The Press SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1948. Loss on Nationalised Coal

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25549, 17 July 1948, Page 6

The Press SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1948. Loss on Nationalised Coal

If the nationalised coal industry were winning sufficient coal for Britain's industrial recovery plans the country would no doubt lace with i equanimity even the huge deficit of ’ £23,250,000 now disclosed by the! National Coal Board for its first ■ year’s working. But output has! lagged far behind the production I rate required to meet this year’sl minimum target of 211,000,000 tons; and any short-fall will threaten the export programme, which is one of I the keys to Britain’s balance of payments problem. There was, indeed, much more room for satisfaction at the end of the year under review (the calendar year 1347) than there is now. Improvement in manpower, reduced absenteeism, ' increased manshift output—all seemed to justify the chairman of the Coal Board (Lord Hyndley) in saying that the industry had “ begun to turn the ° corner The close approach to th,e year’s production target of 200.000,000 tons was achieved at great cost. The five-day week increased the wages bill by £30,000,000; another £10,000,000 or more was spent in improving the working conditions of the miners. The board’s report states that £ 19,000,000 was spent on the capital account last year. A large part of this sum w T ent in mechanising the mines. Twice during the year the price of coal was increased; but the British consumer and the British taxpayer probably thought the outlay would pay in the end. Developments since’ then have been disquieting. Mr Gaitskell, the Minister of Fuel and Power, in the House of Commons last month, admitted that the Government was deeply disturbed. The output rate had fallen, manpower in the mines had scarcely increased since* the middle of March, and weekly production was 100.000 tons below requirements. Long before this the resignations of many- of the most able administrators and technicians had warned the public that all was not well with the National Coal Board.

Those who thought that nationalising the mines would end conflict between employer and worker have been mistaken. The Coal Board has gone to extreme lengths to promote good industrial relations. The M Eco- “ nomist ”, reviewing these measures, remarked that scarcely a claim advanced by the National Union of Mineworkers has not been met. The Miners’ Charter has become an established fact; the principle of the five-day week has been conceded; minimum wages have been raised; recently a supplementary scheme for injured and disabled miners has been accepted; and the board cannot be accused of undue haste in taking disciplinary measures against absentees or unofficial strikers. Evidence that the demands of production have weighed less than the immediate welfare of miners has been visible, the journal insists, at every stage in the board’s career. It is still visible. How far this unsatisfactory position is attributable to weaknesses in the structure of the Coal Board itself is not clear. Some light may be thrown upon it by the committee set up by the board in May ’• to take stock of the position “ reached in the development of the “ board’s organisation and to advise “the board whether any improve- “ ments can be made ”, Competent observers insist that improvements not only can but must be made, and promptly.

The N.C.B. works badly (said the “Manchester Guardian’’] because the distribution of responsibility among its officials is confused. The managers of the mines, and of the groups of mines organised in areas, have to refer far too many things to the regional boards and through them to London. . The boards work inefficiently partly because they try to do too much detailed work, partly because they are too remote to understand local problems, and partly because they are too strictly organised into departments whose work overlaps but whose status is equal, so that differences can be settled only by the chairman. . . . There must be a thorough reorganisation shifting the main responsibility of management to the local areas. These are some of the mistakes made by a Government which, as Mr Shinwell, former Minister of Fuel and Power, has admitted, “ thought it knew all about national- “ ising the coal industry, but in fact “ did not