PROTRACTED STRUGGLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19405, 13 August 1926, Page 11

PROTRACTED STRUGGLE.

BEITISS COALMINEES. | ■ LATEST PEACE PROSPESTS. MEN CONFER ON MONDAY. GOVERNMENT MOVE LIKELY INDUSTRY ENDANGERED. By Telesrraph—Press Association—Copyright. (Received 5.S p.m.) A. and N.Z. LONDON. Aug. 12. Tho Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, who has been in the country, is due to return to London to-day. He will acquaint himself with the latest developments in the coalmining dispute. No action by the Government is expected, however, until the representatives of the miners are in a position to make a move. Their hands are at present more strictly tied than ever, but much is hoped from a conference of delegates which is to be held in London on Monday. It is suggested that the executive of the Miners' Federation will ask the delegates to give it a free hand to negotiate concerning wages provided that the sevenhour3 day is maintained and that, a national agreement is made for a minimum wage. The general secretary of the Miners' Federation, Mr. A. J. Cook, admits that the whole position will bo reviewed at Monday's conference. Evidence is accumulating which shows that the chief motive of the miners for their rejection of tho settlement proposals made by the Church leaders was that the men want a ipore direct settlement which will ensure an immediate return to work, with something definite to show for their 15 weeks' struggle. The Labour paper, »tho Daily Herald, publishes an exclusive statement to the effect that it understands the Government intends to invite the miners and the mineowners to attend a meeting next week to consider the possibility of reopening negotiations. The Herald says the Government is beginning to realise that if tho miners were to be defeated by hunger the settlement of the dispute would be bought at the price of the permanent ruin of the British coal industry. The delegates to the miners' conference on Monday will remain in session for the purpose of consultation if the Government's invitation has been received by them. The British Government takes the view that the economic facts of the coal situation provide in themselves a demonstration of the necessity for the course which, reluctantly, they have felt compelled to follow at the present Documents and figures supplied in a semi-official way to the London Times at the end of June may be regarded as governing the attitude which led to the introduction of the Government bills recently passed by Parliament. In the December quarter of 1925 the greater part of tho coal raised in the country was raised at a loss. In Northumberland there was a loss on every "ton, while in other districts the . number of tons in every 100 produced at loss, was 97 in Durham, 90 in South Wales and Monmouth, 88 in Scotland, 71 in Lancashire, Cheshire arid North Staffordshire and 47 in tho Eastern district. July last year and April this year were busy months at the pits in anticipation of stoppages. Comparing the first four months of 1926 with the "corresponding period of 1925, exports of coal were slightly lower, bat home consumption was noticeably higher (63,300,000 tons, as,compared with 61,000,000). Ihe reduction in prico, it is noted, was a great help to industry, particularly to the iron and steel trades; - . . The economic position at the beginning of the stoppage is stated in th 6 following way;— (1)' The coal raised in the first three months of this year bad boen raised at an average loss of Is 6d per ton (excluding the subsidy). (2) Tho mibeowners had assured the Samuel Commission that an eight-hours d?y would reduce costs by 2s a ton. ' (3) The same reduction of cost—namely, 2s a ton—could only be attained on a seven-hours day bv reducing tho miners' wages on an average by Is 9d a shift. Among statistics which have been before the Government are calculations showing ' the effect which various hypothetical reductions of wages per seven-hours shift would have had on the percentage of tonnage raised respectively at profit and loss during the last quarter of 1925. These figures set out that if minimum wages had been 25" per cent, on the 1914 standard instead 0f"33 1-3 per cent., the tonnage raised at a profit would have been as follows: Scotland, 28 per cent.; Northumberland, 1 ner cent.; Durham. 6 per cent. ; South Wales and Monmouth, 19 per cent.; Eastern district. 70 per cent.: Lancashire, Cheshire and North Staffs, 38 per cent. On a 1914 olus 15 per cent, basis the percentages of coal raised nrofitiblv would have been Scotland, 38: Northumberland, 4; Durham, 10: South Wal»s, 23: Eastern.*go: Lanes and Cheshire. 70. On the 1914 rate of waees. the percentages would have been Scotland. 91; Northumberland, 4f>: Durham, 60; South Wn.leSj 47: Eastern, 96; Lanes and Cheshire, 02. One of the most, donressinr fnefs nf flip nresent situation is th«t in the North-eastern areas flits renresenHne IMinrlv. h*>K the production of two counties codld not have paid their way even with pre-war va?es. t