164

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

July 23, 1915.

there is no doubt that the increased cost of coal must have
represented something, more or less, than ^£20,000,000 over
the whole year. This affected every town, every corpora-
tion, and every public utility company. The House will
remember that on this subject there was an informal Com-
mittee a few weeks ago, on which there were perhaps
a larger number of private members than have met regularly
on any one Committee for a long time, all of whom are
interested in the high price of coal. Whatever may be said
by my hon. friend who moved the rejection of this Bill, there
was no doubt that the consumers, whether manufacturers or
householders, did feel the burden last winter more than they
could bear, and we felt an apprehension as to what would
happen in the coming season if nothing were done to limit
prices.

My hon. friend suggested that this Bill should be limited
only to household coal. I suggest that that would be unfair.
It would be unfair not only to the householders, who them-
selves are depending on the manufacturing industries, but it
would be unfair to the manufacturing industries, and it
would be unfair to the State. The State has now large
interests in keeping down the working expenses of the rail-
ways, and if coal for the railways were to go up 6s. per
ton upon last year’s prices the Exchequer would be millions
out of pocket. Moreover, the demands of the Navy are
larger than they have ever been in the history of the country,
and an addition of Is. per ton on the amount of coal which
is now being consumed by the Navy would make an enormous
difference in the expense of the Navy. There is no doubt
that profits which are made by coal owners or any other
business men, if they are in excess of last year’s profits, are
a taxable subject which will receive the attention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Do not let my hon. friend run
away with the idea that because this Bill is introduced, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is not also going to lay his
hands on what are called “ war profits.” There is no reason
why we should not take both sides. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer will say, in due course, what his taxation schemes
are, but I shall be much surprised if he does not find it
necessary to tax excess profits, and to tax them pretty heavily.
The unfairness to other trades to which my hon. friend
referred I think we may pass over. There is one justice we
may do to other trades, and that is to enable them to get
their fuel without an exce'ssive charge being made upon them.
The necessity for the Bill is proved beyond question, and the
necessity for it is made all the greater if the House takes into
consideration the great reduction in output and the less
reduction in the consumption. The output in the first half
of last year — that is, from January to June 1914 — was
roughly 142,000,000 tons. From January to June this year
the output has been reduced to 127,500,000 tons—that is to
say, there has been a drop of 14,500,000 in output. The
exports have gone down by about 13,000,000, so that the
shortage is reduced or helped by a margin of something like
1,500,000 tons. If you take the internal consumption of coal
for domestic purposes, household purposes, manufacturing
establishments, works of all kinds, by the Fleet, and on
account of the Army, the consumption for the first half of

1914	was roughly 105,500,000 tons. In the first half of

1915	it will be about 104,000,000 tons. That just about
makes the two balance. The Naval consumption is so much
heavier that it leaves less for the householder and the manu-
facturing establishments. With a drop in the output so
great, and with the demand for coal being maintained at such
an abnormally high level in war time, it is quite clear that
the producers of coal, had they been so minded, would have
had the markets at their mercy. The coal owners as a class
are not as extortionate as some people imagine, but they are
pretty shrewd business men, and all business men are
anxious to get the largest amount they can for what they
have to sell. This applies to every section of the community
—employers and employed alike. If the coal owners find
offers coming along week by week at increased prices, it is
more than we can expect of human nature that they should
refuse these offers made to them. I know that many coal
owners have been anxious to keep on good terms with their
customers in past years, and they have not put prices up to
the Full limit which the market would demand. How many
contracts that have been made have that sentiment behind
them I cannot say, but it is obvious that unless some arti-
ficial limit is placed upon prices of coal at the pit head there
could certainly have been no reasonable limit of the burden
placed upon the consumer. What has led up to this shortage
must be obvious to anybody who has any acquaintance with
the colliery districts. The heavy enlistment of miners has
greatly reduced the numbers in the pits. Not far short of
one in five of the miners have enlisted, a proportion which
does credit to the miners, and has added greatly to the effective
strength of the Army during a period when trench warfare
is the custom. There has been a fairly large replacement of
those who have gone into the Army, but even allowing for
that, we may say that the numbers employed in the pits
have been reduced in the proportion of seven to six, and the
outputs have been reduced by only 10 per cent. If hon.
members are apt in mental arithmetic they will see that the
output has gone down less rapidly than the enlistment has
gone up. That means that the men who are still employed
in the pits have increased their get per man during the period
of the war. The cost of working has also increased, but
so far as I can ascertain—^and the officials at the Board of
Trade and I have taken a good deal of trouble over the
figures put before us—it does not appear that the cost of
working has gone up in the same proportion as the market

