Britain’s Coal Industry

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29234, 18 June 1960, Page 12

Britain’s Coal Industry

British Labour seemed more shocked by the possibility of a return of coal-mining to private ownership than by the report (now officially confirmed) of the appointment of one of its key political leaders in Mr Alfred Robens as chairman of the National Coal Board. Just why the National Union of Mineworkers should be so worried about the future of this nationalised industry is not clear. Though public opinion has been calling strongly for more enterprise in marketing to go with the greater efficiency achieved in mining, it is hard to believe that the Government would be able to find buyers for an industry that is piling up surplus stocks (like coal industries in many other countries) and is closing pits as fast as it can find jobs for displaced workers. Even supposing the advantages of private enterprise disposing of output could compensate for the loss of the .'National Coal Board’s co-ordina- . tion in reducing costs, the Government would not like to hawk the mines round among -unwilling buyers. Perhaps, •'however, the miners are not frightened that Mr Robens will dismantle nationalisation but that he will introduce commercial practices to the industry, speeding up the closing of deep pits and perhaps even reopening the opencast mines, leaving the State to care for the workers instead of saddling the industry with the social obligation of finding employment.

The principal criticism of the National Coal Board has been over its refusal to dispose of some of its stockpile at bargain prices. It had 36 million tons on hand at the end of last year, and this largely accounted for its loss on the year of £24 million in spite of a 5.3 per cent, improvement in productivity. Although 53 pits were closed in 1959 and another 45 will be closed this year, even radical opinion also criticises the board for not reducing production to the point where it is somewhere near a demand affected by the popularity and economy of oil fuel. The “ Guardian ”, Manchester, spoke for a wide body of opinion when it advocated the following programme:

The board should work out a price policy at which it can compete with imported fuels and then produce as much coal as it can sell. This would mean concentrating production on the newer, low-cost coalfields to a much greater extent than is envisaged, and more serious redundancy than is at present contemplated in the older colliery districts. But that is the Government’s responsibility, not the Coal Board's. Coal is a fuel industry, not a separate welfare industry within the State.

The comment of the “Daily “ Telegraph ” was that “in “ selling the board needs not “just increased efficiency but a “ revolution ”. Plainly there is a job to be done, and Mr Robens may be the man to do it. Coal is too important in the economy of Britain for the industry to be ruined by out-of-date management, however satisfactory that may be to the union.