THE COAL PLAN
IF the British economy is to be a planned economy and if the British system of government is to be truly democratic then it follows inevitably that good citizens should acquaint them- selves with the national plan for that most fundamental of British industries, coal-mining. Those whose faith in the future of economic planning is imperfect, and even those who are assailed by doubts as to the effectiveness of British democracy, can hardly turn away from this most obvious and elementary exercise in the integration of the twit --The National Coal Board's Plan For Coal, published on Tuesday, looks at first sight like compulsory reading for responsible democrats. And since the conscientious efforts of generations of schoolmasters, supple- mented by the much sharper lesson of the fuel crisis of 1947, still do not seem to have aroused the British public to a due sense of the importance of this part of its heritage there can be no doubt that large numbers of people would indeed benefit from a careful study of this report. As ,a piece of elementary exposition of the problem of planning coal production it is clear and honest ; and, far from shirking the broader difficulties of the task, it sets them out with a thoroughness which the more enthusiastic advocates of national planning may perhaps find a little discouraging.
The Coal Board's present proposals, as set out in their Plan For Coal, give the impression that they have acquired knowledge with pain and can therefore speak of it with feeling. This is salutary in itself. It also means that at least the broad outlines of the plan have been determined with some care and may be expected to stand up pretty strongly to that process of continuous scrutiny which is an essential part of planning. The plan is stated in terms of estimated results to be achieved in the period of 1961-65, which is straightforward and realistic enough since it is likely that most major plans for extension and reconstruction will take from ten to fifteen years to progress from the drawing board to full effectiveness in production. The capital expenditure of £635 million at the rate of about £44) million a year, to cover both collieries and ancillary undertakings like coke ovens, is the sort of figure which students of the Coal Board's publications have come to expect. It is reasonable ; it is unlikely to be excessive, particularly since a great part of the amount will be found through the Board's own depreciation provision ; and, what is very much to the point, it is hardly likely to be quickly upset. The Coal Board has set its general course, and against the valid criticism that four years is a long time to take over that operation may be set the fact that 'the lights and buoys of particular and local plans are beginning to make their appearance and even the dangerous seas of regional and export demand over a coming period of fifteen years are beginning to be charted. It would certainly not be fair to conclude that high hope reigns on the /bridge, but there certainly seems to' be some realism there.
More serious difficulties are likely to appear when realism is taken further. Already the Board seems to be showing a certain amount of reluctance about taking the public fully into its con- fidence. While it is true that beginners in the study of coal pro- duction planning are likely to derive a great deal of immediate benefit from the Plan For Coal, more instructed observers will soon find themselves searching hard for the core of new and par- ticular fact in a mass of general exposition—and often seeking in vain. The Board carefully points out that its proposals have still to be discussed with the miners' representatives in the National Consultative Council and later submitted to the Minister of Fuel and Power. They are not in their final form. And to this it may be independently added that they will have to be in a very much fuller form than that in which they have been presented to the public before they can be effectively discussed with these official eminences. There is not a great deal of point in talking about a decline in manpower of only 80,000 in fifteen years, when the fall in the past year alone has been over 20,000, unless some pretty detailed suggestions are made as to the means of finding the new recruits. Not is it very helpful to the layman, much less to the expert, to assess the overseas demand for coal ten years hence at a figure rather higher than the present one without giving chapter and verse for this rather surprising statement. In fact there are times when the planners might have been a little more frank, even if that meant giving some information about unresolved arguments within the Board's vast organisation. It is clear enough that the public can hardly cope with the full details of the Board's planning activities. In fact, the qualifications and cautions with which the present proposals have been presented might be taken to indicate that the Board has some difficulty in coping with those details itself. Adequate public discussion is in the circumstances 'very difficult.
But will there ever be—indeed can there be ?—proper public discussion of the future planning of coal production ? All the signs are that nationalisation, by concentrating control at the centre and thus presenting the minds of individual and fallible men with such a tremendous meal of fact and argument, has made useful discussion (which should end in decisive action) next to impossible. It is possible to argue that the general public seldom bestirs itself to take an active interest in economic policy until the economic facts become intolerably unpleasant. Certainly there was never more general interest in coal than during the fuel crisis of 1947, except possibly during the general strike of 1926. A few days of cold and darkness had more effect than the preceding months of warnings and alarms. Even today, when the warnings are reappearing, thEre is no great evidence of public interest. There must be an explanation for this curious unwilling- ness to take notice until the storm actually breaks, and the probable answer is that consumers only bestir themselves when they encounter hardship because that is all they can understand about coal. Such hardship is at least simple and direct. But the plan for coal is tremendously complicated and roundabout. In the words of the Board " The object of the national Plan for coal is to discover the most efficient size and shape of the industry —to find out how much of each kind of coal should be produced and where it should be produced to meet consumers' demands and make the best contribution to the nation's welfare." Is such an object within the grasp of finite minds ? Is planning on this scale feasible at all ? If it is, then all reasonable men will naturally be glad. All parties supported coal nationalisation, and all parties want to see it work well. But there are many different ways in which it might work, and the Coal Board in their search for realism have still to ask themselves once again whether they have found the right one. Lord Hyndley has very carefully pointed out that the plan is a framework and that its execution will be in the hands of local managements. But it still remains doubtful whether the process of decentralisation has been taken far enough. Above all it is doubtful whether there can be any effective understanding and control by the public except at a local level. Before nationalisa- tion such understanding and control were often .a possibility. At least some of the shareholders of particular colliery companies could understand the business of their companies and take an active part in it. It is probable 'that the mineworkers as well could have made a useful contribution to local control, if they had had a chance. But it is doubtful whether anyone but a diligent research worker could get anything like a reasonable grasp of the planning of the British coal industry as a whole ; and he, for all his knowledge, would probably not be able to take any useful action. In fact, the longer the experiment in nationali- sation goes on the clearer it becomes that if political and economic realities are to be married, and if the electors are to have a really effective voice in the affairs of the industry. they are supposed to own they must be presented with issues which are within their mental grasp. It is doubtful whether the problems•of the national planning of coal are such issues, or ever can be. The existing alternative is to leave it to the Coal Board and hope for the best. That is almost certainly not enough. In the most immediate sense, with coal stocks at their present level and with the worst of the winter still to come, breakdown could happen quite suddenly and the Board would have difficulty in preventing it. And in the long run it is still a gamble whether the Board, with the best will in the world and with the full support of all responsible citizens, can carry through the vast task which it has set, itself. •
Previous page
