THE COAL REPORT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19274, 12 March 1926, Page 10

THE COAL REPORT.

When the coal dispute in Britain reached a climax in June last, a court of inquiry found that the crisis in the industry was not, to any large extent, created by either party to the dispute. The causes lay in national and international disturbances and dislocations, these in turn being due to the economic upheaval produced by the war. The court held that owners were suffering, in some instances* much mo,re than a decrease of profits: many of them were facing a ruinous increase of liabilities. On the other hand, the miners were experiencing hardship, for the "economic wage" payable under the temporary agreement, while an increase on the rate obtaining before the 1921 arrangement was modified, had not increased proportionally with the cost of living. The dispute was stayed by Parliament's expedient of a subsidy, to enable the temporary agreement to be prolonged from July 1 to May 1 next. By this the owners were to be reimbursed for losses sustained in paying wages at the rate then ruling. Each side had its own way for the time being, the country finding the difference. It was a costly arrangement : by April the subsidy may have amounted to £21,000,000. But it was held that compensating benefit accrued to the community in the averting of a calamitous breakdown in the coal industry and the avoidance of increased unemployment. It was a palliative, however, not a cure. This was recognised, and as an additional measure a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the industry, with a view to setting it on a 3ound footing and so giving an ultimate and enduring settlement of the trouble. The report of that commission, while indicating some ways of reorganising the industry, does not offer any immediately effective solution. It is emphatic against the continuance of the subsidy, against the nationalisation of coalmining, against the maintenance of the increased rate of wages; and in all these findings it fails to encourage the hope that in May next the parties to the dispute will turn the armistice into a peace. The commission, indeed, throws the problem, admittedly created by conditions beyond the control of the disputants, back between them for their settlement. The constructive suggestions are wisely framed. Scientific winning and using of coal, amalgamation of small producing and distributing agencies into larger units, and fuller partnership between employers and employed are all good, when their benefits can be enjoyed. Research takes time, however; even the application of known improvements takes some time. Amalgamation of smaller activities means waiting for leases to fall in and methods to.be reorganised. The economies these changes can effect cannot bring advantage, in some instances, for years. As for closer partnership, this, is rather a pious hope than a persuasive injunction. It is the very thing that has been wanting, notably in the miners' earlier refusal to participate in any inquiry, on the ground that no immediate relief could come to them through it. Their temper is not likely to change in a day. Of the suggestion that profit-sharing should be practised it must be said that, good as it is, it has little applicability while economic conditions make profits impossible. The commission has surveyed a road to prosperity, an excellent road maybe; but what is wanting is a bridge over the morasg 9f trouble that lies between the end of the present temporary track and the beginning of that solid road. To the edge of that morass, if the commission's report is adopted, the industry will come on May 1, and the disputants will probably be now more concerned about girding up their loins for partisan advantage in the troublesome passage there than in uniting to build a causeway across it. The immediate outlook is not particularly? comforting, despite the commission's resolute work in the task it was given.