Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

transferred to the State and rightly applied is sufficient to remedy all real defects. In fact, the argument might be advanced that acquisition of the mineral will of itself give the State too much power. The failure of all parties, including the Government, to discuss this side of the question, or even recognise its existence, shows how little study has been given to the subject.

As an instance I may refer to the debate on nationalisation at the Trades Union Congress. In moving the resolution, Mr Smillie said he did not think it necessary to go into the question of nationalisation in order to justify the resolution, because it had been before the Congress so long and so often. He emphasised this by reminding his audience that it was over twenty years since the Congress affirmed the principle that the mineral lying under the surface of the soil, which was not created by man, ought to be the wealth of the State and not of individuals.' He evidently did not perceive that the reference was quite irrelevant to the resolution, because nationalisation of the mineral has been conceded, and the present demand is that something which has been created by man-namely the mines-should become the property of the State. The fact that the Government have consented to nationalise the mineral was not mentioned in the discussion, nor did any one show the slightest consciousness of its far-reaching importance.

Leaving this, however, and passing on to the question of the ownership and administration of the mines or collieries, which has been the main subject of controversy, we find here, too, a certain amount of agreement. All the Reports recommend the establishment of a Ministry or State Department of Mines. This, indeed, follows automatically on State acquisition of the minerals. There must be a department to administer the property; and, as we have seen, its functions would be far-reaching. Further, all the Reports recommend the organisation of the industry by an ascending series of joint committees or councils on the Whitley system, beginning with committees for single mines, from which district councils would be formed, and finally a national council. Sir A. Duckham does not mention a national council; but his proposal that the Minister of Mines should hold regular meetings with the chairmen of district boards

comes to pretty nearly the same thing. There is, therefore, a general resemblance between the schemes in this respect, though important differences in detail. It is impossible to tell, from the scanty outline given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on Aug. 18, what the Government's scheme is. He made no mention of pit committees or of a national council, but they are not incompatible with the organisation he did indicate and may very well form part of it.

There is one other important point of agreement, namely that the manager of each colliery should be responsible for its working. Mr Justice Sankey's Report makes explicit provision for this in Paragraph XLV :

'Every mine shall be under one duly certificated manager, who shall be responsible for the control, management, direction and safety of the mine and the extent and method of working, provided always that such manager shall not be personally liable for conforming to any lawful order for safety made by the District Mining Council.'

The miners' representatives raised no objection to this provision, which is quite incompatible with the scheme proposed by the Miners' Federation. Thus one deadlock is removed which would have rendered the conduct of the industry impossible; for the mine-managers could not have worked under the Federation scheme.

Here, however, agreement ends and serious differences begin. They are many and various, but the heart of the conflict is the question of public or private ownership and control-otherwise the question of nationalisation. Everything else is secondary to that; and the battle will be fought mainly, though not entirely, upon it.

Before going on to discuss the position, let me say a word about the feeling of the public and my own attitude. The question is one on which strong prejudice exists on both sides; and most of the controversy about it is inspired, on one side, by the preconceived opinion that nationalisation is in itself and necessarily a good thing, and, on the other side, by the counter-opinion, that it is essentially a bad thing. This prejudice colours the arguments on both sides; they are partisan arguments. It is a common feature of controversy, but is exceptionally

marked in the present case, and peculiarly unfortunate, because the question at issue is of great practical importance and one which should be decided on its merits by dispassionate scrutiny. That should have been the function of the Coal Commission.

The Commission should have been a judicial inquiry conducted by competent judges and with the partisan element confined to the witness chair. Then the findings of the Court would have served as a real guide to the public, who are the final judges. It implies no reflexion on the Chairman to say that the partisan composition of the Commission made this impossible. The time limit was another obstacle to the sort of inquiry that was needed. Whatever scheme was adopted for the future conduct of the industry, it should have been presented in detail with the reasons for the several provisions included in it and the manner of their working explained. But that was quite impossible; and the result is that, apart from the partisans, the public are left confused, bewildered and irritated. They feel that they are being rushed into something which they do not understand, but on which their future prosperity, their comfort and even their lives may depend.

