COALOWNERS AND 'COAL PLAN
Sta,—You were recently good enough to publish a reply from me to certain of your own criticisms of the "Robert Foot Plan for Coal," and following your most recent (March 9th issue) attack, 1 am prompted to ask: "Why do you regard it as surprising that any community of. industrial interests should be prepared to accept a scheme for the improvement of its productive, distributive and managerial machinery?" Surely the post-war world will offer fewer obstacles to progress if every industry attempted similar progressive change. Under any-circumstances the "Foot Plan" would be infinitely better than the miners' alternative of Nationalisation! You oppose the plan because_ you allege that "there are to be no nominees of the Mineworkers' Union upon the Central Coal Board," but have the mineworkers eves invited the owners to nominate representatives to sit upon the executive committee of their own union? Is it conceivable that they will? After all, this particular executive takes decisions which to a large extent dictate conditions seriously affecting management, control and-working conditions within the mining industry, all of which would profit considerably by the representation of owners upon the deliberating executive. If you suggested this, however, the full wrath of organised labour would be called forth to destroy the idea at birth. The reason is political and you know it!
The "Foot Plan" goes far to meet the issue of workers' representation upon the Central Board, and its author takes pains to state that "it will be clearly of advantage that the Board shall include at least two members who started life in the industry as boys in the pit and have worked their way to whatever position they may occupy today. Mr. Foot does not lay it down that such men shall be directors, managers, under-managers, deputies or colliers, but he does indicate that they should be truly repre- sentative of and experienced in pit life-. Obviously the District Boar& would comprise siptilar representation of the practical and experienced mine worker.
Your criticism that " the plan provides no adequate safeguard for consumers" invites especial correction. On page 4t of the Report, section VIII, principle VII, the authoi deals effectively with the commei- cial arrangements under the plan for the disposal and sale of coal and its distribution at home and abroad. It provides for positive and progres- sive selling with a view to market expansion. It provides for the elimina- tion of inter-colliery and inter-district competition, and above all it provides for the elimination of all unnecessary distribution charges from the pit to the consumer, and for the establishment of the principle that distribution is a service to the consumer for which there should be adequate, but no more than adequate, reward.
The guarantee to the consumer that there shall be a "full disclosure of all information to enable the consumer to judge for himself of the fairness of the price being charged from time to time" is an innovation which I feel that even you, Sir', will welcomer.
The broad basis of the plan has shown itself acceptable to the vast majority of owners, and everything within its orbit which promises to improve the lot of mineworkers is acceptable to them. To assume its failure or to debit against it imaginary advantages to the owners at the expense of the workers or consumers is merely destructive criticism. For too long, and at the consumers' expense, has the mining industry been the political shuttlecock of Socialist Politics. Above all other industry it needs the peace, security and progressive development offered by the "Foot Plan'," and given the opportunity to become the solid foundation of Britain's future industrial greatness it will succeed.—Yours faithfully,
ii Kenwell Drive, Sheffield, Yorks. CECIL F. PIKE.
Previous page
