§ 9. Mr. SkinnerTo ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 27 February, Official Report, column 5, if he will now indicate what measures he will take to resolve the problems created by the restart scheme for redundant miners; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Michael SpicerI am now able to confirm that it is our intention to introduce an amending order to modify the redundant mineworkers payments scheme such that receipt of benefits under the scheme will no longer be conditional upon the beneficiary making himself available for work.
§ Mr. SkinnerI think that the next question must be when will that amendment be brought before the House to ensure that officers at unemployment and social security departments throughout the British coalfields are instructed to stop the harassment that has been taking place? Will the Minister also guarantee that, in the amending legislation, provision will be made for those miners who have lost money— in some cases more than £l,000— to be paid back retrospectively?
§ Mr. SpicerYes, Sir. We intend to take powers to recompense those former mineworkers who have lost RMPS benefits due to changes in the availability for work procedures. The hon. Gentleman was ungenerous enough not to admit it, but employment offices have been careful in the way in which they have dealt with the redundant mineworkers payments scheme.
§ Mr. BeithI welcome the Minister's decision and the efforts that Energy Ministers have put into securing the decision. Will he recognise, however, that the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment between them have made an absolute mess of the scheme and have caused a great deal of anxiety to men who were told, when they left the industry, that they were doing it a favour by taking retirement when they did and that they were helping to restructure the coal industry? Does he agree that, this decision, though overdue, is welcome?
§ Mr. SpicerThe hon. Gentleman is wrong. The miners were made aware at the time— in the pamphlet issued by British Coal— that availability for work would be one of 563 the criteria by which they would continue to qualify for RMPS payments. That was always clear; it was never in any doubt. We are amending the rules in the light of the stricter rules accompanying restart. That is all. There was never any question but that they would have to be available for work.
§ Mr. EadieWe should be extremely churlish if we did not welcome the Minister's statement. Is he aware that we are glad that he has told us that any proposed legislation will be retrospective? However, will he accept that when the miners parliamentary group met the Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of State, Department of Employment, we were given an understanding that there would be a sort of ca' canny and no harassment of miners who were involved in what was really a Government error? In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement today, will he assure the House that he will instruct the Departments involved that there should be no more harassment of redundant mineworkers? I heard of two cases this weekend that are an absolute disgrace.
§ Mr. SpicerI should very much like to hear from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about the two cases. There is every intention that such cases should be treated as lightly as possible and that the miners to whom he is referring should not be harassed, to use the hon. Gentleman's word— I do not think that "harassment" is exactly the right word to use. However, if there are any cases with which he has problems, I shall be happy to hear from him.
§ Mr. BatisteIs my hon. Friend aware that whatever the technicalities of the documentation, many miners, especially elderly miners, genuinely believed that they would not be required to re-offer themselves for work and therefore there will be the warmest welcome from hon. Members of all parties for what he has announced? We hope that legislation will be introduced as speedily as possible.
§ Mr. SpicerMy hon. Friend is right in that there was the perception among some miners that they would not have to be available for work and that they had received some kind of retirement payment. However, leaflets were produced which made it quite clear that they would have to be available for work— the majority knew that— and that has been part of the problem with restart. I take my hon. Friend's point and thank him for what he has said.