THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1927 BRITAIN’S COAL INDUSTRY.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 206, 15 August 1927, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1927 BRITAIN’S COAL INDUSTRY.

ONE of to-day’s London cables shows us Mr. A. W. Cook, the secretary to the British Miners’ Federation, once more on the warpath to stir up to direct action those whom he led into such a blind alley as last year’s six-months strike. He is no doubt being specially prompted to this movement just now because of the marked success that is attending the organisation of a new miners’ association, whose purpose is to work amicably with the owners in an endeavour to restore the industry for mutual benefit. More particularly, no doubt, is he actuated by the fact that this new organisation is having support and assistance from the British Seamen’s Union, with whose secretary, Mr. Havelocis Wilson, he is at daggers drawn. Only last week in dealing with Britain’s economic recovery Sir Josiah Stamp, the well known English writer on such subjects, was quoted as saying that the unsatis factory conditions still obtaining in the coal industry, along with fal'ing prices of manufactured products, stood out as the mam obstacles in the way of speeding up such a recovery, which is of vital importance to us whose produce finds its chief market there. This opinion is shared by many other expert observers of Britain’s industrial activities. Among these is Sir Herbert Samuel, who was chairman of the Coal Commission that way set up, long before the strike, to investigate the reasons for the decline in Britain’s coal trade and to make recommendations as to how it was to be remedied. In the course of a recent address by him he emphasised the fact that the situation again gives rise to the gravest anxiety. Summarising the findings on facts of the Commission he said that the essence of the matter was that the home market was stationary, the foreign demand had fallen off by one fifth, and the great new coalfield in South Yorkshire was being rapidly developed. The consequence was an excess of production, and 73 per cent of the coal before the stoppage was being produced at a loss. Immediately after tlie stoppage there was a temporary revival, and the industry was kept busy making good the depletion caused by six months’ loss of production. Now that the deficiency lias been made good, the industry is back once more substantially in the position in which it

found itself before the Commission reported, but with this difference — that the grievances of the miners have been increased by the lengthening of their hours and the lowering of their rates of pay.

Sir Herbert Samuel, inferentially at any rate, would seem to admit that, under the methods still pursued, these impositions upon the men are almost inevitable. But his main complaint is directed to the fact that much too little that is practical has been done in he way of applying the recommendations of the Commission for a fundamental reorganisation of the industry. Among these recommendations was one for the closer amalgamation of the all too numerous ownership interests. In some districts there have been movements in this direction, but they are far from being general enough to have any really appreciable effect upon the industry as a whole. He points out that, apart altogether from a considerable number of very small mines, the industry is still carried on by no fewer than 715 undertakings. In the German Ruhr, producing one-third of the amount of the British output, the number of mines is only 70, and in the reconstructed coalfield of Northern France the scale of the enterprise is about the same. Yet, since the stoppage, while a few amalgamations of British mines have taken place or are now in process of negotiation, there has been nothing like a general movement to secure greater efficiency and lower costs through a consolidation of produc tion. Little that was effective has, in fact, been done to improve the methods of utilization of coal.

The delay in the adoption of this and other recommendations of the Commission, from which the miners had been led to expect so much, was feared, sooner or later, to cause grave and increasing discontent among the miners. But, aithougn this may be the case, it can scarcely be expected that such action as is contemplated by Mr. Cook will bring any good result, but rather will it have the effect of placing the parties again decisively at arm’s length. Much better advice is given by Mr Frank Hodges—another of Mr Cook’s antipathies—who for a good few years held the position now occupied by the latter, and who is now secretary to the International Miners’ Federation, Writing recently in the “Observer” he said: “Co operation, joint investigation, can doui and mutual confidence are the only means open to the industry to improve its position and, if out of this new attitude a more ordered system of coai selling and a larger measure of amalgamation and technique for improved production are born, the industry and men engaged in it can look forward with some hope to a brighter future than can possibly be the case as has been so cruelly demonstrated by periodical belligerency and frequent and flam buoyant declaration of war.” It is quite possible, however, that Mr. Cook’s threats may have a desirable result in convincing the owners as a body that they must speed up practical co-operation in the direction indicated by Mr, Hodges.