LABOUR IN BRITAIN.

Otago Witness, Issue 3662, 20 May 1924, Page 19

LABOUR IN BRITAIN.

BRITISH COAL MINES. LONDON, May 15. A conference of representatives of thfl coal owners and miners, in accordance " -th the recommendation of the recent Court of Inquiry, resulted m an agreement to-day on the subject of wages on terms to be submitted to the men’s delogate conference to be held on May 29. LONDON, May 16. Mr Cook, miners’ secretary, says the executive is not satisfied that the proposals will meet the full requirements of the men. Although recommending a settlement, the executive still believes that the only final settlement is the voluntary unification of the industry, to pool the proceeds, or else nationalisation. Tha new agreement will mean several million pounds of wages extra yearly to the miners, but they have difficulty in persuading the men to agree, as they are convinced that they are entitled to the living wages paid prior to 1914. Mr Findlay Gibson, representing tiie South Wales owners, says the minimum adds from Is 3d to Is 8d per ton to the cost of production, though the profit during the period of last agreement in South Wales averaged only Is Id. This is serious as South Wales was entirely dependent on export trade, and conies into competition with America and European coal. The nationalisation of mines was discussed in the House of Commons when, the Labour member, Mr George Hall, moved the second reading of the Nationalisation of Mines Bill, providing for transference of mines and minerals to a Mining Council of 20 members —ten appointed by the Crown, and 10 by the Miners’ Federation—under the Minister of Mines. The Bill provides for the purchase of the mines, but net for the payment of royalties, for which no compensation will be given. Mr Hall stated that six persons were drawing loyalties of over half a million sterling yearly. This was more than 3500 miners received. Samuel Roberts (Conservative) moved the rejection of the Bill. He instanced cases where nationalisation had resulted in losses, including shipping and railways in Canada, shipping in Australia and South Africa. Mr Roberts declared that the British coal export trade had enormously increased under private enterprise. l’he Bill proposed was a leap in the dark, a rash and disastrous experiment. Sir Beddoe Rees (Liberal) seconded the rejection. Mr Shinwell said that, while recognising that the country had not given a mandate for nationalisation of the mines, the Government whole-heartedly accepted the principle of the Bill. Mr Lloyd George, who was frequently interrupted by the Labourites, declared that the profits went back into the industry, and the losses were taken out of the public funds. This was the new Socialism ; it was not nationalisation, but a gigantic coal trust, such as Mr Sidney Webb lvad denounced as the black tiger. The only difference was that this Bill created a “red tiger.” He agreed that mining conditions were most unsatisfactory, and was sure the House would not examine in a partisan spirit any broadminded proposal to improve the miner’s lot. The second reading was rejected by 264 to 163. The Liberal vote was split. LONDON, May 15. The main provision of tha proposed Coal Agreement allows for the standard profits to consist of 15 per cent, of the standard wages instead of 17 per cent, as at present. The minimum rate of wages is increased to 33 1-3 per cent. The division of surplus profits is to be 88 per cent, and 12 per cent, to wages and profits respectively. No able-bodied adults’ wages are to fall below 40 per cent, of the lowest-paid class of day-wage woidonen in, the district. THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM. LONDON, May 16. Mr James Wignall, M.P., national organiser of the Dockers and General Labourers’ Union, addressing the National Alliance of Employers and Employed, said he had found as a result of personal investigation that Australian and New Zealand compulsory arbitration had a great defect —it did not prevent strikes and lock-outs, despite assurances to the contrary. He had visited two coal centres, and found the men all on strike in one place and a lock-out in operation at the other. The system failed when it encountered big problems, such as mines and other large industries. Of course, it was impossible to put 10,000 men in gaol. Arbitration had good points, but nothing had yet been invented to eliminate tha danger of strikes and lock-outs.