Now I do not believe that this public of whom I speak have any prejudice against nationalisation, though they have none in favour of it. I believe they have an open mind and would accept any proposed plan, if they were convinced that it would be for the benefit of the community. That is my own attitude. I have no prejudice against nationalisation. I see that several things have been nationalised or municipalised-which is the same thing in principle-without producing red ruin and the breaking-up of laws or even making any marked difference one way or the other. If the benefits conferred by the change from private to public ownership and administration are doubtful or imperceptible, as I think they generally are, the disadvantages, on the other hand, have in no case been such as to excite any demand for a return to the former conditions, which would certainly have happened if they had been at all serious or acutely felt.

Among the things that have been nationalised in some countries are coal mines; and I have long regarded the

nationalisation of the mines in this country as a possible and even probable development, if not a certain one. The mining industry is one of those that could conceivably be carried on by the State. There are many that could not, for definite and sufficient reasons into which I need not enter here, because they do not apply to mining or apply in very small measure.

The prospect of nationalisation, therefore, neither surprises nor alarms me in itself. Nor am I at all impressed by the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, which foresees in the transference of this industry the same fate for all others. On the contrary, I think the effect might be exactly the opposite. It is strange that those who think the nationalisation of mines would be ruinous do not see that, if that were the result, there would be an intense reaction, and the policy would be utterly discredited. Of course those who regard nationalisation as an end in itself would be unconvinced and unchanged. They would lay the blame on anything rather than their sacred fetish, and would demand further sacrifices to it as the certain remedy for the failure of those already made. People with an idée fixe always do that. But no one would listen to them, and it would be a long time before the policy got another hearing. Once bit, twice shy, is a true adage.

In any case so great an experiment would have to justify itself before consent could be obtained for another. Labour itself would insist upon that; and by Labour I mean the general body of workmen, not the hot-air merchants,' as they call each other, who assume the name and pose for the part. In spite of all the congresses that ever sat, workmen are by no means enamoured of nationalisation; many of them disbelieve in it altogether, and a great many more are doubtful. They would all want to see how it worked before extending it. And they would be very difficult to satisfy. The nationalisers have seen to that by their advocacy. In order to win support they have raised expectations which they cannot satisfy, as men in their position always do.

Nationalisation is a Mesopotamia, as I have said in my pamphlet on the subject; a blessed word which every one interprets in his own way. To the miners

who believe in nationalisation it means less work and more pay, to be their own masters and do pretty much as they please. The Russian workmen and peasants looked to such results from their revolution, and they have had a rude awakening. Things will not be so bad here, but it will be impossible to satisfy the expectations raised, because two and two will still make four, even though Mr Smillie himself were Prime Minister and Sir L. C. Money Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their position would be instantly changed by the achievement of their aims. Instead of denouncing, demanding and criticising -a part that every fool can play-they would themselves be the object of denunciations, demands and criticisms from their disappointed and discontented followers, and would be in no position to pursue an aggressive policy. They would be on the defensive and pretty hard put to it to keep their footing. Success is the Nemesis of the demagogue.

For these reasons I cannot share the apprehensions of those who think that the nationalisation of mines would open the flood-gates and pour a devastating torrent of revolutionary change over our industries at large. But I am equally unimpressed by the opposite view that it would work wonders in the mining industry and benefit producers and consumers alike. It would work no wonders. It never has done so anywhere. Any advantages it may confer are counter-balanced by disadvantages. In that country where the State has been a more efficient instrument of administration than in any other, the two systems-public and private-have been in operation together and can be compared. The comparison is not to the advantage of the first. The administration of the State mines of Prussia has been conspicuously inferior to that of the privately-owned. It has been less efficient, slower to adopt improvements, more backward; it has paid lower wages and done far less for the miners in other ways, in housing and welfare work; and the miners are less free under it. Nor is it any answer to say that the proposed system here would be quite different. So is the proposed private system. One must compare the two under the same conditions; and the experience we have to go by does not bear out the promises made on behalf of nationalisation. It is a

« VorigeDoorgaan »