price. There is no doubt that all materials have become
more expensive, but I shall say a word or two about that
later on.

The problem by which we are faced is one of great magni-
tude, and, like all problems which depend so largely on the
great variety of producers in the districts from which it
comes, and the great variety of consumers, it has led to an
immense number of solutions being suggested. Nearly
everyone thinks that he has a simple way of dealing with the
situation. I fear there is no one simple way that is likely to
be satisfactory, and I must tell the House frankly that I
do not believe that this Bill is, or can pretend to be, a water-
tight measure. It is purely a measure of expediency. It is
endeavouring by rough and ready methods, and the only
practical method which has been suggested so far, to prevent
prices going up at the pit head to abnormal figures, and in
so far as it does that, it will have a dominating effect on the
price of coal delivered to the consumer. One suggestion
made is that we should take the full range of coal and fix
maximum prices all over. Those who make that suggestion
scarcely realise what an immense variety of coal is raised
and sold in this country. Five or six brands of coal or names
of coal are put up in the coal merchants’ establishments in
London. They cover a very great variety of coal, although
they are only five or six in number. Wallsend coal has long
since ceased to come from Tyneside. Derby brlghts may
come from any one of the six counties in the Midlands.
These coals have assumed a sort of nomenclature, which has
no geographical significance, and there is no doubt that in
arriving at a description of coal, nothing is more difficult
than giving it a name which can be applied to it scientifically.

I might point out the great trouble that arises even in a
single colliery. Recently I have had brought to my notice
one of the large collieries in the North of England where they
raise coal from two or three seams, and the variety of coal
from those seams is so great that when they get it to the
surface they have a dozen different kinds of screenings. I
should like any man from outside, when he proceeded to
meet the problem in those collieries, to frame a list of
maximum prices that would be a sufficient safeguard for
the consumer, and would prevent those who had the chance
of distributing the coal over the different screens, and also
of arranging the different labels when they sell it, from
getting to the windward of them. There is no possibility,
with the immense variety of coal screening and the treat-
ment of coal, of framing a list of maximum prices which
would be anything like scientific. Indeed, I am quite sure
that if we had embarked on anything of the kind we should
have been wasting our time over something purely illusory.
The best safeguard which we can give to the consumer is that
when he makes his contract with the coal owner, he will be
able to compare what is charged him now with what was
charged him or somebody like him last year, that he may be
able to see how many shillings above the price charged last
year is charged for any description of coal in similar con-
tracts, leaving the consumer to take care of himself, by
enabling him to make sure that under his contracts he will
not be charged more than the standard number of shillings
per ton.

Mr. Booth : The consumer never buys direct from the
coal owner.

