COAL PROBLEM

Southland Times, Issue 19898, 17 June 1926, Page 7

COAL PROBLEM

DEBATE IN COMMONS MR BALDWIN’S SPEECH SERIOUS POSITION OF FACTORIES “A CRUEL AND UNJUSTIFIED STOPPAGE.” (By Telegraph—Pres® Assn.—Copyright.) London, June 15. In the House of Commons the coal crisis was again the leading subject of questions. Mr Lane Fox announced that 219,000 tons of foreign coal had been landed since May 1. Mr Baldwin told Mr Wheatley that at no time during the general strike did he indicate that he was willing to accept Sir Herbert Samuel's memorandum as a basis of the coal settlement. Mr Baldwin availed himself of the Mines Department’s estimates in his statement on the coal position, and said the gravity of the situation with accompanying unemployment and distress was never out of the minds of Ministers. The injuries inflicted on industries were crippling in their effect and if continued much longer would in many cases lead to disaster. Factories would have to cease working as stocks were slowly being exhausted. Large amounts of foreign coal had arrived on private account but only essential services could look for Government assistance in that direction. He had never concealed his opinion that “it was a cruel stoppage, that it was without real justification and that it will leave everyone worse off than at the beginning. Instead of the parties cooperating to do the things the commission recommended they preferred to fight. Had they done otherwise we might have laid he foundations of a new prosperity. The men could have been back at work and foreigners would not now be qapturing our markets. I shall not attempt to apportion the blame.” Reviewing the commission's findings Mr Baldwin said—“ Let them admit that the industry might be better managed. That might be said of every industry, but let them not be carried away into thinking that mere technical improvements could revolutionise the industry. The commission has said the effect upon the output in general and wages would be very small. I do not want the House to form an exaggerated view of the possibilities of reorganisation. The Ministry is prepared to help even- improvement that will increase productivity and the power to pay wages.” To exaggerate the lower costs which could be got by reorganisation was, the Premier feared, laying up possibilities of disappointment. “It is unfair to make men believe there are large reservoirs of untapped wealth in reorganisation so as to make them feel there is no necessity to face the appallingly difficult situation. The commission, however, reluctantly has recommended that there must be a reduction of labour costs, specifically stating that there should be a change in intermediate rates and has made certain suggestions with regard to special district rates w’hich I know have found little favour.” Mr Baldwin said attempts were made by Mr MacDonald and members of the Trades Union Congress to get the mine leaders to make some concession. That was the rock upon which they split. He had no liking for a reduction of wages which if made for existing hours would be on such a scale as no one would like to see offered. “We came to a definite conclusion that a return to a longer working day was necessary.” A Labourite: “You'll get another ten weeks of it with argument like that.” Mr Baldwin: “We intend to leave the seven-hours’ day on the Statute Book but to introduce legislation enabling extra hours to be worked during a certain period of time.” Mr Baldwin said the proposed permission to work an extra hour daily in mines “does not prescribe longer hours, but will permit serious negotiations to be undertaken on a basis upon which it is felt a far better scale of wages can be paid than on the existing basis. I did not negotiate with anyone on this subject. I felt that the hours offered a chance upon which agreement might be reached which would safeguard the existing wage over the greater part of the country to which I attach great importance.”—A. & N.Z. WAGES PROPOSAL. (Rec. 8.5 pjn.) London, June 15. Mr. Baldwin added that the owners had assured him of the basis of eight hours. There were certain districts producing half of the country’s output, where the men would be offered a continuance of their existing wages in July, August and September, while in the remainder the reduction, if any, would be materially less than ten per cent. In the meantime, the Government would press on the reorganisation legislation. From October, wages would be based on the industry’s ascertained proceeds. He hoped a substantial portion of the wages would be maintained if actually not increased. The Ministry was preparing to introduce in a few days the Reorganisation Bill under which the commission’s amalgamation ideas would be closely followed regarding royalties. Everybody owning mineral rights would be required to pay another sum towards the Mineral Rights Welfare Fund, the money to be devoted primarily to general welfare at the pithead. A reduction of wages could not be so drastic as to justify calling on the taxpayer to ease the adjustment, therefore, the £3,000,000 previously offered would be more usefully spent on assisting displaced miners. “We are going on— Labour chorus: ‘You are going out of it by means of a general election.” Mr Baldwin: ‘1 hope the parties will attempt an agreement by a negotiation treaty rather that carry- on the unhappy dispute to the bitter end.” HON. HARTSHORN'S PREDICTION. A PROLONGED DEADLOCK. The Rt. Hon. Vernon Hartshorn said the jtfoposals merely added to the existing serious difficulties. He urged instant unification instead of waiting three years. The outlook was now hopeless. Th* deadlock would be prolonged “God knows how long.” If anyone imagined the miners would call off the strike even after six months he was most mistaken. The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Horne asserted the eight-hour day would reduce the costs more than two shillings per ton. The Rt. Hon Sir John Simon urged the stabilisation of the selling agencies as a remedy. He thought extended hours was flying in the face of the commission’s report. The Rt. Hon. J. R. Clynes expressed bitterest disappointment with Mr Baldwin’s speech, which would further postpone settlement. Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, replying to the debate, said the selling syndicate offered no solution of the difficulty as regards eight hours. The Government had left the door open so the parties were free to negotiate. Labour members refused to allow Sir Henry Page-Croft to speak, shouting him down for several minutes until a division was taken. The reduction of the vote was rejected by 299 to 138. The House then adjourned.—A. and N.Z. MR. MACDONALD’S VIEWS. FIGHT TO THE DEATH. London, June 15. Mr. Ramsav MacDonald, interviewed, said Mr. Baldwin’s speech was disastrous. Presumably as the result of discuawons with

colleagues more flinty than himself, the speech showed no glimmering of appreciation of the problem confronting the nation. It would harden the miners to prolong the struggle. Labourites intended to fight legislation inch by inch.—Sun cable. AN ASTOUNDING MESSAGE. MINERS THRUST INTO STRIKE. A PITIFUL APPEAL. (Rec. 9.20 pan.) London, June 15. During the Cabinet meeting a dusty and exhausted man dismounted from his cycle at 10, Downing Street, and told the doorkeeper he had cycled 136 miles from Mansfield, Nottingham, with a message from the miners for presentation to Mr Baldwin. When he was tqjd Mr Baldwin was attending Cabinet, he produced a message and asked that it be conveyed to Mr Baldwin; also credentials showing his authority to go to Downing Street on behalf of a number of miners. He explained that the Nottingham miners had had only a week’s strike pay through the Derbyshire miners’ £lO,OOO, and added that Mr Cook dared not show his face in Nottinghamshire where the miners were selling their homes to pay for his foolhardiness. The letter which the secretary took to Mr Baldwin stated: “My wife and children’s plight forced me to cycle to London. I have been five days on the road begging bread. I appeal to you to let me and my mates resume working the eight hours.”—Sun Cable. SOVIET DENIAL. (Rec. 7.20 pan.) Moscow, June 15. The Soviet reply to the British Note denies that the sums remitted to the British Trades Union Council were sent by Soviet Government, but by the Central Council Labour Unions. It disavows the Government’s responsibility beyond that it was involved in granting a permit to remit the money abroad, and explains that the Government cannot prohibit the unions, comprising a million workers, sending money abroad to aid trade unionists in another country.—Reuter. AUSTRALIAN UNION ASSISTS. £lOO PER FORTNIGHT. Perth, June 16. The Delegates’ Board of the Collie Miners’ Union has decided to render financial assistance to the striking British miners to the extent of £lOO fortnightly. Two instalments of this amount have already gone forward. —A. & N.Z.