§ Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)(by private notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of the coal dispute and what are the Government's plans to meet it.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson)As I informed the House last night, the dispute has probably added, net, some £300 million to £350 million to public expenditure so far this year. It is too soon to say precisely how that will be met, but, as I told the House last night, taking full account of the public expenditure costs of the miners' strike, I see no reason to alter the forecast that I made at the time of the Budget of a public sector borrowing requirement for the current year of some £7¼ billion.
§ Mr. HattersleyIs the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even now, not aware that the comments he made last night on this subject, undoubtedly referring to a prolonged strike as a "worthwhile investment", increased fears that the Government are less interested in ending the dispute than in scoring a political victory? The right hon. Gentleman can end his embarrassment and put those fears to rest by a single simple assurance. Will he say categorically that the Government's primary aim is a negotiated settlement of the dispute based on compromise and conciliation and that the Government are at last willing — [HON. MEMBERS: "Appeasement."] I shall say it again, in case hon. Members did not hear me. The Government's primary aim should be a negotiated settlement of the dispute, based on compromise and conciliation. Are the Government at last willing to use their authority and good offices to bring about that settlement?
§ Mr. LawsonI shall reply in two parts—first, to the question of what I said last night and, secondly, to the question of the strike. I shall quote from Hansard. The exchange began with what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said in column 299, when he sought to compare the cost that the Government are incurring through the miners' strike with the cost of keeping uneconomic pits open. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Let us assume—the newspapers tell us about this—that closing the 10 per cent. least economic pits would save, at most, £300 million. By the time the August bank holiday comes, we shall have spent five years' savings simply financing the dispute. That cannot be right".—[Official Report, 31 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 299.]The right hon. Gentleman was explicitly comparing the savings from closing uneconomic pits with the cost of the strike. I, in replying to the debate, told him the correct figures, and that was all there was about it. [Interruption.] Yes, precisely.Then subsequently, in a specific interruption from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, seeking clarification of where I stood on the strike, I said, and I quote again from column 309 of Hansard—[HON. MEMBERS: "Column 306."]—
Let the right hon. Gentleman use what influence he has to get the strike called off, and nobody will be better pleased than the Government. This strike is not of our making nor of our desiring, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that". —[Official Report, 31 July 1984; Vol. 204, c. 309.]
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)Is it not a fact that compromise and so-called conciliation has led to a position 342 where in the House we hear from the Opposition on every issue except the real issues of the miners' dispute? Have not compromise and conciliation led to a position where not one official Opposition spokesman has been willing to say that pickets should not congregate in intimidatory numbers and not become involved in violence? Are not those the real issues?
§ Mr. LawsonI agree whole-heartedly with what my hon. Friend has just said.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I remind the House that the private notice question covers the cost of the coal dispute and the Government's plans for it.
§ Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)Has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer given the House only one aspect of the cost of the coal strike? Has he studied the report from Simon and Coates, stockbrokers, which gives the cost of £240 million a month, including not just the cost of using oil in power stations, but the loss of revenues to British Rail, policing costs, lost income tax from miners on strike, and the loss of coal exports? If he has studied that report, does he agree with their figure, and was he not misleading the House by giving such a puny figure in the debate yesterday? Does he accept that the real cost is not the financial one? It is the social cost to the fabric of this country, and there is no worthwhile investment in that.
§ Mr. LawsonThere is, indeed, a most grievous social cost. The best way to end the strike would be for the National Union of Mineworkers to have a ballot of its members, as we have consistently sought, and as it should have done according to its rules.
I was asked specifically about the pubic expenditure costs, and I gave those. I gave the total public expenditure costs. Simon and Coates have it wrong. There is another cost—I do not want to conceal it from the House—which is not the public expenditure cost; it is the loss of miners' tax and national insurance contributions. That would bring the total up to about £400 million so far.
§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)Does my right hon. Friend agree that the implication of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is that, if he were responsible for these matters, he would have given in to the demands of the strikers, however unreasonable, if the alternative course involved some sacrifice, however modest?
§ Mr. LawsonThat is right, and we must bear in mind that no Government have spent more taxpayers' money than this one on supporting the coal industry in terms of investment and very generous redundancy terms to miners who take voluntary redundancy. I think it is helpful to say that a very important clarification occurred last night. It emerged that there was no longer an issue over the closure of uneconomic pits in the Labour party, because it made it clear that it also agreed, when in government, and still agrees, that uneconomic pits should be closed. The only dispute is about the procedures to be followed. I think that that is helpful.
§ Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon)How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer square his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with the words in column 306 of Hansard where he says: 343
And so, even in narrow financial terms, it represents a worthwhile investment for the nation."—[Official Report, 31 July 1984; Vol. 204, c. 306–7.]
§ Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Banff and Buchan)Talk about the uneconomic pits part of it first.
§ Mr. LawsonI was directing myself to the precise comparison that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was making, although he got the figures wrong. The precise comparison that he made, as I read out from column 299, was between the cost of the strike in financial terms and the cost of keeping open uneconomic pits. That was the comparison he made, and I replied in those specific terms.