Mr. Runciman : My hon. friend is very much mistaken.
Every gas company buys direct. Nearly all the large manu-
facturers buy direct in nearly every one of the mining dis-
tricts. The only persons who, as a rule, do not buy direct
are the ordinary householders, and even this rule is not
without exception, because there are many parts of the United
Kingdom where even the householders buy direct from the
colliery. There is no doubt that the coal owner controls the
price of coal. That is the first idea which underlies this
Bill. The effort is made in this Bill to fix the coal owner in
the price which he takes for his coal. How far can the Bill
attempt to limit his prices? The standard of increase which
is allowed is based largely on the increased expenses of
collieries, expenses which are due to war conditions. During
the speech of my hon. friend who opposed this Bill, he was
interrupted by my hon. friend the member for Mansfield (Sir
A. Markham), and in these two gentlemen we had, I think,
at once an illustration of the trouble which we have in
arriving at anything like a standard by which to gauge these
additional expenses incurred during the war. There is no
doubt that in the case of some of the collieries with which
I understand my hon. friend is connected, being in rather old
workings, the expenses went up in. greater proportion than
in the case of the collieries with which my hon. friend the
member for Mansfield is concerned. Even if that hon.
member were, as he very often does in this House, to give
us the benefit of his private experience, I dare say that he
would tell us that in the case of some of the older collieries
with which he is connected the expenses have risen during
the war in a much greater degree than in the case of some
of the newer collieries.

With the great variety of plant, workings, and coal fields
throughout Great Britain, it is almost impossible to say
beforehand what has been the added expense of any one
colliery. All that we have been able to do is to take out
some of the various items, and to attempt to assess them by
the average. The first added expense to which the collieries
have been put comes under the heading of wages. The war
bonus awards have added in the Federated area, which
stretches from Lancashire to Warwickshire, and includes
North Wales, about 15^- per cent, to the amount of wages
paid before the war. In Scotland the war bonus amounts
to 18f per cent, at the present time. In South Wales it
amounts to 17J per cent. In Durham it amounts to 15 per
cent, on the average. Of course this depends on the basis
on which it is calculated, but for the purpose of my argu-
ment, it is immaterial to go into the full technical details
with regard to these advances. The important thing is the
average. As far as we can ascertain, this means, generally
speaking, an added expense to the coal owner, in getting the
coal, of something under Is. a ton, rather under Is. a ton
in South Wales, and considerably under Is. in many other
districts. But, of course, the variations are upwards and
downwards, and even in many districts it is quite common
to find some cases where it runs up to Is. 6d., and others
where it runs as low as 7d. or 8d. Tn the Forest of Dean the
addition to wages was 25 per cent, on the standard wages,
and that represents something like Is. 6d. extra added to
the cost per ton. If you take the country as a whole, as far
as I can ascertain, the extra cost of giving the bonus grant

will not be below 9d., and will not be above Is. That, how-
ever, deals with the war bonus charges only. There have
been other rises in wages to which the miners were entitled,
and that in itself will also add to the expense of getting coal.
Then comes the second heading of materials, the cost of
which varies very greatly according to the conditions in the
different collieries, and the different districts. In all cases
there is a shortage of pit props. The closing of the Baltic
against the export of pit props has added greatly to the cost
of working. Pit props are not the only items; there are
many others. If we were to limit the price for pit props
below the market level they would be sent to other markets
than our own, whereas we want to have them here. But if
you allow for the great increase in the cost of pit props, and
the increased cost of other materials, it may be said that the
average throughout the whole country, although there are
wide variations, will mean an increased cost of over Is. a
ton. After these items, then, we must take into account the
reduction in output, which in itself has added to the expense
of getting coal. Then there is the cost of maintenance,
establishment charges, capital charges, all of which are some-
thing more or less constant, and being spread over a smaller
output will increase the burden so much per ton. When all
the extra expenses are added together, the total amount by
which the expense of getting the coal has been increased is
something over 3s. How much over I cannot say, but the
average has not been less than 3s. Some happy coal owners
have succeeded in keeping the cost lower than that. Some
of them have already placed their contracts at prices under
the standard rate named in the Bill. Four shillings was
therefore inserted in the Bill as a figure which was fair to
the coal owners as a class and individually, and fair also to
the consumer.

