REDUNDANT MINEWORKERS (PAYMENTS SCHEME) (Hansard, 6 February 1970)

§ Mr. David Watkins (Consett)
The matter which I am raising this afternoon concerns the Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order disputed claims. The Order was laid before the House under the Coal Industry Act, 1967, and was debated and approved by the House on 14th June, 1968.
The broad basis of the Order is that mineworkers who became redundant consequent upon the very large run-down of the industry in certain areas and who were over 55 and under 65 years of age should receive compensation of about 90 per cent. of their take-home pay for a period, the principle being to recognise that people in that age group and in those circumstances would have great difficulty finding alternative employment.
One feature of the Order was that there was no appeals machinery for looking at disputed cases. When the Order was debated a number of hon. Members who spoke, including myself, pointed out that there was likely to be a need for some kind of appeals machinery to deal with disputed claims.
On 5th November, 1968—a notable date in parliamentary history—my hon. 871 Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, indicated, in answer to my Question, that local committees were to be established to deal with disputed claims. That is in columns 686 and 687 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date.
On 11th February, 1969, in a Written Reply to a further Question which I had put on this subject, my hon. Friend said that local committees were then in operation and that where there were disputed cases which could not be resolved by those committees the services of the personnel of industrial tribunals could be called into use. That is in column 255 of the Written Answers of that date.
The committees and the appeals machinery were therefore established, but the Ministry of Power appeared to be determined to do good by stealth because, making inquiries around the North-East of England among the miners, the trade unions and people in general, and hearing the concern over these payments, I found that no one was aware that an appeals machinery had been established.
I made further representations and pressed that publicity should be given to the establishment of the appeals machinery. Consequent upon that, through the machinery of the Ministry and through the good offices of the National Coal Board, particularly in their publication Coal News and in other ways, publicity was given to the fact that the machinery had been established.
I come to 1st December last when my right hen. Friend the Paymaster-General, to whom responsibility under the Government reorganisation appeared to have passed, told me in a Written Answer to a Question asking how many cases had been referred to the appeals committee, None. I have accepted a recent claim without troubling the local appeal committee with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 183.] That was a very innocent-looking answer, but, like so many innocent-looking things, I find it a very sinister answer to a straightforward Question. I readily concede that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General is the least sinister-looking man that I have ever set eyes on. Indeed, I cannot conceive that 872 there is anyone anywhere on the face of the earth who looks less sinister. But I contend that this is a sinister reply, because it indicates that no appeal has been accepted, except one which was decided by the Paymaster-General, apparently without reference to anyone else. Furthermore, the gist of his answer is that he alone decides whether a case is a disputed one.
That being the set-up, it is clear that no approach is possible by an aggrieved individual directly to the appeals committee and that no approach is possible to the appeals committee by an aggrieved individual who disputes the Paymaster-General's ruling on his case. Nor is any approach possible directly to the appeals committee by an aggrieved individual's trade union or by any other representative acting or speaking on his behalf. In the light of what has happened, the appeals machinery might as well never have been set up, because in practice no use whatever has been made of it.
Having talked about the general set-up of the appeals machinery and the procedure for dealing—or, as we have seen, not dealing—with disputed cases, I wish to turn for a few minutes to the case of my constituent, Mr. George Thomas Noble, of Burnopfield in the County of Durham. Mr. Noble's case is a classic example of a disputed case which has not been referred to the machinery which has been set up. Mr. Noble first came to see me as long ago as 20th April, 1968, nearly two years ago. Since that date, when he outlined his case to me, I have pursued relentless inquiries on his behalf and have made representations on his behalf—representations culminating in this debate.
Mr. Noble is a maintenance joiner by trade who has worked all his life in the coal industry. For 42½ years he worked at one pit, the Victoria Garesfield Colliery. Shortly before that pit closed, he was transferred to a National Coal Board maintenance depôt.
One point I wish to make which may or may not be relevant to his case. Mr. Noble and others are convinced that it is relevant to his case. He tells me that he was transferred from the pit to the maintenance depot. He was not declared redundant at the pit but, because of the closure of the colliery, was transferred to the maintenance depôt. He 873 contends, therefore, that he should still be classed as a mine worker. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has been very helpful to me informally behind the scenes, is aware that there is the question whether that factor affects the case.
