BRITAIN'S COAL DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 60, 12 March 1926, Page 12

BRITAIN'S COAL DISPUTE.

MINE OWNER AND MINER. WHAT DO THEY MEAN? APPARENTLY HOPELESS IMPASSE. CFrom Oar Own Correspondent.) LONDON, February 2. ! We have now had full statements of both parties in the coal dispute. The mine owners spoke first and their attitude of mind towards the whole probi lem makes cne ask whether they are to ' be regarded as reactionary as they appear, or -whether they have issued their report in such a tone as to disturb even those who believe in private enterprise, i so that the end —nationalisation—may come quickly. The "Spectator," coni- , menting on the report says that it doubts if the mine owners were well advised to repeat the tactics -which last ' year forfeited public sympathy. ■The mine owners' proposals were right away criticised by Sir Herbert Samuel, chairman of the coal cominis- . sion. He eaid that the owners' demand , for a return to the eight-hour day meant the men would work lonaer for tie • same -wage and there -would be a reduc- . tion in wages ranging from C>d in South , Wales to 15/9 a week in Lancashire. , This, said Sir Herbert, would reduce the i English miner to working longer than in any European country except Silesia. . The owners too, asked a 25 per cent re- ; duction in railway rates. With all this, , he said, their plan would still leave the ' industry in the position of making a i loss of 3d a ton on coal. This might be faced by the nation if it were to lead ito some betterment of the industry. • But of this, apparently, the mine owners i despair. Aid .-what the public,_ alike • those sympathetic with the employers'' > problems and those whose interests lie ■ with the "workers, find in the mine owners' report is a complete lack of ! any realisation of the trend of modern L industry. The mine owners present a case in which they completely ignore ■ the basic trouble with the English coal t industry—its organisation is quite out of date. It ignores all the new ideas for • the production of power and seems to ■ envisage an industry which will go in the same ruts as it was eet when the 5 petrol engine was undreamed of and the using of coal on the coal field itself for ! the production of power was not in ■ evidence. Xo one, we fancy, envies the Prime Minister his ta§k. His hasty application of the eubsidy plaster to sooth the , painful symptoms leading to strikes has already cost the nation dear. Everybody has now had a chance of realising that , the public is paying through the nose, millions of money which is being tapped by mine owners who hpve not a shadow of excuse for getting, it and on the other hand is bolstering up mines which should have been shut down. The coal owners have ignored the • very. vital factor in the prosperity of - their industry, the question of foreign T competition,' and it is just here t~-.at - modern methods - of power production t are playing havoc with British foreign ■ trade in coal. Yet this is a real factor - that wants consideration; it,is at least T conceivable that the whole coal trade 1 and Europe may _ fiifdTJtitelf". threatened 1 with practical bankruptcy- in'competi- ' tion with itself in oil. . ' On the other hand, the miners' report. " which refuses to accept any idea of ; -wage reduction, more especially if that I reduction means -reduction' in railway 1 wages as well, does not carry one very • far. Nationalisation, while not so acj tively opposed by non-Socialists, is ' regarded rather as a counsel of -despair. XationaMsa'tion, if it were effected in the sense of ■ trade combine, if 5 nation- wide would obviously effect eco--1 nomies, but their scheme of oomprehenJ sive nationalisation—of mining royalties I of the mines themselves, of their by- : products and to some extent of electril cal power development is a bold one. "' for its consequences can hardly be pre- ] dieted. It is to be doubted if a Labour 1 Government would try to attempt to carry it through Parliament, except, per- ' haps, by piecemeal legislation. But even if one supposes that the Labour party (who officially endorse the echeme) arc I so sure of its practical efficiency that '. they would stand or fall by it as a whole in Parliament, that is not to say. that ' the miners are ready -to continue at . work in the pits until such time as their suggested remedies yield them a sub- '- stantial financial return. Even the most I convinced believer in nationalisation \ would hesitate to say that the scheme , would improve the efficiency of the in- . dustry so rapidly as to enable appreciably higher wages to be paid within, say, "five years. "Nationalisation on the scale proposed by the miners would be, in fact, very much of a leap in the dark. It -might prove profitable in the long run; equally it might not. For the moment miners and owners are manoeuvering for position and each party is making the biggest claim pos--1 sible" in order to have, something tobar- : gain with. Matters have., not been sm- : proved, by the personalities exchanged ! between the leaders. of "the two parties " at the coal commission sittings this, ' week, and it is, to say the least of it, ; a little undignified of Mr. Herbert Smith, 1 the owners' representative, to gay.that 1 his remuneration from sixteen director- " ships was fimmater.ial to the discussion. ; The wage of the miner is certainly a ' material, issue a.nd Mr. Smith would [ have been better advised not to have told \ Sir. Cook that it was none of his busi- ! ness how much he drew for. director ■ ships fees. - \i' . - - . ~~