HC Deb 23 July 1984 vol 64 cc697-702
2. Mr. Lofthouse

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the president of the National Union of Mineworkers.

4. Sir William van Straubenzee

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the current dispute in the coal industry.

7. Mr. Proctor

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the present position concerning the industrial dispute in the mining industry.

8. Mr. Douglas

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the current situation in the coal industry.

12. Mr. Tim Smith

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the miners' dispute.

13. Mr. Adley

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the coal strike.

17. Mr. Dormand

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the dispute in the coal industry.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker)

When I first met the leaders of the three mining unions in June 1983 I made it clear to them that if they and the National Coal Board wished to come to me with joint proposals on the future of the industry I would always be willing to meet them.

In prolonged talks last week, I regret that the National Union of Mineworkers was unwilling to accept the proposals of the National Coal Board, under which every miner who wished to remain in the industry would be able to do so, and any pit which was safe would remain open, so long as its operation was beneficial to the industry. At the same time, massive capital investment would continue.

In most areas where miners have had the opportunity of a ballot, the men have continued to work. Stocks of coal at power stations remain at a very high level, and have reduced over past weeks by only 1.5 per cent. per week.

Mr. Lofthouse

Does the Secretary of State agree that his reply ducks the question on the Order Paper? Is it not now obvious that there will be no settlement between the two parties to the mining dispute? Does he further agree that he has an obligation, through his high office, to meet the president of the NUM just as he has been meeting the chairman of the National Coal Board, the second party to the dispute? If he is not prepared to do that, are we to take it that he is prepared to sit back and join the Prime Minister in a shoot-out?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like to hear this, but they are going to hear it. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he does not intervene, history will record him as being as sadistic and callous as the witch of Downing street? Is he further aware that, even worse from his point of view, he will never be leader of the Tory party?

Mr. Walker

I have repeated on many occasions that the Government have intervened on a massive scale to ensure that no single compulsory redundancy takes place, that massive investment will continue and that a decent wage will always be available. Mr. Scargill has publicly made it clear on every occasion that he is interested only in every pit, no matter how uneconomic, remaining working. Everyone agrees that at the talks last week the NCB was understanding and did all sorts of things to make a settlement possible, but there was no move at all by the NUM.

Sir William van Straubenzee

Following that answer and in view of the anxiety in some circles about the effect upon a mining community of closure, can my right hon. Friend tell the House anything about the operations of the enterprise company? Will he confirm that it is organised and sponsored by the NCB, designed to bring new business to the areas concerned and, if operative, would do much to remove the understandable anxieties of closely linked communities?

Mr. Walker

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is aware that there have been many pit closures under all Governments in the past, and a whole range of regional aid policies have been applied. I am pleased to say that the NCB has announced the creation of a new enterprise company which will certainly provide funds to assist new businesses coming into the areas for accommodation and for professional advice. There is no doubt that that is an addition to all the services which have been provided, and which are so important for the mining communities.

Mr. Benn

Is the Secretary of State aware that the miners, who have been on strike for five months and have made enormous personal sacrifices, are supported by their wives and communities in trying to defend not only their jobs but future jobs for their sons and grandsons? Is he further aware that vulgar and obscene abuse by the right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers simply shows that they have no awareness of the deep commitment that leads the miners to continue their battle for the future of their communities?

Mr. Walker

If the right hon. Gentleman were to tell the strikers and the families affected that this Government are paying the miners better than the Labour Government paid the miners and that this Government are investing twice as much cash as the Labour Government did, they might go back to work.

Mr. Proctor

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Basildon Labour party, which was collecting funds for striking miners in Billericay high street on Saturday, was using ballot boxes? Would it not be a better and more logical use of those boxes to take them to the mining communities and allow the miners to ballot on whether they want to be on strike?

Mr. Walker

It is an interesting fact that the day that Mr. Scargill announced that he was changing the rules on balloting, the Leader of the Opposition urged that a ballot should take place. Since Mr. Scargill has not taken advantage of that, the Leader of the Opposition has remained silent.

Mr. Douglas

Does the Secretary of State concede that the role in which he has cast himself, as a slick salesman of sleekit against the NUM leadership, ill befits the dignity of his office? Does not the Prime Minister's slanderous remarks about the enemy within show that the Government do not in any way understand the deep commitment of people in my community — from Oakley, High Valleyfield, Blairhall and other communities—to defend their communities and jobs? Unless the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister understand that, there is no hope for conciliaton in this vexed dispute.

Mr. Walker

One does not need to be much of a salesman to defend a position in which we have agreed to invest more than was envisaged in "Plan for Coal" and to ensure that there is not a single compulsory redundancy in the industry.

Mr. Adley

Is it not clear that Mr. Scargill and his friends are engaged in a political battle of propaganda? Is it not true that even if, at the end of the strike, Mr. Scargill is chopped into 1,000 pieces and fed to Mr. MacGregor's dog, Mr. Scargill will claim it as a propaganda victory to poison Mr. MacGregor? Will my right hon. Friend use every opportunity to point out to the people of this country the real and serious underlying issues that are at stake in the dispute?

Mr. Walker

The serious underlying issue is that the coal industry, with the investment envisaged, the potential for converting industries to coal and the potential for export markets, has a marvellous future. The tragedy is that this wholly unwarranted industrial action is jeopardising that future.

