily takes up much time, and the manager or his deputy cannot devote enough time to each man's problem to give that personal satisfaction which he would wish to give.

The result is that personnel management as now being practised in the industry is undeveloped by modern standards, and the Fleck Committee drew attention to this and had it in mind. I wish to stress that the manager of a large pit has an immense task to do, and surely he should devote as much of his time as he can to his essential job of securing the maximum output with the maximum safety at the minimum of cost. But if some of these details of man management and of individual problems could be delegated by the colliery manager to somebody else specialising in the matter, as is increasingly the case in other industries, including for example the steel industry, there would be two advantages. First, those problems might be more satisfactorily dealt with, and secondly the colliery manager could get on with his job of production more freely.

I am not suggesting for one moment, however, that the men's traditional right of access to the colliery manager in proper cases and in important matters should be done away with. I am certainly not suggesting that the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Hough-ton-le-Spring about the practice of men who have what one might call a dispute grievance of getting round the table with the colliery manager are at all well founded.

Mr. Blyton

Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the procedure starts with the man in the pit going to his overman, and if he does not get satisfaction there he goes to the under-manager? Then, if he does not get satisfaction there, he goes to the manager, and if he fails to get satisfaction from the manager, he goes to the lodge and the trade union deals with the matter. Once that man is prevented from going through that procedure, in order to get a manager to deal with his problem, we shall get trouble. The men will not stand it.

Mr. Renton

I am glad the hon. Gentleman made that interruption. What I am trying to do is to confirm that that well-established practice will continue and that the appointment of colliery personnel managers for dealing with individual problems will not disturb that relationship. That is a fear which I am attempting to set at rest.

Mr. Neal

How can we be sure that he does not infringe it?

Mr. Renton

That is a matter of good will on the part of all concerned. Let us see what has happened so far. The National Coal Board, knowing the sensitivity, especially of the National Union of Mineworkers on this matter—there is no complaint about it—has been going carefully with regard to the appointment of these colliery personnel officers. Very few have been appointed, and those only at the biggest pits. There have not been as many as twenty of them, and my information is that at each of the pits at which they have been appointed except one, the colliery personnel officers have, after an initial stage of difficulty, got the men's confidence and they are doing useful work.

There is no reason why they should not be doing so. It seems that there is a place for them in trying to sort out these many and varied individual problems. There is not the slightest reason why they should infringe upon the well-established practice whereby the men, in the event of a dispute as the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring indicated, forward the complaint and then, if it is not solved, put the case before the miners' lodge. There need be no interference at all, so far as I can see, with that practice. I hope that I have done something to set aside the fears—indeed, I am sorry to say, the mistrust—which has been felt by some members of the mining community with regard to this matter.

Mr. Neal

Deep concern.

Mr. Renton

I will now answer some of the further detailed points which were made. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring asked me to whom the colliery manager is responsible. The short answer is that the Fleck Committee recommended that the pits themselves should be reorganised into groups, the groups very often corresponding with the sub-areas which existed at the time of the Fleck Report, and that where a group manager has been appointed, the colliery manager is answerable to the group manager. That is the chain of responsibility. Although there are, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, and as I think there must be, area production managers and area reconstruction managers, the colliery manager's responsibility is to his group manager. With regard to this matter I invite the attention of hon. Members to the article in "Public Administration" by the Secretary to the National Coal Board, and particularly to pages 7 and 8 of it, where this chain of responsibility is dealt with.

The hon. Member for Barnsley invited my attention to the somewhat more controversial part of the Fleck Report, especially to the addendum by Dr. Fleck himself, at page 80. He pointed out that some two years would be needed to implement that recommendation. He said that he was against the recommendation; he pointed out that the Government have not yet implemented it, and asked me what we were going to do about it. When I tell him that the recommendation would need legislation and that there is no legislation proposed in this Session, which already has a very full programme of legislation, perhaps he can draw his own conclusions about the Government's attitude towards the matter, at any rate as it stands at present.

May I say this in conclusion? I find it somewhat ironical, as I was here at the time that the industry was nationalised, standing at this Dispatch Box and attempting to defend the National Coal Board for having a largely increased number of officials, and defending it especially from attacks made by hon. Members on the other side of the House, who set up the National Coal Board.

Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton) rose—

Mr. Renton

I am not making a political point. I would simply say that we must, on both sides, face up to the implications of nationalisation itself. We must face up to the fact that here is a full) integrated industry with a centralised structure which is expected to observe the highest standards of safety and to carry out research in that matter. Pneumoconiosis alone, I do not say that it is responsible for hordes of officials, certainly has meant that we have had to get a considerable number of technical personnel into the industry to look after that aspect alone. The Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, in which much higher standards of safety are enjoined upon the industry, means in turn that the National Coal Board must step up its safety administration.

