BRITISH COAL INDUSTRY

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 73, 19 December 1929, Page 11

BRITISH COAL INDUSTRY

NATIONAL MARKETING SCHEME FACILITATING EXPORT SALES OBJECTS OF BILL The British Coal Mines BUI, the second reading of which has been moved in he House of Commons, provides for the setting up of a national scheme of marketing. A Conservative motion for the rejection of the Bill has been moved. (British Official Wireless.) (Rec. December 18, 5.5 p.m.) Rugby, December 17. Mr. Graham, President of the Board Of Trade, moved in the House of Commons the second reading of the Coal Mines Bill. He said he was satisfied from contact with many of the highest experts in the coal industry that if there was some kind of order instead of chaos, this country would win its way back in the European markets, not perhaps to the extent it enjoyed in prewar times, but to some extent.. The Bill provided, Mr. Graham explained, for the setting up of an interdistrict or national scheme of marketing for the purpose of co-ordinating the district schemes, This national scheme was representative of the owners in' all areas in Great Britain. It was the duty of this national body to arrive at what in their view was the aggregate British demand for coal, or the amount of coal over a reasonable period, which in their judgment could l»e'sold at a remunerative level, and then they would make an allocation to the different districts of the country in terms of what those districts had been doing. Part of the criticism of the Bill had been directed to the levy which the Bill provided could be made by the central body upon the district boards for the purpose of facilitating the sale of coal for export. The object was to enable the coal industry in Great Britain to compete at the world price, which for this purpose was the European price. It was not proposed to subsidise coal in the ordinary sense. With regard to the reduction of miners’ hours from 8. to 7J, Mr. Graham said that with good-will this could be met without reduction of wages. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, former President of the Board of Trade, moved the rejection of the Bill.

RASH ELECTION PLEDGE • BROKEN LIBERAL CRITICISM OF BILL (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Rec. December 18, 10.35 p.m.) London, December 17. In the House of Commons Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister (C.) congratulated the Government on breaking the rash election pledge to repeal the Eight Hours Act. He said it was better to break a pledge than an industry. Everyone was glad to reduce hours If the efficiency of the industry was not reduced. As a result of the Eight Hours Act the cost of coal per ton fell from 17/2 in 1926 to 13/- in 1929, while wages only dropped from 10/4} per shift to 9/2. The so-called marketing scheme was only another name for a price-fixing ring, without safeguards to the consumer. The scheme did nothing for production or efficient marketing, but was an inducement to the Industry to raise prices without economising. Sir Herbert Samuel (L.) said the Liberals had no quarrel regarding the reduction of hours. Over the greater part of Britain the hours worked underground were longer than in most European mines. He approved of the attempts to get back the seven hours’ day in two stages and the combined national industrial board, as recommended by the Royal Commission. The crux of the matter was the failure to insist on consolidation, with a view to reducing the number of producing units. Did the Government intend to force the amalgamation effectively to control prices in the interests of the public? The Bill created vested interests in small inefficient mines and taxed Britain in coal prices for the benefit of foreigners. Sir Herbert Samuel regretted that he was forced to attack the Bill. He had’ expected the Government to introduce a Bill in which the Liberals might have cooperated. Falling-off in Exports. Mr. Graham said the British prewar coal output was worth 290 millions sterling, which in recent years had fallen to 245 or 250 millions. There had been some decline in the home demand, but the most important drop was in exports. Before the war Britain exported 85 to 87 millions’ worth a year, but now she was finding difficulty in exporting 50 to 55 millions’ worth. Even this trade was carried nn unremuneratively. Rei’erring to the Liberal amendment, Mr. Graham said he thought he 'could remove the majority of the difficulties, but he did not propose any subsidy. The bill only sought to enable the trade to compete with the European price. Their opponents had said the Government was proposing to increase coal prices 4/- to 5/- a ton. If this was true, then the Government deserved to be driven from office. This would only lead to the consumption of oil fuels and other coal substitutes.