§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)Is not a large part of the extra expenditure incurred by the cost of policing coal mining areas? Are not the police engaged in preventing the overthrow of the law by force? Therefore, is not every penny well spent?
§ Mr. LawsonYes, indeed. Money spent on maintaining law and order in any circumstances—and in particular in circumstances where there has been some appalling violence—is money well spent, as also is money spent on keeping the power stations going to ensure security of supply to those in industry and in the home who depend on a secure supply of electricity. A great many jobs depend on it.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not yet aware of the significance of what he said yesterday in column 306? His speech last night confirmed what the Opposition have said throughout—that the Government planned the confrontation, provoked the confrontation and masterminded the confrontation and also budgeted for it. The cost is, of course, far greater than he mentioned. He did not mention the lost production of coal, and the effect upon the balance of payments, the effect upon secondary industries, and so on.
Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that last night he let it slip out that the Government wanted the strike, are ready to pay for it however long it goes on, and are entirely responsible for the problems that it has created for the economy?
§ Mr. LawsonThe right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as is well known, lives in a world of his own, a world of paranoia and conspiracy theory. Like him, I was Secretary of State for Energy— [Interruption.] I was Secretary of State for Energy for two years, and if I had wanted a coal strike then, no doubt there would have been one. [Laughter.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving his answer.
§ Mr. LawsonIn fact—[Interruption.] In fact, there was no coal strike then—and why? It was because on those occasions the miners had the opportunity to give their answer in a ballot, and the miners on three occasions decided that there should be no strike.
The reason why there is a strike now is that the miners have been deprived of their right, under their constitution, to give their answer in a ballot.
When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook raised the matter last night, I said, in column 309:
This strike is not of our making nor of our desiring, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that and it is hypocrisy to say anything else.
§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thant, South)Is my right hon. Friend aware that all this synthetic indignation from the Labour Benches is quite simply an example of how to be a bad loser the morning after a big defeat? [Interruption.] Is my right hon. Friend further aware that he has nothing with which to reproach himself? It is quite clear from the banana skin laid down—[Interruption.] It is quite clear from the banana skin laid down by the deputy Leader of the Opposition in column 299, when he referred to the fact that
closing the 10 per cent. least economic pits would save, at most, £300 million"—[Interruption.] It is clear that that figure is confirmed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in column 306, when he says that the cost of the strikehas probably added, net, some £300 million to £350 million to public expenditure so far this year.My right hon. Friend goes on in the same context, in column 306–7, to say thatit represents a worthwhile investment for the nation."— [Official Report, 31 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 299–309.]Of course closing uneconomic pits represents an investment for the nation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should be congratulated on his frankness.
§ Mr. LawsonI am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right in particular to say that this is a rather contrived device to try to obscure the fact that last night the Opposition lost the debate and lost the argument. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wiped the floor with the Leader of the Opposition and with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield too.
§ Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistorle)Would the Secretary of State now turn his mind back to Cortonwood colliery, and explain why it was that, when the board and the union had had a tried and tested procedure over many years, they failed to use that procedure? Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that what he said yesterday has hardened the attitude in the coalfield, and will only have ensured that the strike will continue further into this year and possibly into next? Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind away from ballots, because there is not going to be a ballot? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept that a ballot was taken in Yorkshire in 1981, and that conference overwhelmingly accepted industrial action if a closure took place outside the procedure—which it did? Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that everything that he has said suggests that they precipitated the action because they wanted it?
§ Mr. LawsonI am a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman whom I know as a responsible Member and a member of one of the mining unions which is not on strike. Since he mentions Cortonwood, let me say this. At a meeting with the unions on 1 March, the area director of the National Coal Board, south Yorkshire, proposed the closure of Cortonwood colliery. He pointed out that the reserves available to the colliery were limited and, as the colliery would have to close within a few years, he suggested that its closure in 1984 would reduce production, as was necessary, without damaging the area's longer-term future. There would be no need for compulsory redundancies.
While the area director proposed that production at the colliery should cease in April, he made it clear that the normal colliery review procedure would be followed. No 345 developments would be stopped or equipment withdrawn before, if the unions wished, all the various steps in the procedure had been completed and a final decision taken. He asked for a reconvened colliery review meeting as the first step in the colliery review process agreed with the unions. I understand that the NUM has not so far indicated that it would be prepared to participate in such a meeting.
§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)If we acceded to this politically motivated campaign of intimidation and lawlessness, would it not be at a grave cost to the nation in terms of the rule of law and parliamentary democracy? Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the British public entirely endorse what he said last night, and are entirely behind the Government in their support for the rule of law and parliamentary democracy?
§ Mr. LawsonI agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, it is helpful that last night it emerged that the official Opposition — the Labour party — with their considerable links with the rest of the labour movement and the National Union of Mineworkers, said clearly, in answer to questions, and quotations from them read out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that they accept the need for the closure of uneconomic pits. It is helpful that that is now clear, and that the question at issue is the question of the procedure to be followed. If that is the question at issue, it means that the divide is very much narrower and that it ought to be easier to get a solution to the problem at an early date.
§ Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)The statements that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman in response to questions from my right hon. and hon. Friends this morning have confirmed rather than eased the fears that we had about the motivations of the Government in their pursuit of a political strike. Because the right hon. Gentleman has not been willing to stand by the words that he used last night but has used the opportunity this morning, as he did earlier on the radio, to evade the words that he used last night, I ask him—is it not the case that last night he said:
All told, the miners' strike has probably added, net, some £300 million to £350 million to public expenditure so far this year. Although that is nothing like the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, it is a substantial sum. It should be seen in perspective. It amounts to roughly one quarter of 1 per cent. of total public expenditure … it is of a strictly temporary nature … it has to be seen against subsidies from the taxpayer to the National Coal Board … And … it represents a worthwhile investment for the nation"?—[Official Report, 31 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 306–7.]Is that not a declaration that this Government, as I have previously accused, will spend any sum, create any chaos and meet any bill to perpetuate this strike? Did we last night not hear the inadvertent and therefore authentic voice of a Government who have now invested all of their credibility and millions and millions of pounds of the country's money in saving their own face, at immense cost?
§ Mr. LawsonIt is not a matter of saving the Government's face but a matter of saving the jobs of thousands of steel workers and keeping steelworks and power stations open. The right hon. Gentleman does not 346 need to come here today and raise these issues, as he raised them last night. I stand by everything that I said. I said last night:
This strike is not of our making nor of our desiring, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that and it is hypocrisy to say anything else."—[Official Report, 31 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 309.]
§ Mr. SpeakerTen-minute Bill, Mr. Derek Conway.
§ Mr. SpeakerPoint of order, Mr. Greenway.
§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, my name is Greenway, not Greenaway. We have just had to listen to another speech from the Leader of the Opposition when he should be asking questions. May I refer you to Trade and Industry questions, during which you stated your ambition of getting to the end, as eventually you did, and during which you also frequently stated your aim of defending the rights of Back Benchers? We all respect that. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? This morning, notably on the private notice question, we have had long interventions from the Labour Front Bench. In Trade and Industry questions, they intervened on almost every question, and, in addition to tabling their own questions, they took up a substantial amount of time, to the exclusion of Back Benchers. Is that in order?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is in order, but I know that the House understands that, every time a Front-Bench Member rises, a Back Bencher does not get called. However, I must say that I think that we did extremely well today in getting to the end of Question Time and having one extra question. I hope that the House agrees. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."]
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerYes— Mr. Skinner.
§ Mr. SkinnerYou will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in February 1981 the Government decided that it was an extremely worthwhile investment not to take on the miners but to give in and spend several hundred million pounds on looking after uneconomic pits.
§ Mr. Speakerrose——
§ Mr. SkinnerI am coming to it. You will remember that they spent £700 million having decided to keep open uneconomic pits. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I constantly give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to put his points of order to me but he always starts off at a tangent. Could he come to his point of order straight away?
§ Mr. SkinnerAt that time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order."] The point of order is that at that time you, Mr. Speaker, were a Minister. You would have been privy to knowledge as to why the Government caved in to the miners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)On a point of order——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we cannot go back to 1981. Another point of order—Mr. Dick Douglas.
§ Mr. SkinnerI am not finished yet.
§ Mr. Douglasrose——
§ Mr. SkinnerI am not finished yet.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have told the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that we cannot go back to 1981, and I ask him to resume his seat.
§ Mr. SkinnerI am asking whether the Government——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Mr. Douglas.
§ Mr. DouglasOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an important constitutional aspect in relation to what the Chancellor said. Would you not agree that the whole aura and constitutional position of this House is to examine public expenditure and to resist monarchs and the Executive who use public expenditure for narrow political purposes and to divide the nation? We are about to go into recess—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry objects to that type of public expenditure in relation to other people. This is the House of Commons, and we are about to go into recess. What guarantee is there that this Government, and particularly this Chancellor, will not use massive public funds for their narrow political ends——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. All this takes time from the Adjournment debates, which are of importance to Back Benchers. I ask the House to raise no further points of order. However, in reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), I must point out that it is the duty and role of this House to question Ministers. It was for that reason that this morning I granted the private notice question.
§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall call the hon. Gentleman, even though he is taking time from Back Benchers, and that is selfish.
§ Mr. StrawYou, Mr. Speaker, kindly granted the private notice question after the Chancellor last night had shot into his foot and after a panic meeting between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Whip. As there will have to be another panic meeting since today the Chancellor shot into his other foot, with his statement that if——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise a question which he might have asked had I been able to call him. I remind him and the House that private notice questions are an extension of Question Time. This morning, I allowed 20 minutes on the issue, which is long enough.
§ Mr. SpeakerTen-minute Bill, Mr. Derek Conway.