§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr)I wish to make a statement about the coal industry dispute. At the joint meeting between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board at my Department yesterday, the representatives of the union stated that they would not consider negotiations on any offer which provided less than £7 a week for underground workers and £6 a week for surface workers. Moreover, this had to be backdated to 1st November, 1971, and to last for no more than 12 months. It also had to include an additional five days' holiday.
The union representatives made it categorically clear that these were absolute minimum conditions and if they could not be met there was no point in resuming negotiations. The board indicated that an additional burden on this scale was entirely beyond its capacity to meet. The joint talks therefore broke down, and in separate meetings with me I confirmed that the respective positions of the parties were as I have just described.
In view of the very serious situation from the point of view of the industry and the whole community I told the parties that I would immediately appoint a court of inquiry. I hope to be announcing the constitution of the court later today.
The House will recognise the gravity of the situation. I believe that a court of inquiry now offers the best hope of bringing about a just settlement in the shortest possible time.
§ Mr. Harold LeverThe right hon. Gentleman and the House will under- 1728 stand that if I refrain from comment about the responsibility for arriving at this present situation it is because I do not wish to do anything that will prejudice the consideration of matters that will arise from the announcement of the court of inquiry by the mineworkers' leaders. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what offer he has made to the union about a return to work in the event that the court of inquiry sits and the union appears before it? Is he prepared to make some offer entirely without prejudice to the results of the court of inquiry, and can he tell us what negotiations he has had or is having with the union to discuss the problems that will arise through the appointment of the court? Has the union told him whether it is prepared to participate in the court of inquiry? On these and kindred matters the statement is silent.
§ Mr. CarrI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to make it clear to the House that I told the union yesterday when I said I must appoint a court of inquiry that I would like it to consider one further proposition, namely, a return to work picking up without prejudice to its claim the offer made to it. I said that when the court of inquiry reported—and I could not forecast what it would report—if it recommended a settlement larger than the one on offer at the time from the Coal Board I would put this to the board and obtain an assurance, if the men would return to work, that the higher offer would be implemented as from the same date. The union representatives said they would report back to their executive this morning and let me know, although I am afraid they made it clear to me that they thought there was little hope of the Executive accepting it. It is important because it would give the miners the amounts offered by the Coal Board the day before without any prejudice to the ultimate settlement of their pay.
Perhaps I should make it clear—because there has been some misunderstanding about it; I cannot think why—that the offer made by the Coal Board the night before was worth not £48 million over 18 months, as I have seen reported, but £48 million in the first year compared with only £32 million in the first year 1729 under the previous offer. In other words, over 18 months it was £72 million and not £48 million. This brings home the substantial nature of the offer which the N.U.M. decided to turn down and indicates the substantial benefit which the miners would achieve if they were to take this up now without prejudice to the result of the court of inquiry.
As to whether the union will participate in the court of inquiry, I very much hope that it will and it has not told me that it will not. I am hoping to hear about these things from Mr. Gormley after the Unions executive has met later this morning.
§ Mr. Harold LeverI have three points to raise with the right hon. Gentleman arising out of that reply. First, will he tell us—in asking this I am anxious not to inflame the situation—why we had to wait until the strike had been going on for so long before this substantial increase in offer was made? This seems to call for an explanation.
Why did the right hon. Gentleman and the Coal Board stand pat on their offer which had been made before the strike began, and why only after the passage of time was this substantial offer made; that is, when feelings had become inflamed and negotiations more difficult?
Second, may we be told why the right hon. Gentleman did not set up this inquiry earlier on in the strike? Why did he wait for this considerable lapse of time, with damage having been done to relations and, of course, to prospects not only for a settlement but for the industry?
Third, is the right hon. Gentleman able to take any steps to ensure that the inquiry is presided over by somebody who will have the confidence of both the N.U.M. and the Coal Board?
§ Mr. CarrTo answer the right hon. Gentleman's last question first, he will understand that I cannot speculate on whom I may appoint to the court of inquiry until I am actually ready to make an announcement. However, I assure him and the House that I very much hope that those who will accept my offer of appointment will be people who will carry the confidence not only of both sides of the industry but of the country at large, and I shall certainly have that point very much in mind.
1730 The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's remaining questions is that matters of this kind involve the question of timing, and this is always immensely difficult in industrial disputes, whether between parties or whether my Department is involved in them. I can only repeat that I judged earlier that the situation was such that my intervention would not have got meaningful negotiations going. That I believe to be true, and the fact that the negotiations broke down yesterday afternoon is some justification for that.