The National Coal Board, who administer the scheme, claim that Mr. Noble was made redundant because of a change in their policy and not because of the closure of any particular pit. That view was indicated to me in a letter which I received from my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East the former Parliamentary Secretary, dated 25th September, 1968. I will quote the relevant paragraph: In all respects Mr. Noble qualified for a Scheme benefit, save one. He was employed in a grade which made him eligible, and at a 'prescribed' place. He was over 55 years old, but under 65. He was a redundant person within the meaning of the Redundancy Payments Act, and he became redundant by reason of a reduction of the services or facilities at the prescribed place. But the reduction of those services or facilities was not due to the closure of one or more mines or the reduction in the number of persons employed thereat; but to a change of policy on the part of the Board in regard to their house and farm property. My right hon. Friend the present Paymaster General repeated that argument in a letter to the Durham Miners' Association, who had by that time taken up Mr. Noble's case. That letter was dated 22nd October last. It is not without interest that in that letter my right hon. Friend appears to confuse Mr. Noble's case with those of certain other joiners who became redundant but whose circumstances was not identical—and that may be another key to the treatment which has been meted out to my constituent and to the manner in which his claim has been handled.
I do not accept the National Coal Board's contention and I have no doubt that my constituent's redundancy is entirely in accordance with the spirit and intention of the House when it unanimously approved the Order to provide this sort of help to those miners in that age group who became redundant in these difficult circumstances. Furthermore, I contend that my constituent's redundancy was a direct result of the contraction of the industry in that area and was directly associated with the closure of the Burnopfield and Byer-moor Collieries in the same area.
874 I believe that the National Coal Board is quibbling over a legal technicality in rejecting my constituent's claim. I would sum up my constituent's case by saying that I have no doubt that he has been deprived of that to which he is legally and morally entitled. While I appreciate that my hon. Friend in replying may not be able to give a categoric answer about this case at this stage, I hope that he will accept that my constituent deserves better treatment than he has had so far.
I return to the general issue which I touched upon earlier. Over the last two years many thousands of older miners have been made redundant, consequent upon the run-down in the industry. I am quite certain that throughout the length and breadth of the coalfields which have been so heavily affected by pit closures, there must be other cases not dissimilar from that of my constituent. I believe that I can claim to have played some part in bringing into being the appeals machinery because it was created after I, and others, had pressed for its creation.
The staggering situation is that that machinery has never been used and it appears not to have been used because the various Ministries concerned at various times have chosen not to use it. To use one of those bits of parliamentary jargon which we are using more and more, I think it is time that the appeals machinery, so tardily and laboriously set up, was activated.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) upon his persistence in pursuing this case. I know that it is extremely reassuring to his constituents to feel that he is willing to press a case in every way available. Unfortunately, under the legislation we are dealing with, the pertinacity of the local Member of Parliament is not a qualifying factor in deciding whether someone should have benefits.
If I may begin with the individual case, I would point out that Mr. Noble worked at a maintenance depot in the North Durham area, working on maintenance not of mines or collieries but of farms and houses.
875 Early in 1968 the National Coal Board reviewed its expenditure and its work-method practice. The outcome was that at seven different depots 36 men were made redundant. The depot at which Mr. Noble worked remained in existence, operating with a smaller number of men. Mr. Noble had not been there for a short time; he had been there since 1962. For this reason we cannot endorse the claim of my hon. Friend that his previous employment in the colliery is a relevant factor. He had been at this new job far too long for that to have relevance.
We have admitted that Mr. Noble was over 55 and under 65 as is required by the legislation. We have admitted that he worked at a prescribed place and was in an appropriate grade. It is, however, categorically stated in paragraph 3(a) of the Redundant Mineworkers (Payment Scheme) Order 1968 that redundancy must be as a result of closure of one or more mines or the reduction in the number of persons employed there.
