PITS CLOSURE BLACK

Fear of a new round of pit closures laid its cold hand on miners last week after allegations from union leader Lawrence Daly that there had been secret talks on the subject between the government and the National Coal Board.

The allegations were quickly denied by NCB chairman Derek Ezra.

With consumption down, stocks up and a big new pay claim in the offing, however, the fear remains.

The Wilberforce report which ended this year's strike said ominously that there was no 'special magic' in the level at which the NCB has recently been trying stabilize output-130-140 million tons year.

And it suggested that 'contraction below that size, if it must come, would result in closure the least efficient collieries and greater concentration on those operating at a The report went on: We recognize the social and economic costs of closure, especially for the peripheral regions of the country in which unemployment is already high.

Nevertheless, government wishes to maintain employment in these areas and in the coalmining industry in particular, the specific costs of doing so should be identified and made plain.

'The cost of subsidizing employment should not be reflected in a relative depression of the wages of those who work in the industry' Most miners immediately recognized and determined not accept the obvious tinge of anti-wage increase blackmail contained in this section of the report.

A right-wing argument at the National Union of Mineworkers' Morecambe conference earlier this how- month, Tories ever, was that if the were pushed too hard on wages this year they might hit at jobs in two ways.

These were: hanging fire on writing off the industry's capital debt, and delaying the implementation of their new integrated energy policy.

While this line was roundly denounced by the left, one delegate to the conference warned that between 30 and 40 of the present 290 pits might still be in jeopardy.

And, according to NUM secretary Daly, recent reports that the NCB was preparing changes in the redundancy payments scheme for the industry indicated that a closures programme of this order might be under discussion.

Then came rumours that the NCB was having discussions with the government about closure of a number of pits without the knowledge of union.

So in Edinburgh last Tuesday, at a meeting of the Coal Industry National Consultative Council, Daly demanded some answers from NCB chairman Ezra.

their cards on the table! "1 'I said I wanted them to put told Workers Press later. said we wanted full consultation as equal partners in the industry, with nothing concealed or brushed under the carpet.

'I warned that if conciliation was not going to be full, open and meaningful, the feeling would once again grow up among the membership that we should withdraw from it' (The NUM withdrew from the conciliation procedure during the run-up to the recent strike.)

Ezra denied that any list of pit closures had been drafted. And he told the union chiefs that there had been no secret talks with the government on a programme of further cutbacks.

Wilberforce The linchpin of his argument was that the NCB could not know in detail what its future plans were until it knew the extent of government assistance to the industry in the wake of the Wilberforce report.

This, of reservation.

Wilberforce added something like £85m a year to the board's cost, and although it hopes to recoup about £56m of this through the 74 per cent price rise for which the government has given it permission, its finances are still shaky.

Until last October, when the government and the NCB decided on a confrontation with the unions, and the latter began their pre-strike overtime ban, economists believed the board was heading for a £35m operating profit for the financial year to the end of March.

In the event, despite the £100m grant the Tories made to pay for the strike, the accounts when published in September are likely to show a very substantial loss. No one will be very surprised if this works out in the region of £100m.

The reason for the similarity between these two figures the government grant and the expected loss-is simple. WANTED