I really believe that it would have been a mistake to have appointed a court of inquiry earlier because the union had made it absolutely clear to me from the beginning that a court of inquiry or any form of third party resolution was just not wanted by it but was strongly opposed and most unwelcome to it. My assessment of that situation in connection with a court of inquiry—at any rate until very recently before the intervention this week—was, and I believe was publicly stated to have been shared throughout by Victor Feather of the T.U.C.
Mr. CormaekMy right hon. Friend will be aware that I have for some time advocated the setting up of a court of inquiry. May I express the hope that he will try to make sure that it reports very quickly indeed? May I also reiterate the request I made in a letter to my right hon. Friend some time ago and express the hope that the court will be presided over by a High Court judge? I very much hope that the N.U.M. will accept my right hon. Friend's eminently sensible suggestion that the miners should return to work and, without prejudice, accept the offer that has already been made.
§ Mr. CarrI thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I cannot, of course, comment on the constitution of the court, but I have noted what he and others have said, not only today but previously. I hope that neither the House nor the country nor the parties will be disappointed by the people who agree to serve on the court of inquiry.
I certainly hope and believe that the court will work quickly. Indeed, I am sure that it will do that. I cannot, of course, commit the court of inquiry in advance as to how long it will take over 1731 its deliberations, but I am sure that its members will be well aware of the urgency of producing their report at the earliest possible moment.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs the Secretary of State aware that when the revised pay offer—the "improved offer" as he called it both today and yesterday—was put to the miners and was examined by people who know the industry—it was proved to be the biggest confidence trick ever played on the miners, and they have had one or two played on them by Lord Robens?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that when he refers to the £48 million being spread over 12 months as distinct from over 18 months, that so-called improvement on the £32 million offer was in fact included in the previous offer? Is he aware that it takes no account of the other £1 a week that was part of the previous "Chinese bargain", which would have resulted in another £15 million, anyway, and would therefore have reached the total of £48 million? If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to rely on my mathematics, perhaps he will read the Financial Times, which yesterday made it abundantly clear that the revised offer fell within the 7–8 per cent. pay guide-lines, just as the old offer did. May I therefore—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is getting very near to making a speech. I remind him that we shall be having a debate on this subject on Monday.
§ Mr. SkinnerMay I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, although many statements have been made about the strike and there have been two coal debates since the strike began, I have not been called to make a speech? The only way I have been able to make any sort of statement on this issue has been by managing to use this parliamentary procedure of putting supplementary questions. Only by this means have I managed to get a few points across. However, I was not called to speak in the debates, and this is the first occasion—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman cannot go into that matter today. Indeed, he may be prejudicing his chances for Monday. Will he please ask his question?
§ Mr. SkinnerThank you, Mr. Speaker.
In taking these various matters into account, does the Secretary of State really expect the miners to go back to work while this court of inquiry is deliberating, when there is no doubt that Treasury mandarins will be appearing on behalf of the Government and when there is no doubt that if somebody decides to be more amenable to the miners the chances are that the Minister will sack him?
§ Mr. CarrIf I thought the lion. Gentleman spoke with the voice of the majority of miners, let alone the voice of the country, I would indeed be worried, but I am quite confident that he does not.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe right hon. Gentleman may be a lot further from the mark than he thinks.
§ Mr. SkinnerIt is not.
§ Mr. SkinnerAsk the T.U.C.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. CarrThe hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows quite well that one of the reasons why the last offer made by the Coal Board before the strike was not accepted was that whatever amount might have been negotiated and might have come from the further productivity deal, it would not have been paid immediately. Thus, even if the hon. Gentleman were right in quoting an extra £15 million, that sum would not have been made available immediately, and that, of course, was the big difference.
The extra productivity proposal included in the Coal Board's last offer before the strike broke out was essentially something that would have been worked out if and when the productivity had been achieved, and then paid in arrears, but it would not have been paid immediately.
I must, therefore, tell the hon. Gentleman that the miners would be doing something very much in their own interest as well as in the interest of the country if they picked up the very substantial extra weekly pay which is available to them under the last offer from the Coal 1733 Board, without prejudice to whatever may be the findings of the court of inquiry.
§ Mr. ThorpeBearing in mind the powers of precedent, would the Secretary of State say whether the court of inquiry will be completely unfettered in its power to make recommendations? Alternatively, if the Government are intending to give guidelines, would they undertake that they will be given by a Minister publicly and not by a civil servant privately?
§ Mr. CarrOf course the court will be unfettered, as all courts, as far as I know, have been unfettered in making their recommendations. There is no question about it being fettered. The Government's views about this are well known. They were stated again in the House, which I believe is the proper place for the Government's views to be stated, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the debate on the Gracious Speech last November, and that is where the matter stands. There will be no fettering of this court of inquiry.