The intention of the scheme was to help people who were made redundant in collieries as a result of the colliery closure programme. Mr. Noble's redundancy was of a completely different origin. It was due to a streamlining of the maintenance system being employed on the farm and house side of the industry. He was one of five men made redundant at Ravensworth Ann house and repair maintenance depot. The depot has remained open and the number of houses serviced has not significantly changed, so that any contraction in the number of pits there might have been in the locality in no way influenced the rationalisation position which led to Mr. Noble's redundancy at this depot. Consequently, I am afraid that I must reiterate our previous conclusion that this event is clearly not within the scheme, but is outside the requirements of paragraph 3(a) of the Order; and that it is, therefore, not possible to give Mr. Noble the benefits for which my hon. Friend has asked.
While no statutory appeals procedure exists, an extra-statutory administrative arrangement has been set up. I would be the first to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the rôle he played in pressing for the establishment of an appeals procedure. He was right in arguing that 876 it was necessary to have some system of impartial assessment, which could be seen to be impartial by the miners, in cases of dispute.
For this reason, 11 local committees were set up on a geographical basis covering all 18 National Coal Board areas. On these committees there are an equal number of members from the Coal Board and from the N.U.M., and, in addition, there is one member from the National Association of Deputies, Overmen and Shotfirers. There is, therefore, no question of the committees themselves, if asked to look at a particular dispute, having a bias against a mine worker. They can investigate, and they can advise the Minister, who would normally take their advice. Furthermore, if the Minister should feel that the committees still had not got completely to the bottom of a case, he could refer the case to an industrial tribunal.
My hon. Friend finds it sinister that no cases have yet been referred but, as he rightly said, there is nothing particularly sinister about my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, who has responsibility for these matters. The fact is that, in addition to Mr. Noble's case, there have been only two other requests for the appeals procedure to be invoked. It is rather important to stress that, including Mr. Noble's case, only three requests have so far been made for cases to go through the appeal procedure.

§ Mr. Watkins
What my hon. Friend is confirming is that the individuals concerned have no direct approach. It is my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General who decide whether or not cases go to appeal.

Mr. Williams
I will deal with that side in a moment, but far more important than that, if I may say so, to me, coming fairly new to the subject, is the need to publicise the availablity of this appeal procedure.
It may be that the small number of requests to go to appeal is not necessarily, although I should like to think otherwise, purely a measure of the miners' contentment with the way the scheme is working but is due, perhaps, to a lack of awareness of the way in which the scheme has to be called into use. For this reason, I shall, following this debate, look at the publicity side to see if we can 877 do anything further in this respect. To some extent, my hon. Friend has contributed to that objective by raising this debate with, I hope, its consequential reporting, so drawing the mine workers' attention to the matter.
I said that there have been three cases. I have argued that Mr. Noble's case was not one for appeal because it was clearly outside paragraph 3(a) of the Order. Of the other two cases, one consisted of a group of men in circumstances exactly parallel to those of Mr. Noble and the same argument applied. In the third case—and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be happy to hear this—the only reason why the appeal committee was not used was that the Department, having seen the appellant's case, decided that he was right and gave what he was asking for.
I stress that the initial approach is to the Minister. The approach can, however, come from the individual himself, from the union—in certainly two of the cases which I have quoted the approach was from the N.U.M.—from a Member of Parliament or from a solicitor acting on behalf of the individual. Therefore, the method of approach to the Minister is very easy, looked at from the appellant's point of view. I assure my hon. Friend tht we are scrupulously fair in assessing any complaints that we receive. I draw in defence the fact that when there has been dispute about what constitutes a "prescribed place" under the 878 legislation, this has normally been settled in favour of the mine worker rather than of the Exchequer.
There is, therefore, no wish to deprive miners of benefits to which they are entitled. Indeed, 28,000 men have so far benefited from this legislation. The benefits have averaged £927 each for the period for which the men have received the benefit. By the time that it reaches its due date of completion in 1971, the scheme will have cost £44 million, although this includes the Exchequer cost of a premature pension scheme. My hon. Friend will be aware that although it was at one time envisaged that the scheme would finish in 1971, under the Coal Bill which is to be introduced to the House we have already indicated that we shall bring in powers to enable it to continue beyond that date.
I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend a happier reply on the individual case. He has effectively brought home to us that perhaps not even the unions, the mine workers or Members of Parliament are fully conscious of their ability to approach my right hon. Friend the Minister and ask him to use the appeals machinery. I will see what I can do to produce greater simplicity. I hope that this will at least partially satisfy my hon. Friend.