UNPOPULAR SUBSIDY

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12211, 8 August 1925, Page 6

UNPOPULAR SUBSIDY

TEN MILLIONS REQUIRED INCREASABLE. WITHIN LIMITS OFFICIAL EXPLANATION Beater's Telegram. LONDON, August 5.. The Government to-morrow will ask the House of Commons to authorise a subsidy to. the • coal industry of £10,000,000, covering the period ending on Hqrcli 31st next. An explanatory memorandum on the terms of the coal settlement has been published. It says that the inquiry should 'be completed in good time before May, 1926. l lt points out that while the Government’s assistance will enable’ more pits to work and more men to be employed than if the 1924 agreement had continued without assistance, and will enable the industry to work at the same costs, prices, and scale as if the coal owners’ proposals had been carried ont, it provides no guarantee that till the pita will work, or tba-t pits already closed will be reopened. Better trade will automatically diminish the amount of the subvention, while if trade becomes worse it will

mean that the subvention, though; at a higher rate, will be protected from an indefinite increase by being restricted to a smaller number at pits, as the result of the closing down of unremunerative pits. GUARDING AGAINST ABUSE * The Government has satisfied itself that it has made adequate safe-guards-against the possibility of the . amount, of the subvention being improperly increased by the undue lowering of : prices or the charging against the Exchequer of expenditure upon equipment,, development, which is not properly chargeable to revenue costs. The memorandum concludes: “After surveying the whole position,' and. with all reserve?, for incalculable factors the Government has -lecided to ask Parliament- at present to vote £10,000,000. If this is. insufficient further authoritywill be.-sought from Parliament.” Australian and N.Z Cable Association. The fWhite Paper on the coal ■ position hits caused much criticism in the lobby, Especially the intention to pay the same> ‘subsidy to profitable collieries as to 'the most pernicious, owing to the adoption of the principle . or payment by districts. It is'- -understood that Sir Robert Horn? (Con.), ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, during Thursday’s debate, will attack, the Government’s policy from the standpoint of the business community. The South Wales and Monmouth coal owners met at Cardiff, and resolved to accept the draft arrangement with the Government, but emphatically protested against the manner in ‘'which the Government settled the dispute, contending that it was not in the best interests of the coal trade, or the country as a whole. A THOROUGH INQUIRY It is reported that a travelling commission,: largely composed of experts, is the most likely form of the Coal Commission. They are oxpeeted to tour the coal fields and investigate the trouble on the spot, including the inspection' of books, the condition of machinery,’ aijd the production of each colliery. Sales organisation and distribution also will ba considered, especially the difference between pithead prices and the charge made to the consumers. The - South Wales owners now are considering reopening the pits, some of which, were closed a year ago. Mr A. J. Cook, secretary of., the Miners’ Federation, in an interview with the “Daily Herald,” emphasised that the federation had nothing to do ■with the terms contained in the White Paper. He declared that the owners had driven a bargain with the Government out of all proportion to what they were entitled to. It was apparently possible that collieries making two, three or even four shillings a ton profit would participate in the subsidy. “TO PUNISH LABOUR” * . BEER TAX SUGGESTION. The political correspondent of *the “Daily News” gays that the suggestion for an increase in the beer duty, in order to meet the cost of the coal subsidy,, emanated from Conservative quarter?, where the humiliation of the Government is deeply resented. There is a keen desire to inflict some punishment upon organised Labour, but there is no justification for supposing that the Government will impose' a beer tax. Higher taxes are probable in 1926, in view of the steady rise in the national expenditure, but other classes of taxpayers will be selected as the victims,