Coal Industry Dispute (Hansard, 11 February 1985)

§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the deteriorating situation in the Scottish coalfield which raises questions about man management relations, the future of jobs and investment prospects in the area and the survival of local communities, indicating the need for a principled and negotiated settlement of the current dispute.

The matter is specific, Mr. Speaker, because, while it is part of the miners' general dispute, it relates to a specific coalfield. The background for that coalfield is different from that for other areas of the United Kingdom, because before the present dispute there was evidence of a difference in the approach of management to safety cover. In other areas of the coal board, the British Association of Colliery Managers was called in to provide safety cover, but in Scotland that has not happened. I have made submissions previously on this issue and referred to the Bogside colliery in my constituency.

We have no doubt that management has a right to manage, but anyone who knows anything about the coal industry will recognise that this is an extremely circumscribed right because of practice and legislation. A suitable analogy is that of the safety of a ship at sea. The coalmine manager wants the right to manage, but he cannot manage properly without the co-operation of others in the industry, especially the members of the NUM and NACODS.

In my constituency and in other areas of Fife there has been a massive loss of jobs, which has made the matter extremely urgent. We have lost faces at Castlehill and at the Frances-Seafield complex. The evidence is that the men have provided safety cover when requested to do so. On the other hand, management has played a cat-and-mouse game.

There has been disagreement in the House about a principled and negotiated settlement of the dispute because of different interpretations of the NACODS agreement of October 1984. I shall quote briefly from the agreement to show that we must adopt a different interpretation from the one that has been adopted by Ministers. Part of the NACODS agreement states: the Board are very ready to re-examine the Review Procedure and to adopt any amendments which will improve its effectiveness. The Association will appreciate, of course, that this must be done in a way which will meet with the approval of all the parties concerned, including NUM and BACM.

I submit that that sentence gives the lie to the Government's interpretation of the agreement. The agreement cannot be triggered, except with the approval of the NUM and the BACM. That reflects the negotiated intentions of the parties.

The matter is urgent, because we are suffering a massive haemorrhage of jobs in the coal industry in areas of high unemployment. We need to reach a settlement because of the damage to Scottish employment and the effect that the dispute is having on areas of high unemployment, such as my constituency in Fife.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter should take precedence over the business of the House as set out on the Order Paper, and request you to grant a debate on it.