§ 52. Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Paymaster-General, in view of the fact that in spite of almost total mechanisation the miner today is hewing 14 tons less annually than his predecessor two decades ago, what has been the cost of mechanisation since the nationalisation of the mines and the extra cost in wages since the same period; and if he will represent to the miners the importance of improving and extending our export trade and thus contributing to the well-being of those engaged in the industry both now and in the future.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin)An accurate figure of expenditure on mechanisation since 1947 is not available. Cash wages per ton of coal were 26s. in September, 1947, and 47s. 6d. in September, 1957 (or 29s. 8d. at 1947 prices). The coal industry is well aware of the importance of exports, and it is not lack of supplies that is holding back this trade.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-DavenportAfter pouring all these hundreds of millions into the market to make conditions easier for the miners and to increase production, is not all the thanks the taxpayer has received for this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Not at all.
§ Mr. FernyhoughOn a point of order. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to see the hon. and gallant Member as we can from here you would observe that the hon. and gallant Member is reading, despite his protest.
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not think that at all. Hon. Members often look as though they are reading even when they are not. I thought that what the hon. and gallant Member was saying was the product of his extempore wit.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-DavenportAfter pouring all these hundreds of millions into the market to make conditions easier for the miners and to increase production, is not all the thanks the taxpayer has received worse quality, less production and increased prices? I understand that it is the intention to pour another £1,000 million——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. and gallant Member should bring his supplementary question to a conclusion.
§ Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - DavenportMay I just finish this last part of my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? This last part has got top spin on it. If it had not been for hon. Gentlemen opposite interrupting I should have finished by now. Is it not intended to spend a further £1,000 million on the mines, and does not my hon. Friend realise that the taxpayer considers this very much like pouring good money after bad?
§ Sir I. HorobinI hope I shall not hit across the spin. The country has undoubtedly received some return for the very large sums of money invested in the mines since the war. Whether it has received as much return as it should have done is too big a question to answer in a reply to a supplementary question.