The Daily News SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 1928. BRITAIN’S INDUSTRIAL FUTURE.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 April 1928, Page 12

The Daily News SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 1928. BRITAIN’S INDUSTRIAL FUTURE.

The recent report made by the Liberal Industrial Inquiry Committee stands out as a monumental work, running into some five hundred pages, and containing the results from eighteen months of intensive study. It is big in conception and plan, and chiefly remarkable for the fact that the effectiveness of its appeal is deliberately based upon a severity of argument and a scientific detachment in analysis which are claimed to be unique in British party history. None can doubt the immensity of the task undertaken by the committee—the analysis and treatment of Britain’s chief industrial problems. It was only passible to deal with such a task by, at the outset, arranging a definite scheme of subdivisions, and giving due consideration to each. The committee demonstrated their ability for attacking these problems by starting out in a systematic manner. They rightly came to the conclusion to look at the interrelated problems of industry as a whole, regarding it, not as an end in itself, but as a means to national well-being, and with the belief that “the end of all political and economic action is that individual men and women may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” Some idea of the magnitude and range of the themes dealt with can be obtained from the nature of the sub-divisions chosen. These were: (1) The conditions of British industry; (2) the organisation of business, (3) industrial relations, (4) national development, and (5) national finance. The report opens with a searching and illuminating analysis of the condition and outlook of British industry in the post-war period, leading up to the conclusion that there may be witnessed a very important change in the economic foundations of British life, wherein the old staple trades upon which the country has hitherto depended, may lose much of their relative importance, the obvious deduction being the necessity to face this new situation and adjust the system so that the change may cause as little suffering as possible. It is recognised that, even before the war, great economic and social changes were atoot, and that it was the business of statesmanship to understand the character of these changes ’nd to guide them wisely so that they may lead to progress without suffering or strife. One of these changes.is to be seen in the vast enterprises which have arisen with colossal capital funds held by myriads of shareholders, who delegate their powers of control to small bodies of directors, practically co-optative, whom the shareholders have little, if any knowledge about what they are doing. A second great change is that the foundations of industry are being transformed, thereby undergoing an industrial revolution, consisting of the use of new forms of power, new modes of transport, and new methods of finance. It is considered this change may, if rightly directed, .Lfilu fa a beltec civilisation, akaiu

and wholesomely diffused. In the [first industrial revolution Britain took the lead of the world, but in the second she is behindhand. In this connection the question is asked: Is it not folly to fail to use the idle labour force to make up the leeway? It has to be admitted, whether we like it or not, that the most fundamental of the great social changes which are now apparent spring from democracy and education. The old relation of master and worker—of a master who issued autocratic orders and employees whose sole duty it was to obey—whereon was built up Britain’s industrial and trade dominance during past centuries, is visibly being obliterated. This is the ultimate cause of industrial unrest. In the first place the employees decline to be content with a system which gives them a place in industry utterly different from the position of equal citizenship they enjoy in the State. In the second place they refuse to be content with a distribution of the proceeds of industry based on principles whereon they are not consulted, and that leads, apparently, to the division of society into a small owning class and a huge working class. Probably the best instance of the new way in which the committee approached the problems connected with their enquiry, is to be found in then* treatment of the complex question of unemployment.. Having split up this problem into two parts, normal or temporary unemployment, and abnormal, continuous unemployment, reforms are suggested under both heads. In the former by insurance, wise regulation of monetary policy, and the distribution of public orders. In the latter, the suggestion is made to definitely take the responsibility from the Poor Law and insurance, and put it directly on the State, while apart from pecuniary relief, there should be instituted a vigorous policy of national development. It is impossible to do justice to this valuable report by merely touching upon some of its outstanding featu; s. The authors have performed a great national task with r. single eye to the national interest, and are deserving of praise for their efforts.