Compulsory Arbitration

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 269, 3 February 1928, Page 13

Compulsory Arbitration

NOT WANTED IN ENGLAND Inquiry into Industrial Future By Cable. — P)-es-s Association. — Copyright. Received 2.15 p.m. LONDON, Thursday. “AFTER a careful study of experiments in compulsory arbix* tration in Australia and New Zealand, it cannot be recommended for adoption in England because it is a reversal.of the voluntary policy of the Industrial Court.”

r pilß report of the Liberal inquiry into Britain’s Industrial future, from which the Liberals hope much will l-esult, and in which this statement appears, is an exhaustive volume of 503 pages, covering the entire economic field. The authors are Liberal leaders, also business ir and trades unionists, under the auspices of the Summer School Committee, in collaboration with Mr. David Lloyd George. The report opposes direct State trading and favours development of public boards of control of utilities, particularly electricity. It advocates that large scale semi-monopolistic private concerns and public companies controlling more than half a product within Great Britain, should be registered and subjected to stringent inspection by the Board of Trade. National savings, it states, should be employed . to develop transport facilities, public utilities, bousing, agricultural equipment, a board of national investment taking over the functions of the National Debt Commissioner. An economic general staff should be established, associated with the Cabinet and econmic departments, to study problems and co-ord-inate information and plans for stabilisation measures. The report suggests a measure to improve training in education, to develop marketing methods, to extend profit-sharing, and avoid wage disparities, and to enforce the minimum wage in each industry. After making the statement quoted above with regard to compulsory arbitration, the report continues: Also it is impossible to define the prin-

ciples governing wage levels and to enforce not acceptable decisions on powerful organisations. Dealing with preference, the report says that any large system of duties, meeting the Dominions’ requirements, would make the Empire burdensome to the poor classes of Britain, and cause impoverishment, preventing her doing what she now can do for imperial development. The system would be mutual only with regard to the Dominions, and would not be applicable to India, anct not enforceable in Crown colonies or protectorates, for which it would be impracticable and likely to be more harmful than beneficial.—A. and N.Z.-Sun.