I may add that the position is complicated by the fact that,
if less than 4s. had been taken as the amount, it would
undoubtedly have an effect on the scale on which wages were
measured. In some of the coal fields—in the case of the
Forest of Dean, for instance—they have already had a rise
of wages based on a 5s. increase. I do not think that the
House would care to embark in a reduction of miners’ wages
by Statute. I am quite sure that no Minister who attempted
any such programme would succeed in getting a Bill through,
and I do not intend to place the Forest of Dean miner under
any disability so far as this’Bill is concerned. But if we
had taken less than 4s. per ton, it would have an effect not
only in the Forest of Dean, but in a great many coal areas,
and we have to consider, therefore, in fixing the standard,
not only the coal owner, but the miner who is employed.
The suggestion has been made that, although this Bill may
give relief for the future, it does not help those who have
already made their contracts, and that appears to be the
main ground on which the Bill' is criticised in some quarters.
But let the House face squarely the difficulty of dealing with
these contracts.

Proceeding, Mr. Runciman said if they tore up existing
contracts, they would tear up not only contracts with the coal
owner, but also thousands of other contracts, which had no
direct connection with the coal owner at all, and in all such
cases they would have created business injustices and under-
taken a task which no sane man would endeavour to undertake
unless he were going to reconstruct the whole of commercial
England on his own basis and under his own control. But
there need be no misapprehension on the part of those who
had already fixed their contracts. A great many persons had
been looking forward to the introduction of this Bill for some
time, and were deferring entering into contracts until the
last moment. If there were others who had not been so
shrewd, or who had not been in a position to postpone
making their contract, they would get the benefit of it
when the new contracts came on. The other criticism of the
Bill was that it did not apply to the merchants, and that it
should have been made to apply to the middleman. He con-
fessed, that they had not been able to devise any means by
which they could reasonably get hold of the middleman’s
profit, except that of taxation. The ordinary factor or mer-
chant bought for all sorts of purposes. That had saved the
coal owner a good deal of commercial trouble in many cases,
and enabled a regular output to be effected. The efforts to
control the prices of merchants had baffled everyone who had
attempted to deal with that question. He would like to
make an exception, however, in the case of London, and the
same might apply to other large centres where the distribution
of coal for household purposes was at present in few hands.
Immediately the report on retail prices was made, he put
himself in communication with coal merchants in London.
He did not find a coal ring in the ordinary sense, but no
doubt there was something in the nature of a market under-
standing, which enabled merchants to keep more or less in
close proximity, and to keep their prices in fairly close
proximity. They were prepared to allow an official of the
Board of Trade to look through their books for a long period
of years in order that they might see accurately what the
annual expenditure had been in many cases, and to find out
how those expenses had risen during the period since the
war broke out. So far as he could ascertain, the increase in
the cost of handling coal in London had been greater than
in any of the provincial towns. The members of the London
Coal Exchange gave an undertaking that the price of coal
was not to exceed the price of coal delivered to depots in
London by more than a certain number of shillings per ton
in summer, and they gave an undertaking that they would
make a similar arrangement in the coming winter. This
arrangement depended absolutely upon the publicity wThich
was given to it, and he proposed to ask the merchants to give
their concurrence. He wished to get from them what would
be reasonable prices for their household coal to be distributed
in London from time to time, very much in the same way as
they published the prices recommended for articles of
groceries last August. If that was done it would not neces-
sarily be binding on other coal merchants who were not
members of the Coal Exchange, but the publicity that was
given to it would, he hoped, give an advantage to those who
had entered into the undertaking, while not penalising those
who were left outside. When the winter came undoubtedly
they would have to add to that publicity some particulars as
to prices of coal of different qualities. He proposed to ask
the local authorities in other parts of the country to do very
much what they had done in London, and he hoped that
by publicity in other large and populous areas, like Liverpool,
Leeds, Birmingham. Glasgow, and Edinburgh, to make it a
matter in which a merchant would feel pride in that he was
not blackballed as one of the extortioners, and that he had
made a reasonable arrangement with the local authorities
by bis being within the limit recommended during the period
of the war. That arrangement was the only substitute he
could suggest instead of the fixing of a maximum price all
round.

Continuing, Mr. Runciman said he would have been glad