(i) The importance of coal-mining

Nine out of ten mining parents and a clear majority of non-mining parents and boys recognised that the coal-mining industry was the most important industry of all at the date of the survey, and since then the industrial crisis of March 1947 has occurred and has no doubt persuaded additional parents and boys that it is the most important industry. It can be said therefore that the vital importance of coal-mining to this country is widely appreciated, and that lack of appreciation of this fact can have little effect on the opinion of parents in succeeding sections.

(ii) What improvements might attract boys to the industry?

The problem of what will attract boys to mining, or alter parents' attitudes toward it, has been tackled in two ways. In the first place parents were asked to give their own opinions on the issue, and in the second place they were asked, as were the boys, to answer specific questions on Mechanisation, Training, and the effects of Nationalisation. The general opinions of the parents are dealt with in this section, and their answers to specific questions in succeeding sections.

Parents were asked whether they thought anything could be done to make mining more attractive to boys like their own. Mining fathers were more optimistic about this than either non-mining parents or mining mothers, since nearly three quarters of the fathers and less than half the mothers and non-mining parents thought such improvements could be made. Those against mining more frequently said that no improvements could be made than those in favour of it.

The concrete suggestions of parents who thought that improvements could be made were centred around better conditions underground and better machinery and ventilation; better hours and better pay and less income tax; better training; more coupons, food and soap; better welfare arrangements; and more social clubs, concerts and social activities. The most important of these, judging by the frequency with which they are mentioned, are better conditions underground with more machinery and better ventilation and better hours and better pay.

Improved conditions underground are mentioned more often by mining mothers and non-mining parents than by mining fathers, who speak more frequently of better training. Mining mothers mention better welfare facilities more frequently than either of the other two groups.

The improvements which would prove most attractive to mining parents who are against mining as a job for their boys, according to the increased frequency with which they are mentioned, are better pay and better hours in the case of the men, and better hours and better conditions underground in the case of women. The mining fathers in favour of mining are less concerned about these factors but more concerned about better training, while the mothers who are favourably inclined echo the need for better training, while the mothers who are against mining of the need for better welfare facilities and more social activities.

Improvements in all the directions mentioned would, however, not only make mining more attractive to those against it but simultaneously give greater satisfaction to those in favour of mining, or those engaged in mining, since it is clear that the parents think that improvements which they want for themselves are also the improvements which would attract boys.

It would appear, therefore, that in so far as technical reorganisation changes conditions underground for the better it will be of more importance to recruitment than any other factor. Better hours have been granted since this inquiry was carried out and a new wages structure is under discussion. So far as the remaining factors are concerned it seems that better training should be stressed in any publicity directed at fathers, and better welfare arrangements and the provision of more social activities in publicity directed at mothers.

(iii) Attitudes toward Mechanisation

Mechanisation has been mentioned as one of the improved conditions underground which would attract boys to mining. Parents were reminded that the mines were going to be increasingly mechanised and then asked directly if they thought it would make mining a better or a worse job. A similar reminder and a similar question were put to boys.

A clear majority of the parents (somewhat more from non-mining than from mining families), and three quarters of the boys, thought that mechanisation would make mining a better job, largely because it would make the work easier, and to a lesser extent because it would improve output. It was also thought that mechanisation would improve conditions underground, particularly by the boys, and would make the work safer and more interesting.

A small proportion of parents and boys (approximately one in ten) thought that mechanisation would make mining worse, because it would cause more accidents and unemployment, but larger proportions thought it would make mining better in some ways and worse in others. Those who thought this mentioned the advantages outlined above but also the disadvantages mentioned.

It is clear that mechanisation might have a considerable effect on the attitudes of parents against mining, since nearly half the mining parents who were against mining thought that it would make mining a better job and an even higher proportion of the boys against mining thought the same. The parents and boys in favour of mining also said most frequently that it would make mining better a job.

In general it would seem that mechanisation could be of considerable help to recruitment, and assist in the recognition of mining as a skilled job and an interesting job. It is necessary to stress that it will not lead to unemployment, however, or, on the basis of facts, to more accidents.

(iv) Attitudes toward Training Schemes

Both parents and boys were told that boys entering mining were going to have a special training course before going underground, and also that there was a possibility of attending a training centre for six months for further education as well as for technical training. They were asked in each case whether it would influence them in favour of mining.

The residential training scheme has a slightly greater influence on parents and boys than the special training course, since slightly higher proportions said it would influence them favourably. Both had a greater influence on mining parents and boys from mining families than upon boys and parents from non-mining families, and upon those who were in favour or who did not

mind it than upon those against it. Nevertheless, roughly one in six of parents and boys against mining said it would influence them either toward letting their boys enter mining or toward entering it themselves, compared with one in three of the parents in favour of mining.

(v) Attitudes toward Nationalisation

At the time of this inquiry, August - October, 1946, the Bill nationalising the coal mines had only recently received the Royal Assent. The matter was, therefore, prominent in the minds of parents at least, but the scheme for the organisation of the mines still existed only in broad outline, and their judgment of how nationalisation would effect mining was dependent on what they thought nationalisation would do rather than upon any detailed criticism of its administrative structure and aims.

