Coal Miners' Strike (Hansard, 3 February 1972)

§ 11. Mr. Skinner
asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the national officials of the National Union of Mineworkers in the last month; and if he will make a statement.

§ Mr. R. Carr
I met national officials of the National Union of Mineworkers on 21st January, 1972. I have nothing to add to the statement about that meeting which I made on 24th January.—[Vol. 829, c. 968.]

§ Mr. Skinner
Is the Secretary of State aware that the strike is still on'? It was a week last Monday that he last came to the House and made a statement on the issue. When will he meet again the miners' officials and the National Coal Board in order to take a fresh look at this matter so that a settlement can be negotiated honourably? Is he aware for instance, that 6 million days have already been lost and that we shall have massive power cuts next week? Is it not time that the Secretary of State and his Government stopped taking the rôle of bully and started taking the rôle of peacemaker?

§ Mr. Carr
The hon. Gentleman's last words do nothing to contribute to a solution. I assure him that I am ready and anxious for a suitable opportunity to meet both sides, with a reasonable opportunity of bringing about a conciliated settlement. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not take the initiative?"] But unless and until there is some indication that conciliation can lead to success, I have to take the view which all my predecessors, of all parties, have taken: that one can do more harm than good by calling in the parties when the gap is so big and when there is no chance of bridging it.

An Hon. Member
Do not lean on the National Coal Board.

§ Mr. Holland
Will my right hon. Friend very much bear in mind the vital importance of timing in all matters relating to industrial relations and negotiations?

§ Mr. Carr
Yes. I must once again say that I am not leaning on the National Coal Board. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in power, the Coal Board and all other employers were being leant on by a specific statutory incomes policy which set limits to the offers they could make and arbitrators were also instructed to keep to those limits.

§ Mr. Harold Walker
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that even at its most rigorous, with the exception of the six-months' freeze, the Labour Government's policy always provided for exceptional treatment for exceptional cases? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing public disquiet at the Government's inactivity? Are the Government doing anything to facilitate a settlement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with every day that passes attitudes harden, positions become more deeply entrenched and the costs of an eventual settlement are escalating'? Is it not time that the Government took a helpful and constructive initiative that takes into account the very widespread public sympathy for the miners and recognises, too, the exceptional nature of their case?

§ Mr. Carr
If the hon. Member believes that his Government's policy took account of special ases—[Interruption.]—as far as the miners were concerned, while his Government were in power miners' earnings fell from being above the national average to being below it. That was the result of a policy of special cases. We have to face the fact that if we want to improve the position of those who are worse off, the rest of us must be prepared to accept a little less ourselves. That is a statement from the previous Government's White Paper, published only six months before the General Election. When the party opposite, when the Trade Union Congress and when individual union leaders come forward with a firm commitment and statement of policy of that kind, it may be possible to make special cases.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Fidler, next Question.

§ Mr. Eadie
On a point of order. This is the first opportunity that we have had, Mr. Speaker, to question the Secretary of State for Employment on this very important situation. As we are miners' Members of Parliament who are responsible to some extent for thousands of miners being unemployed, we are entitled, I suggest—[Interruption.] Yes we are. We are responsible; but the real responsibility is on the Government Front Bench. We are entitled to voice an opinion in the House today when we have the opportunity of questioning the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. His statement today takes the prize for complacency.

§ Mr. Concannon
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Twenty of my constituents are in court today about a matter of intimidation, I should say, about this strike, with orders coming from the Department. I also should like the opportunity of questioning the Secretary of State. I have tried to put down Private Notice Questions and have been refused. It is time that we had the chance of questioning the right hon. Gentleman further on this matter.

§ Mr. Speaker
With regard to the point of order, the Chair is in a very difficult position when it is trying to make progress and to call as many Members as possible. The time taken on the particular Question was rather longer than usual because of the length of supplementary questions and answers. But I must establish that Question Time cannot be an opportunity for debate. Other ways should be found for debating these matters.

§ Mr. Concannon
Further to that point of order. I have just had the disturbing news, Mr. Speaker, which reinforces my argument, that one of the miners' pickets has been killed on duty today. Therefore, it is worth while extending Question Time at this moment.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) wishes to put a supplementary question on that point, he may do so now.

§ Mr. Concannon
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State aware 659 that the present attitude that has been taken by his Department is not only doing the mining industry a great deal of harm but is turning the men even closer together in a willingness to fight and to go all out not for a settlement, which could have been honourably arrived at previously, but for either all or nothing? It is time that the Secretary of State, instead of waffling across to us and lecturing us, got his finger out and did something about it.

§ Mr. Carr
May I first say to the House that I, of course, do not know any more than the House does about the tragic event to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I am sure that we would all wish to express our very deep sympathy.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
That is not good enough. Why not do something about it?

§ Mr. Carr
I assure the House again that I will not lose any hopeful opportunity for conciliation. But the House really must leave the timing of these matters, for better or worse, with the Minister who occupies my position. My predecessor on one occasion waited as long as 11 weeks before she believed it was right to intervene. No Minister in my position takes any joy in waiting one day longer than necessary. But to intervene and then to fail in conciliation can have very serious results.