TO REJECT THE BILL

Taranaki Daily News, 19 December 1929, Page 11

TO REJECT THE BILL

CONSERVATIVES’.. MOTION - COAL SCHEME CRITICISED ' ' - ' ~~ ': / LIBERAL JOINS ATTACK’ By Telegraph—Press- Assn.—Copyright. Rec. 7.55 p.m. London, Dec. 17. The Rt. Hon. W. Graham, president of the Board of Trade, in moving the second reading of the Coal Mines Bill in the House of Commons, said he was satisfied from contact with many of the highest experts. in the coal industry that if there was some' kind of order instead of chaos Britain# wouldwin its way back in the European markets,'not perhaps to the. extent it enjoyed, before the war, but to some cx- ; tent. " '. ' . The Bill provided for the setting up of an inter-district or national scheme of marketing for the purpose of coordinating district schemes. This national scheme was representative of the owners in all areas of Britain. It was the duty of this national bpdyto arrive at what in its view was the aggregate British demand for coal or the amount of coal over a reasonable period which could bo sold at a remunerative level, and then it would' make its' allocation to the different districts of the country, in terms- of what those districts had been doing.

Part of the criticism of the Bill had been directed, said tho Minister, to the ( levy which the Bill, provided couid fee 'made by the central body upon district boards for the purpose of facilitating the sale of coal for export. The object was to enable the coal industry pi Great Britain to compete at tho world price, which for this purpose was the European price. It was -not proposed to subsidise coal in the ordinary sense. 0 j WJh regard to the reduction of miners’ hours from eight to seven and ahalf hours, Mr. Graham? said that with goodwill this Could be met without reduction of wages, . ... -

BILL’S REJECTION, MOVED. Sir Philip, Tuhliffc-Lister- moved’ the rejection, of the Bi 11. He congratulated the Government 1 .oji: Breaking . itsf, rash election, pledge , .io ' 'repeal ' the Eight Hours . Act, -He; feiid .it/was.' better to break a pledge, than the coal; industry. Everyone would be glad to reduce hours if the efficiency of the ’ industry were not reduced. As a result of rhe .Eight Hours Act the cost per ton of coal fellfrom 17s 2d in 1926 to 13s in 1929, while wages only dropped from 10s 4jjd per shift to 9s 2d. The so-called marketing schem-j w’as, Sir Philip said,-.-only another name-for a, price-fixing ring without safeguarding the consumer. The. scheme diii’Tiotiiing for production or efficient marketing, but was an inducement to the industry to raise prices without economising.

Sir Harry Samuel said the Liberals had no quarrel regarding reduction of hours. Over the greater part of Britain the hours worked underground were longer than in most European mines. He approved of the attempts to get back to tho seven hours’ day in two stages and the combined National Industrial;, Board as- recommended by tho Royal Commission. ’ ■_ The crux of.the'matter, he was the failure to insist on consolidation with a view to reducing the number of/ producing units. Did the Government intend to force amalgamations, and effectively control prices in the interests of the public ? The Bill created vested interests in small v inefficient mines and taxed Britain in coal prices for the benefit of foreigners. Sir Harry Samuel added that he regretted he was forced to attack the Bill.-- He had expected the Government to introduce a Bill in which The Liberals might have co-operated. < Mr. Graham said the British- pre-war coal output was wortli T290,060,006,which in recent years had fallen to £245,000,00 or £250,606,006. There had been some decline in the home demand,, but the most important drop - was in - exports. Before the i ai/ Britain • exported £85,060,000. to £87,000,000 wortli of coal a year, but now she was finding difAcuity in exportiiig £50.000,000 -to £so;600,000 wortli. : Even this trade was car-, ried.on unremuneratively/:' - ' •.: ■’. Referring to the Liberal amendment Mr, Graham said he thought he could' remove the majority’ of -the difficulties, but ho would-not propose any subsidy? The bill only sought to enable the trade to competed with the European 1 price.Their opponents had said the Government was proposing to increase coal prices by 4s to 5s a ton. If this were ti’ue then the Government, deserved to be. driven from .office., This, would only lead to the consumption of oil fuels and other coal.substitutes.-. /■ • .