Mr. Roberts

Of course, the nationalised coal industry is at present highly successful What we fear is this. The very people who fought against it at the beginning, in 1946, and who left the industry, are now trying hard to get back into it. That is why we are suspicious of the Fleck Report and its implications.

Mr. Renton

I find that rather strange in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley, who was complaining that the people who are coming into the industry have never been in it and know nothing whatever about it. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts), on the other hand, said that people who were in the industry and who do know about it are flocking back again, and he is suspicious of them. It is difficult to know how to reply from the Dispatch Box when one has two entirely differing views of that kind coming from the other side of the House.

I was inviting the House to face the implications of nationalisation and all the things which the National Coal Board is obliged to do, obliged partly from the very nature of the task which has been imposed upon it and partly by the development of modern scientific and technical knowledge.

Although my noble Friend the Minister of Power has no authority to interfere with the day-to-day administration of the National Coal Board, and would not, I am sure, wish to do so, nevertheless I am only too glad to be able to put forward these explanations, inadequately though I find I do so. I am sure that the Board itself will take due note of what has been said. Indeed, I propose to ask the Chairman if he will be good enough to write to the hon. Member for Barnsley about several points which were raised, without warning as far as I was concerned, but about which I feel that the hon. Member is entitled to further information.

Mr. Mason

We are concerned about the success of the industry. Concerning the particular question of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware and which I raised in debate—that 750 administrative personnel have been added to the Board—are they executive members or do they include typists, clerks, and so on? If not, how many more people have been added to the Board other than those 750 administrative personnel? What does the hon. and learned Gentleman have to say of the criticism that men with mining experience who have applied for jobs at executive level have been overlooked to allow other people who have no knowledge of it to come in from outside the industry?

Mr. Renton

I have various details of the figures relating to additions to the staff, and in response to the hon. Gentleman I suppose I had better inflict them on the House, but they are pretty detailed figures. I hope the House will bear with me. I think the best thing is to compare the figures at the end of September, 1956, the last date for which I have them available, with those at the end of September, 1955. For engineers and technical staff of all kinds excluding scientists the figures are these: at the end of September, 1955, 9,202; at the end of September 1956, 10,091.

The figures for scientists are: at the end of September, 1955, 2,089; at the end of September, 1956, 2,324. Then there are the others, that is to say, the balance of that total figure of 18,000-odd whom I described as salaried staff or officials, and including all the administrative personnel, including those engaged on finance, marketing, etcetera.

Mr. Mason

What is the salary range?

Mr. Renton

The salary range. I understand, is £750 upwards.

Neal

Relating to all those?

Mr. Renton

I understand so.

The figures for others are these: at the end of September, 1955, 5,259; at the end of September, 1956, 5,756. The totals of these three categories are: at the end of September, 1955, 16,550; at the end of September, 1956. 18.171.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater (Sedgefield)

It is not my intention to take up a great deal of the time of the House. I have been most interested in the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary has made to the various questions which have been put by my hon. Friends. When this industry was nationalised it was revolutionised. Changes were made for these employed in the industry, and they are now enjoying them, but one thing which the Minister and hon. Members generally must never forget is that those in this industry are still interested in it and in the way in which it has to be run.

Concerning the colliery managers, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) intervened to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom they are responsible, and the hon. and learned Gentleman replied, "The group managers". I think that if he were to go into the matter a little more closely he would find that the set-up in the industry is entirely different from what he thinks it is. The position created at managerial level is such that a manager does not clearly understand to whom he is responsible. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the central store department. There have been changes in stores management, compared with the old system as we understood it.

Inquiries were made in the industry before the Fleck Committee was set up, and the further we look into these matters the greater becomes our suspicion. Investigations were made in the various counties and a committee was set up to make a country-wide examination. I am not aware that a report has been made of what transpired at those investigations. It is the easiest thing in the world to carry a big staff, as is now being carried at Hobart House, and then try to draw a comparison with I.C.I. The comparison can especially not be made when an industry is operating at its own prices while, in mining, there is a control of prices in an extracting industry in which all the development with which we are familiar is taking place.

Before he declares himself satisfied with the recommendations in the Fleck Report, the Minister should give further consideration to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring. The men in the industry are very suspicious of these new positions and feel that the industry should be freed from what they think is the present overloading.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Ten o'clock.