BRITISH COAL MINES.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17898, 19 December 1929, Page 5

BRITISH COAL MINES.

BILL IN THE COMMONS. ITS PROVISIONS EXPLAINED. MOTION FOR REJECTION. (Official Wireless.) RUGBY, Dec. 17. In the House of Commons the President of the Board of Trade, Mix W. Graham, in moving the second reading of the Coal Mines Bill, said he was satisfied, from contact with many of the highest experts in the coal industry, that if there were some kind of order, instead of chaos, Britain would win her way back in the European markets, not perhaps to the extent she enjoyed before the war, but to some extent. The bill provided for the setting up of an inter-district or national scheme of marketing, for the purpose of coordinating the district schemes. This national scheme was representative of the owners in all the areas in Britain. It would be the duty of this national body to arrive at what, in their view, was the aggregate British demand for coal, or the amount of coal over a reasonable period which could he sold at a remunerative level. Then they would make allocation to the different districts in the country, in terms of what those districts had been doing. Part of the criticism of the bill had been directed to the levy, which the bill provided could be made by the central body upon the district boards, for the purpose of facilitating the sale of coal for export. The object was to enable the coal industry of Britain to compete at the world price, which for this purpose was the European price. It was not proposed to subsidise coal, in the ordinary senseReduction of Working Hours. With regard to the reduction of the miners’ working hours, from 8 to 7£, the Minister said that with goodwill this could be met without a reduction in their wages. The former President of the Board of Trade, Sir Philip Cun-liffc-Lisler, moved the rejection of the bill. Sir Philip congratulated the Government on breaking its rash election plegc to repeal the Eight Hours Act. lie said it was better to break a pledge than an industry. Every one would be glad to reduce working hours, if the efficiency of the industry were not reduced. As a result of the Eight Hours Act the cost per ton of coal fell from 17s 2d in 1926 to 13s in 1929, while wages only dropped from 10s 4Jd per shift to 9s 2d. • The so-called marketing scheme was only another name for a price-fixing ring, without safeguards for the consumer. The scheme did nothing for production and efficient marketing, hut was an inducement to the industry to raise prices without economising. Sir Herbert Samuel said the Liberals had no quarrel regarding the 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 a seven hours day in two stages, and of the combined National Industrial Board, as recommended.-'by the Royal Commission. / Failure to Insist on Consolidation. The crux of ttic matter was the failure to insist on consolidation with a view to reducing the number of producing units. Did the Government intend to force amalgamation and effectively control prices in the interests of the public? The bill created vested interests in the small inefficient mines, and taxed Britain in coal prices for Lho benefit of foreigners. Sir Herbert said he regretted that he was forced to attack the hill. He had expected the 'G-overnment to introduce a bill in which Liberals might have cooperated. Mr Graham said the British coal output before the war Was worth £290,000,000 a year, which in recent years had fallen to between £245,000,000 and £250,0000,0000. There had been some decline in the home demand, but the most important drop was in exports. Before the war Britain exported between £85,000,000 and £87,000,000 worth a year, but now she was finding difficulty in exporting from £50,000,00.0 to £55,000,000 worth. Even this trad'e was carried on unremuncrativcly. Referring to the Liberal amendment, Mr Graham said he thought he could remove the majority of the difficulties, but he did not propose any subsidy. The bill only sought to enable the trade to compete with the European price. Their -opponents had said the Government was proposing to increase coal prices by from 4s to 5s a ton. If this were true then the Government deserved to be driven from office. It would only lead to the consumption of oil fuels and other substitutes for coal.