Nearly all mining fathers, but a somewhat lower proportion of mining mothers and non-mining parents, and a much lower proportion of boys, knew that the mines were going to be taken over by the Government. The parents alone were asked if they knew how the Government was going to take them over, and a reference to the National Coal Board was accepted as sufficient to make the answer ‘Yes’. On this basis less than half the mining fathers knew how it was going to be done, and even lower proportions of mining mothers and non-mining parents. Whether they knew how it was going to be done or not, however, they were asked whether they thought nationalisation would make mining a better or a worse job, and a similar question was addressed to the boys.

Three out of four mining fathers thought that nationalisation would make mining a better job, as did lower but still major proportions of the mining mothers, non-mining parents, and boys. Fair proportions in all groups were unwilling to express an opinion, however, while small proportions thought it would make no difference. The proportion of those against mining who thought that it would make mining a better job were not very much smaller than among those in favour of mining.

The principal reasons given for their view by those who thought nationalisation would make mining a better job were that there would be better conditions materially, better organisation of the mines, better treatment, fair play, and that they would be working for themselves and the country and not for the owners. Those who were doubtful if nationalisation would make any difference to mining said they were doubtful of the success of nationalisation, and that it remained to be seen what would happen. Time would tell.

Mining fathers mentioned better organisation and the fact that they would be working for themselves, more frequently than the other parents, while the boys referred most frequently to the improved conditions that would follow nationalisation as their reason for thinking it would make mining a better job.

Those mining fathers who were against mining mentioned better organisation of the mines as a thing in favour of nationalisation more frequently than those in favour of mining, but they were also more frequently doubtful of success and ready to wait and see what happened.

When they were asked if nationalisation would alter their attitude to mining as a job in any way it became apparent that, except among mining fathers, the effect of nationalisation was small. One in three of mining fathers said it altered their attitude, but only one in six mining mothers and non-mining parents and an even smaller proportion of boys said so. Small proportions of each group said that nationalisation did not alter their attitude because they were in favour of it anyway, but the majority of those who said that it did not alter their attitude said they were still against mining as a job.

Mining fathers who said that they were against mining as a job more frequently said that nationalisation altered their attitude than did mining mothers against mining, but in any case only one mining parent in six who was against mining as a job said that it altered his or her attitude favourably toward mining.

The reasons parents and boys gave for their attitude being altered were mainly those already expressed above, that is to say, conditions would improve, there would be better organisation, better treatment, and so on.

At the time of the inquiry, therefore, Nationalisation did not greatly influence the opinions of any of those against mining save mining fathers, even though the majority of parents and boys anticipate that it will improve conditions in mining in many directions. The emphasis would seem to be on the fact that these improvements lie in the future, and under present conditions the mere promise of improvement is not sufficient to induce many of the boys opposed to mining to enter the industry or many of the mothers opposed to mining to let their boys go down the pits. From the time changes are made as a result of Nationalisation it will mean something concrete, however, and it is then, perhaps, that the full effects of Nationalisation on recruitment will be felt.

(vi) The Final Opinions of Parents and Boys on Mining as a Job

As has been noted earlier, both parents and boys were asked at the end of the interview to summarise their attitudes towards mining by saying whether they were in favour of mining as a job, were against it, or would be [Text missing] to enter it without having strong feelings either way.

There is increasing opposition to mining as one moves away from the mining fathers toward the boys Of the mining fathers less than two in ten, of the mining mothers rather more than one in ten, and of the non-mining parents rather more than one in twenty, were in favour of mining as a job for their boys, while of the boys themselves, fewer than one in twenty were in favour of mining as a job. Roughly the same proportion in each group, approximately two in ten, said that they were neutral toward mining as a job.

One in three of the parents who had a boy or boys in mining was against them being in the industry, and yet only one mining family in five with children had a boy or boys in mining. The high proportion of parents and boys who are against mining, and the low proportion with children in the industry is some indication of the intensity with which the feelings recorded in the body of this report are felt. They clearly cannot be thought of as superficial or the result of prejudice only, and thus easily dismissed. The importance of mining as a job is well recognised, however, and it seems that active steps to improve conditions underground, to improve pay, (demands for better hours having been met), to reorganise and mechanise the pits, and to see that the miner is recognised as a skilled man, would meet with a good response, not only from the mining families, in whom the best prospects of recruitment lie, but also from non-mining families in the coalfields.

(vii) Summary

A clear majority of parents and boys recognised the mining industry as the most important of all industries.

Parents suggested that boys could be attracted to the industry by better conditions underground, better hours and better pay and less income tax, better welfare arrangements, and more social clubs, concerts and social activities in mining areas. Better training was also mentioned by the fathers.

A majority of parents and boys thought that mechanisation would make mining a better job, although some thought it would cause more unemployment. It had a considerable effect upon the opinions of those against mining, particularly upon the opinions of the boys, and it is suggested that it may be the key to the problem of making mining a trade in the eyes of parents.

Training schemes influenced only a small proportion in favour of mining, the residential training scheme producing more response than the special training course.

Although a high proportion of parents and boys thought that Nationalisation would make mining a better job, it did not, at the time of the inquiry, alter the attitudes of either parents or boys very greatly. It is suggested, however, that the concrete results of Nationalisation may have a considerable effect on recruitment.

Mining fathers are most favourably inclined toward mining, mining mothers somewhat less favourably inclined, non-mining parents still less favourably inclined, and boy are least favourably inclined of all.