Mr. Foot

Does the Secretary of State not understand that the worst way to try to settle this grievous dispute —grievous to everyone and to the country—is for the Government to say that the miners or their leaders are the enemy within and to compare them with Fascist dictators? Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed to be associated with such a campaign? Will he demand that the Prime Minister comes to the House tomorrow and apologises to the miners of Britain?

Mr. Walker

No such remarks have been made about the miners—[Interruption.] In fact, the miners' interests are being undermined by political objectives which have nothing to do with the coal mining industry.

Mr. Skeet

As the Government have an impeccable case in this dispute, and as the prime purpose is political, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to mitigate loss by taking tougher action? Will he also do his best to encourage firms affected by secondary picketing to take a tough line?

Mr. Walker

The decision whether to take action on secondary picketing must be left to the people concerned in balancing the advantages and disadvantages of using the legal rights that they enjoy. The Government will do all that they can to ensure that the type of mob violence that has taken place throughout the dispute is effectively dealt with under the law. That is why, tragically and sadly, more than 4,000 arrests have had to be made.

Mr. Dormand

Is the Secretary of State prepared to make representations on two matters for which he has no direct responsibility but for which he has a strong moral responsibility? First, will he seek to change the regulations by which PAYE refunds to miners are not being paid, remembering that there is great hardship and that it is the miners' own money? Are they not entitled to it? Secondly, is he aware that in my constituency some miners' children are now unable to get new shoes—[Interruption.] That interruption from Conservative Members shows their lack of sensitivity. Some miners' children are unable to get new shoes because of the strict interpretation that is being placed on the regulations. Will he make strong and urgent representations to the Departments concerned on those matters for which he has responsibility?

Mr. Walker

The laws governing PAYE and social security apply universally across the country. It would be absurd to change regulations as a result of an industrial action in which no ballot has taken place and when one third of the miners are working.

Mr. Rost

When does my right hon. Friend expect to remove all restrictions on the import of coal, and when does he expect the NCB to start paying off miners who are anxious to leave the industry?

Mr. Walker

The second matter which my hon. Friend raises is for the NCB to consider. It is a pity that the desire of a number of miners to take early retirement— and thereby make jobs available for others — has been delayed by this industrial action. The answer to his first question is that imports are continuing.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most outrageous features of this dispute so far is that there has been no ballot of those who have been involved in this action for the last five months and who have been suffering so much hardship as a result? As the NCB has put forward new proposals on closures, does he feel that the time has come—he would also resolve some of the arguments that are going backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House—to put that new package from the NCB to the mineworkers?

Mr. Walker

I would very much welcome it if the NCB decided to put that package. It is difficult for employers to decide to put a package, particularly as, with the sort of victimisation that is going on at present in certain mining areas, I doubt whether such a ballot could be successfully conducted by the board. It is a matter of great regret that, certainly for the first time in our lifetime, a strike has been called without a ballot being held, and it is significant that one third of fields which have decided to hold ballots have been at work throughout the dispute.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson

As the factors which govern the viability of individual pits are, and always will be, infinitely varied, will my right hon. Friend tell the president of the NUM that many Conservative Members believe that the offer which is now available is too good to refuse and that, if refused by the NUM, should be withdrawn?

Mr. Walker

The wording that was offered last week was acceptable to every reasonable observer, and there was not one criticism suggesting that the NCB's offer was a bad or unfair one. It is a pity that that wording was not immediately acceptable.

Mr. Jack Thompson

At his next meeting with the chairman of the NCB, will the Secretary of State ask him about the number of pits that have already been closed, and the possible closures that may come after this dispute is over, not because of the inefficiency of the miners or their lack of productivity and effort, but because of bad management?

Mr. Walker

I cannot comment about the allegations of bad management of pits, but the formula suggested by the NCB is that if there are reserves of coal in a pit which, after investment, could he sensibly and beneficially obtained, work at that pit would continue.

Mr. Hickmet

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Bill Sirs, chairman of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, said on Thursday that Mr. Arthur Scargill was prepared to bring about the collapse of the steel industry for his own political objectives, and that the support of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and of the National Union of Raliwaymen was based on similar political motives? Is that not a disgrace, and should not the Labour party dissociate itself from the leadership of the NUM?

Mr. Walker

I agree with my hon. Friend; but I am pleased to say that, throughout the dispute, coal and iron ore have continued to be delivered to every steel plant in the country. I know that the House will be pleased to hear that the week before last steel production was at a higher level than it was before the dispute started.

Mr. Orme

Is the Secretary of State aware that this dispute is about jobs and the preservation of jobs and communities? People find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has not met senior officals of the NUM in the past 20 weeks. Instead of hurling personal abuse, will the Secretary of State use his office to call both sides together? The talks were adjourned only last Wednesday. Will he ensure that they are resumed at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Walker

No, not when the only point on which Mr. Scargill says that he is unwilling to yield is the principle that every pit in the country, provided that it has reserves of coal, should continue to be operated, irrespective of huge economic losses. He has said that he will not give way, and he has repeated that before and after every meeting. As the right hon. Gentleman knows. at last week's meeting the NUM did not move at all.

The reality is that more and more miners, and the country as a whole, recognise that what is being offered by the NCB is in the interests of jobs. It is not in the interests of jobs by this industrial action to stop the capital investment programme, to lose markets, to stop the movement of coal conversion and to see the pits geologically deteriorate. If anybody is losing jobs, it is Mr. Scargill.