LABOUR & THE WAR

Grey River Argus, 28 April 1942, Page 5

LABOUR & THE WAR

BRITISH MINERS Propose New Control [Aust. & N.Z. Cable Assn.l (Rec. 10.5). LONDON, April 26. The British Mine Workers federation has submitted to Cabinet a scheme for a National Coal Board, consisting of representatives of both sides in industry, together with technical experts. Such Board would exert complete control, even in regard to the disposition of mining manpower, and would do so _ire spective of pre-war interests oi p_o. . W ¥ h e P MiS'’ F ede r ation states that the British coal output is three hundred thousand tons per week below the target.

Canadian Labour DEMANDS INDUSTRIAL PLANT COUNCIL. "OTTAWA, April 25. The Executive Council of the Canadian Congress of La J oU . r ’ af{!emordays’ discussions, drafted a memor andum to the Government demand ing the formation of Industrial Plant Councils” for basic industries, consisting of representatives of labour, the management and the Government. The purpose of the council’s plan is to maintain unii t..r rupted, efficient production and industrial harmony for the war, and to consider proposals for the conversion of industry for peace time production after the war. The memorandum points out that the situation of Canadian labour resembles Unit of British labour after Dunkirk. Brttish labour, by strong public support, obtained representation on War Production Councils, and thereby helped to .achieve extraordinary results which could be achieved in Canada likewise.

STATE & CAPITAL

Post-War Possibilities BRITISH PRODUCTION MINISTER’S IDEA 8 .0.W. "RUGBY, April 26. The Minister of Production (Mr Lyttelton'.), broadcasting, said: “I am or rather I was a business man, and I suppose, by definition, I was a capitalist, but if anybody asks whether there should be more socialism or more Government planning or more free enterprise, my answer is that there ought to be a great deal more of both. The essence of democracy should be the balance between the organising power of the State and the driving force of the free individual. We must foster both.” Mr Lyttelton said that there were a great number of things which involved unknown risks, which could alone be effectively done by individual enterprise, and there were many forms of economic activity which the State alone could direct in the new world. They would have need of both. Mr Lyttelton also said that there w , ere three things wanted —to make (Britain a really cheerful country, to see that we were nevei' again faced with the horror of mass unemployment, and to moderate capital (equipment. To be reaching for the third of these objectives, thev would be going a long way towards attaining the first two. He believed that the State* would have to take the initiative and responsibility, on whatever scale was necessary, in improving the capital assets, common services, and the amenities of the country. Speaking of production, Mr Lyttelton said there was no simple solution to the problem. Results could not be attained, as in other spheres, by a dramatic stroke. He said that he wanted to impress on both workers and managements in munitions, that the achievements had been a marvel, yet if they could raise the level of the worst factory to the level of the average factory, they would far outstrip anything the country had yet achieved.