Coal Mining Dispute (Hansard, 23 January 1985)

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)
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 —[Interruption.] —that should have urgent consideration, namely, the coal mining dispute. Before those public school punks on the Conservative Benches take any more sadistic pleasure out of the plight of the miners, perhaps they will listen to the case. Yesterday you, Mr. Speaker, said: I am in no doubt that an appropriate moment, and when it will be helpful to the settlement of the dispute, we should have a debate on this matter."—[Official Report, 22 January 1985; Vol 71, c.878.] I believe that the time has now come to hold that debate. The matter is certainly urgent and specific. The Government caused the dispute in the first place by their decision on Cortonwood, and they have deliberately manipulated the miners strike. It is reported to have cost between £90 million and £100 million a week to try to defeat the miners. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that that is a good investment. The Government never take any notice of the social costs involved.
The Government have a responsibility for creating the great distress that exists in the mining industry —[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
There are great hardships, broken marriages, shocking bitterness and business bankruptcies. In my area the local chamber of trade has assessed that 25 per cent. of the businesses will be going out of business—yet we see the grinning and sadistic pleasure of Conservative Members. Let me say to Conservative Members who do not understand the situation that miners—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask the House to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his application. He is addressing me and not, as he said, Conservative Members.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that Conservative Members will not stop me from putting the case.
The miners and the mining communities are not bothered about personalities. They are bothered that their jobs and standard of living are being destroyed. Most of the 42 per cent. of youngsters under the age of 25 in my constituency would normally have found their way into the mining industry. The Government have a duty to say in a debate in the House what opportunities those young people will have when the Government have destroyed the pits.
The miners feel, as do I and many hon. Members, that the door is open for negotiations. They feel also that the Prime Minister and the Government, and all the Prime Minister's satellites on the Conservative Benches, believe that if they sit back and do nothing they will drive the miners back to work through hunger, poverty and distress—and there is some evidence that some men, through sheer hardship, and not through any disloyalty to their union have been driven back to work. If the Government know anything at all about the miners or the mining community, they will or should know that that is the worst possible thing because, although the miners may be driven 984 back to work in that way, the country will still need coal and will still need the good will of the miners. That is not a victory, if that is what the Government think it is.
The present situation is very serious. It is not sufficient for people to say, "All right, we've taught them a lesson—go to the bitter end and make quite sure that we rub their noses in the mud and that we starve them back." The miners have a right, after their past performances on behalf of the country, to expect that the Government, even if they feel that they will achieve a great victory, will exercise their duty to consider that the dispute should be settled by negotiation and to bring about an honourable settlement. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will feel able to grant the application.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the coal mining dispute. I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I stand by what I said yesterday on a similar application. However, I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Alec Woodall (Hemsworth)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is to be another application under Standing Order No. 10. I will take the points of order afterwards.

§ Mr. Woodall
My point of order arises out of the application made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I will not take the hon. Gentleman's point of order now.

§ Mr. Bob Clay (Sunderland, North)
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—it is a different aspect of the mining dispute—namely, the further evidence that has emerged last night and this morning that the Government and elements in the National Coal Board are determined to prevent a negotiated settlement of the mining dispute. The matter is specific because, as was revealed last night and commented on this morning, at 5 minutes to 1 on Monday, the NUM went to Hobart house and, from then until 25 minutes past 3, had discussions with Mr. Ned Smith. At the end of those discussions, a minute was signed by both sides recording that they both viewed the discussions as having been useful.
As the union representatives left Hobart house at 3.25—no one having left the room since 5 minutes to 1—they were greeted by the 1 o'clock edition of The Standard which quoted Mr. Michael Eaton as saying that the talks had failed. It is clear that a senior official of the NCB, who must have had authority from the Government, had told the press that the talks had failed even before they had 985 started. If further evidence were needed of the determination of the Government and the hawks in the NCB to prevent negotiations on any conditions, that is it.
If any senior member of a nationalised industry behaved in that manner in any dispute, it would be a matter of grave and immediate public concern, whatever the length of the dispute or the matter at issue. For a senior NCB representative to announce to the press that talks had failed before they had even started would be a serious enough matter at any time. In current circumstances, it is infinitely more serious.
The matter is specific and of great public importance and it is also urgent. There are some matters that Conservative Members pretend to fail to understand. I was told today—as I am told every day—by representatives of the NUM in Durham that when that sort of thing happens it leaves men on the picket line with the feeling that they have no recourse left. If they are to be told that there will not be a negotiated settlement and they are determined not to go back to work, the feeling is that sooner or later—and probably sooner, because every time the Government behave like this it makes it more imminent—disorder will break out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Threats."] Of course it is not a threat; it is an observation of reality. People who believe that Parliament does not give a damn about what is happening have no recourse left. That is what Conservative Members do not understand.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of Parliament, to disregard the indifference of Conservative Members and to ensure that this desperately important matter is debated.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the further evidence that has emerged last night and this morning that the Government and elements in the National Coal Board are determined to prevent a negotiated settlement of the mining dispute. I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. The hon. Gentleman knows that the only decision that I have to take is whether the matter should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for debate under Standing Order No. 10 today.