§ Mr. StokesIs my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the miners' dispute, the first duty of a Government is to govern, and that ordinary people want to feel sure that, however the strike develops, law and order will be preserved?
§ Mr. CarrThat is absolutely true. Again, I very much hope, now that the court of inquiry is appointed, not only that the miners' union will co-operate with it by giving evidence—no one asks that it should do more than that—but that everyone, including hon. Members of this House, should as far as possible allow this matter now to be considered in the calmest possible atmosphere.
§ Mr. UrwinWill the Secretary of State make a statement in the House later today on the membership of the court of inquiry? Second, in view of the extreme gravity of the situation does he intend to impose a time scale on the activities of the court of inquiry?
§ Mr. CarrI think that the answer to both those questions is "No." It is not usual to make a statement in the House about the membership of a court 1734 of inquiry. But I shall appoint it urgently. I hope that its composition will command widespread confidence. It would be wrong to impose a time scale on a court of inquiry. That would be as unwelcome to the union as it would to anyone else, and wrong to the court itself. But I shall make clear the extreme urgency and the need for the court to do its business as quickly as possible and produce its report as quickly as possible.
§ Mr. BiffenThe Financial Times is probably not the most widely read newspaper in mining communities, but the fact is, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, that it was that newspaper's view that the revised offer still fell within the 7–8 per cent. per annum norm. I understand from my right hon. Friend that he considers that not to be so. So that we could more generally understand the position, would my right hon. Friend indicate what, in his judgment, is the percentage increase that is covered by the revised offer?
§ Mr. CarrAs my hon. Friend and the House will know, percentages are difficult to work out and it is possible to produce quite credible percentages varying according to the base one takes. It is true that by extending the offer, the amount and the contract term, over 18 months rather than 12 months—
§ Mr. SkinnerTwenty-two.
§ Mr. Carr—twelve months—the annual rate of increase was comparable to the previous offer. I believe that that is so. The important thing from the miners' point of view was that this produced a significantly larger sum of money immediately. As I said to the House yesterday, it placed a much bigger immediate burden on the board, but by being spread over 18 months and not 12 months—
§ Mr. SkinnerTwenty-two.
§ Mr. SkinnerTwenty-two.
§ Mr. SkinnerTwenty-two.
§ Mr. CarrIt was easier for the board to sustain a larger immediate increase, for obvious reasons, and the board believed that it got genuine benefits, and at that stage the N.U.M. also thought that it might get genuine benefits from having a longer-term agreement and less frequent confrontation on matters of this kind. As to the 22 months that the hon. Member keeps muttering about—
§ Mr. SkinnerI am not muttering.
§ Mr. Carr—I made it clear to the House yesterday that this may well have been one of the matters which I should have expected to have been taken up in further negotiation.
§ Mr. SkinnerIt was not.
§ Mr. CarrI should make clear to the House, to underline the hon. Gentleman's ignorance, that Mr. Ezra put this point specifically to the N.U.M. delegation yesterday, asking whether it would be interested in considering bringing back the time of starting of the board's offer.
§ Mr. SkinnerNot using that form of words.
§ Mr. CarrThe N.U.M. specifically and categorically said that it was not interested in discussing it.
§ Mr. SkinnerOh, no.
§ Mr. KelleyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us on this side of the House are surprised that he expressed consternation at this offer being rejected. The National Union of Mineworkers has always said what it wanted. It should not be a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman. Would he indicate what sum of Government money he hinted to the board would be available in meeting a settlement? Is he aware that on the Continent of Europe subsidies of at least £5 per ton are being given, which would mean for our coal industry a Government contribution of about £700 million would be required? Would the right hon. Gentleman look at the question again in this context? Is he aware that the miners have constantly been diddled by figures, to such an extent that a common expression in the coalfields at one time was that, while figures cannot lie, liars can figure. Many people have that impression about this particular offer.
§ Mr. CarrNo Government of this country have ever been prepared to make a subsidy available for a particular wage claim, and I do not believe that that is a practice which can and should be started. There can be no question of that. I think that that is well accepted. The House should realise that the offer which the Coal Board put forward would have cost £48 million in a year, or £72 million in an 18-month period, and that the absolute minimum which the N.U.M. laid down yesterday which would make a resumption of negotiations worth while would have cost almost £100 million in a year or almost £150 million in 18 months. I simply do not believe that that could conceivably be within the reach of the Coal Board. If such a thing were to happen, there could be no alternative but very severe increases in the price of coal, which would spread through prices throughout the country.