FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153  
154   155   156   157   >>  
That is another and quite separate question):-- (i) _The Present Lessees._--I see no reason to doubt that in the vast majority of cases the present lessees would be prepared to continue to operate their mines, paying royalties to the State instead of to the present royalty-owner. Where the unit is sufficiently large and the management efficient, the National Mining Board would probably grant a fresh lease, incorporating such conditions as to unification, joint control, and publicity as they might consider necessary. If the present lessees do not want the lease, there are others who will. (ii) _Larger Groups._--In a great many cases, however, the Board would decline to grant separate leases in respect of each of a number of small collieries, and would indicate that they were only prepared to receive applications for leases by groups of persons or companies prepared to amalgamate themselves into a corporation representing an output of x tons _per annum_. This figure would vary in each coalfield. In South Staffordshire, in particular, divided ownership has had most prejudicial effects in the matter of pumping. (iii) _District Coal Boards._--Sir Arthur Duckham's scheme of statutory companies known as District Coal Boards requires consideration. Without necessarily adopting his districts or his uniformity of type throughout the country, there are many areas where it might be found that voluntary amalgamation was impracticable, and that the desired result could only be attained by an Act of Parliament providing for the compulsory amalgamation of persons and companies working a specified area and the issue of shares in the new corporation in exchange for the previous holdings. (iv) _Public Authorities._--I should very much like to see, sooner or later, in some area, a lessee in the form of an organisation which, though not national--not the State--should be at any rate public--something on the lines of the Port of London Authority. It may well be that in one or more of our coalfields a public authority of this type, though with larger labour representation upon it and with a large measure of joint control from top to bottom, would be a suitable lessee of the minerals in that area. The important point is that public management need not mean bureaucratic State-management with the disadvantages popularly associated with it. (v) I have mentioned several types of possible lessees, but it will be noticed that there is n
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153  
154   155   156   157   >>  



Top keywords:

prepared

 
lessees
 

companies

 

public

 

management

 

present

 

control

 

District

 

Boards

 

amalgamation


corporation

 

lessee

 

persons

 

separate

 

leases

 

noticed

 

shares

 

Parliament

 

compulsory

 

working


exchange

 

providing

 

holdings

 

Authorities

 

Public

 

previous

 

country

 

districts

 

uniformity

 

disadvantages


voluntary

 

popularly

 
desired
 
result
 

impracticable

 

bureaucratic

 

attained

 

minerals

 

labour

 

larger


London

 

representation

 

Authority

 

mentioned

 

coalfields

 

suitable

 

bottom

 

authority

 

sooner

 
organisation