STATE COAL MINES

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 244, 9 July 1919, Page 7

STATE COAL MINES

miY BRITISH OWNERS OPPOSE

NATIONALISATION

LORD GAINFORD'S VIEWS

Lord Gainford, speaking to tho Coal Commission on behalf of the Mining Association of Groat .Britain, without binding any particular member of it, expressed his belief that nationalisation or the coal industry would be a national disaster. Its effects would be that the State would lose revenue from the in-como-tnx and mineral rights duties, and that many national industries would collapse through the increased cost of production, which would raise tho price of coal. Nationalisation would reduce our overseas trade and increase tho cost of food and raw materials through tho diminished exports of coal, which would arise from the same cause.

I'rivnto ownership had met national needs. Tho wealth of tin's country had been built up on industry, and industry hod only been possible through sufficient coal. "Profits had fluctuated enormously, proving that nn investment in coal mines was highly speculative, and therefore an unsuitable enterprise on which the State should embark, but the profile in their average had been admittedly less than in other industries.

Colliery costs on a standard system had been suggested. This was impracticable, as tho basis of cost in one colliery was not comparablo with tho basis in another. Dual control, whether between the State or with representatives of the miners, would bo absolutely unworkable, subversive of discipline, and detrimental nationally. No one could carry on a colliery without having its direction and executive control. IS'O self-respecting engineer would tako tho responsibility of working under such a svstom. It would endanger the lives of wen. destroy efficiency, and waste property; and the industry could not bo ntn. as a. commercial or practical proposition. The Mining Association, if they were not left in complete executive control, would decline to accept the responsibility of carving on tho industry. That was not to sav that they objected to co-operate with the workers in every way, though the extent of existing co-operation appeared to have been very much underrated.

if private ownership was condemned in the coal trade, then it must be equally condemned in any business which depended on private enterprise and initiative, and the country should realise what the present suggestion really meant. It would mean that all hope for the revival of trade, which before tho war, under a system of private enterprise, had attained unprecedented prosperity, would be abandoned. The suggestion that as high a standard of service is obtained i'rpui Strtto services as from employees in private undertakings was not borne out- by facts. It was admitted that housing accoramodotion was no better tor miners than for workmea of other industries. Put if there was one industry that had made great effort and spent much capital on housing it was tho coal industry. Housing was ft national problem, and had iiotivng to do .with any particular industry. Pease and Partners, Limited, in ihe ten years before tho war, spent ,£70,080 in bnildiug 309 now houses and purchasing 50 others for their workmen. The Sharing of Profits, The suggestion of tho coal owners for Ike future working of the industry was regarded by Lord Gainford as embodying three principles: Firstly, to maintain personal initiative and enterprise. .Secondly, to safeguard tho interests of consumers. .Thirdly, to improve the relations between tho owners and their workmen by more closely identifying tho interests of the workmen with the financial results of the industry, and making use as far as possible of their experience. Tie principles kid down in the report of'the Coal Conservation Committee, January 23, 1918, and the report of the Acquisition and Valuation of Land Committee, March 18,1919, were accepted. The wage? of the workmen would not vary with tho selling price of coal, but would 'bo regulated with reference to the profits in ', districts. Tho suggestion was sufficiently important to bo set out in full:

1. A minimum or standard rate. of wages to be paid to each class of workman in that district, which, for the protection of tho. consumer, should be fixed iby machinery to bo set up, in conformity with the proposals of the National Industrial Council.

2. The particular items of cost other than standard wages which are to be included in tho cost of production to bo determined in each district by qualified accountants appointed by and representing each party. 3. A standard rate, per ton to providea minimum profit and redemption of owners' capital, to lie determined for each district, by qualified accountants. i. Any balance of profit remaining after these items have been provided for should bo divided between Labour and Capital in proportions to bo agreed, the workmen receiving their proportion in the shape of a percentage addition to the standard rates of wages.

These additions to the standard rates of wages in each district would.vary in accordance with the variation of profits shown by each periodical! ascertainment in such district. Tho ascertainments of tho average profits shown by each disrict should be made quarterly by the accountants. As the owners might,- in times of depression, be required to pay a standard rate of wages when they would not be receiving the standard return on capital, any deficiency in any quarter in the standard return on capital should be made up out of the profits of any subsequent quarter or quarters, before making any division of profits between the owners and tho workmen. Questions arising with respect to any of tho matters referred to in this paragraph, and tho settlement of which is not otherwiso provided for, should bs settled by the Joint District Committees ot Conciliation Board. The co-operation of workmen and owners wouP.d be obtained through joint pit committees or other consultative local committees without executive power. Tho principal advantages of tho schemo might bo summarised as follow: Tho restriction of operations by the withholding of reasonable facilities bv surface or mineral owners is eliminated; the sanctioning authority secures that public interests will not be obstructed while leaving individual enterprise full play; the conservation of coal is secured; a community of interest lictwoen workmen and employers is established alike in increasing output- aud in promoting economy of production; .Toint Pit Committees will securo that full advantage is taken of the experience and practical knowledge of t : he workmen; and tho existing defects in thn working of the present system are cured without losing the advantages of •enterprise and initiative which private ownership and management has shown itaelf able to provide. In Cross-Examination, M.r. Smillie: You have made a general statement that Government Departments aro inefficient.—You cannot expect from civil departments a departure from the regulations under which they tnko scr vicQ. You get no elasticity, and it s tho system and not tho individual 1 am complaining of, as loss efficient than prl valo enterprise. Did you condemn the system in the Eouso of Commons and say that it was not as good as it ought to l>?? TVit.iesa said ho never lost; an occasion in tim House of Commons of snyinir' t.lmt us I'fistiiiiistor-Genoral he could do no more than he was doing with the money ho wn-i entrusted with. Replying fo other questions V.y "Mr. Smillie Txml Oninford snid that if (lie head of any Government Department thought something ought to be one i\ ~,.,..,.. ..iinnr1niMiu whs msid« to temporary political head of the Department, and tli" sir'tcsHnn wsis then considered. Mr. Sinillie: I itin afraid I am not puttinl; my idea very c-Hirly. or else you aro not grasping it. Tho House, of Commons is supposed lo bo representative of' tho people. Did you defend your .Do* partmeiit or did you admit it w.r; deficient, and say it might b , ; otherwise if you had an opportunity of putting it right? Witness repealed that ho alwoys made it clear that ho could not do more with tho money ho had had a.nd that it was always money that ho wanted. ;