§ Mr. Woodall
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to contest your ruling, but in the recent abortive attempt to resume talks between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers—I raise this matter in the presence of the Leader of the House—it appears that there has been indecent haste on the part of the Government through the Secretary of State for Energy and National Coal Board spokesmen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Progress".]—to deny that there has been any attempt by the Government to abort the attempt to resume talks—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Woodall
Conservative Members are a rowdy lot.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is tempting Conservative Members by raising matters that are rather wide of his point of order.

§ Mr. Woodall
I accept that, Mr. Speaker. My appeal through you is to the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is not really a matter for me. There will be an opportunity during business questions tomorrow to question the Leader of the House on business for the following week. I can deal only with points of order that are matters for to me.

§ Mr. Woodall
; With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I accept that. However, Her Majesty's Government, through the Secretary of State for Energy and NCB spokesmen, sought to deny that they had interfered almost before any accusation had been made.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and he knows that he is raising matters that I cannot answer.

§ Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received today, Mr. Speaker, any requests from the Leader of the Opposition or the Shadow Leader of the House to change the business for today, which is an Opposition Day, from a debate on post office closures to one on the miners strike?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is even more experienced in this place than I am. He knows that an application of that sort would not be made to me.

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not challenge your decisions on the Standing Order No. 10 applications, Mr. Speaker, but it will be within your recollection that at Question Time Conservative Members were sustained by a ministerial reply on the interests of the European Parliament in certain aspects of the miners strike. The Minister said—some of us would have some sympathy with him—that the Government would afford no facilities to the European Parliament to consider the aspects of the miners strike in which it has expressed an interest. If the Government are refusing, quite properly, to afford any facilities to the European Parliament to interest itself in aspects of the miners strike, perhaps you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Government should not refuse to afford facilities to the House to fulfil the same responsibilities.

§ Mr. Speaker
Again, that is not a matter for me. The business for next week will be announced tomorrow and none of us knows what will feature in that.

§ Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you are aware that there has been the unilateral withdrawal of Post Office services today in the House of Commons Post Office. This is obviously having adverse effects on the services that Members can give their constituents. We pay tribute to the sterling work of the House of Commons Post Office and that of its workers, but if the withdrawal of services is to become a regular occurrence, Mr. Speaker, will you make alternative arrangements for Members of Parliament?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have heard that certain services will be withdrawn for a period today. I hope that this will not recur. It may be that this serious matter, which has caused many difficulties, will be overcome in due course.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
Further to points of order concerning the miners strike and the applications made under Standing Order No. 10, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to challenge your 987 ruling in any way. I believe that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) are extremely important and serious. Would it be in order for the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement to the House on the cost of the dispute, his involvement in the NCB and communications with NCB officials on Sunday and Monday which led to newspaper stories appearing before the conclusion of the meeting between the NUM and NCB officials?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member has not been a Member as long as others in the Chamber, or he would know that newspapers make statements that do not necessarily have any relevance to the House.

§ Mr. J. F. Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), can you, Mr. Speaker, advise the House with whom discussions took place about the withdrawal of the facilities at the Members' Post Office and when those discussions occurred? The action seriously impedes Members in the execution of their duties.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not know the answer to that question. I shall look into the matter.

§ Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall)
Further to the points of order about the mining dispute, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything to prevent the Leader of the House from announcing that there is likely to be a debate in the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is patently not a matter for me. A business statement will be made tomorrow.

§ Mr. Michael Meadowcroft (Leeds, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some hon. Members, including myself, feel that it is important to debate the mining dispute but are concerned about the fact that, day by day, the business of the House is interrupted at about 3.30 pm. Some of us have no power to compel the Government to hold a debate in Government time or to compel the Opposition to initiate a debate in Opposition time. I urge, therefore, that time be allocated for a debate so that we can avoid continued disruption at 3.30 pm.

§ Mr. Speaker
I, too, am disturbed by the fact that I continually have to hear applications under Standing Order No. 10, but that is my duty and my responsibility. I have 988 to make difficult judgments on these matters, and I have had to make a difficult judgment today. I cannot go beyond what I have already said.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not hypocritical and an abuse of this House, to demand today of all days a debate under Standing Order No.10 when the Opposition claim that the closure of post offices is a far more serious matter?—[Interruption.]—If the Opposition, some of whom are threatening the House—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Bruinvels
I was referring to an abuse of the House and the hypocrisy—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member, like me, does not have the advantage of great height which others have. I cannot hear what he is saying.

§ Mr. Bruinvels
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to make up for it with my voice. Is it not hypocrisy for the Opposition to demand today of all days that there should be a debate under Standing Order No. 10 on the mining dipute when the Opposition wish to hold a special debate on post offices? If the Opposition consider that the closures of post offices is not as important as the miners, why have they not ceded the debate on post offices? I suggest, as a means of helping you, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition might like to come to the House on Friday to debate the miners dispute.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member and the House know that I am not responsible for the subjects for debate chosen by the Government or the Opposition.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a keen observer of these matters, and as reference was made last Thursday, unwisely or otherwise, to there being a planned operation, would you now consider drawing up a list—it would have to be a long one—of all those Members who have jumped on to the bandwagon since then? Now that the Liberals and possibly even the Social Democrats are joining in, I suspect that if you drew up a list on a big sheet of paper and then had a good look at it you might well reach the conclusion, by early next week or even before then, that the planned operation was necessary and that we might as well get on the journey.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that I want to get writer's cramp.