A COAL BILL CONTRAST

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 149, 21 December 1945, Page 6

A COAL BILL CONTRAST

Two outstanding features of the Bill to nationalise the British coal industry are the provisions (1) to set up an impartial tribunal to settle the question of compensation to the present owners and (2) to establish councils to protect the interests of the consumers, both industrial and domestic. Whatever opinions may be held regarding the wisdom of a policy providing for the nationalisation of basic industries, it is clear that the British Government, while adhering closely to the programme it submitted to the electors [earlier in the year, is endeavouring to ensure that the transition from private to State ownership will be made as

smoothly and as fairly as possible. That this attitude is appreciated by the present owners of the mines is shown in the message we publish today. Although they have not retreated from their belief that the coal industry can best be run by private enterprise, they "have placed themselves at the disposal of the Government to ensure a smooth transition to public ownership." This helpful attitude must be largely ascribed to the reasonable provisions of the Bill in regard to compensation, provisions which contrast sharply with the methods followed by the New Zealand Government in taking over the privately-held shares in the Bank of New Zealand. Instead of arbitrarily fixing the price to be paid for the mines, the British Government proposes to set up a tribunal consisting of two Judges ' and an accountant to settle the terms of purchase. Judging from the brief summary of the Bill so far to hand, the tribunal will be given ian entirely free hand in fixing a price that will adequately compensate the owners whose property is being acquired. Although the acquisition is ! compulsory, the owners are at least (assured of an impartial assessment of ! the value of their property, whereas, in the case of the Bankx of New Zealand, the shareholders ,were forced to. accept terms dictated by the Government. v The provision for the establishment of councils to safeguard the interests of • the cpnsumers is a recognition of the fact that there are more than two parties to any agreement for the control of industries which supply the community with essential commodities. The summary of the Bill states that the two consumers' councils (one for industry and the other for householders) are being set up "to keep an eye on supplies and prices and to advise the Government if things go wrong." Here again there is a sharp contrast with the methods adopted in New Zealand. During the war a number of privately-owned mines have been taken .over by the State on the ground that such action was essential to maintain production, but there will be few people who agree that State ownership has done anything to improve the supply of coal, either for industrial or domestic purposes. If State acquisition has had any results, they have been to the benefit of workers engaged in the industry and at the expense of the consumers. Too often, when agreements are made between producers (whether State or private) and workers, the interests of the great third party—the consumersare neglected. The National Coal Board, to be established under the British' legislation,'will, in addition to controlling the mines, take over coke Ovens, electricity stations, and other undertakings. It is clear from this that the policy of nationalisation will closely affect every section of industry and every section of the public. By recognising that the users of coal and the goods and services that coal produces are entitled to a voice in. the management of the industry, the British Government has made an important and welcome move, the significance of which the great body of consumers in other countries, and notably in New Zealand, will not overlook^