HC Deb 02 February 1989 vol 146 cc537-44

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

11.10 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)

I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the Minister's attention to the concern among miners at Kellingley colliery about a survey carried out by Research Services Limited on behalf of British Coal. The Minister will have seen early-day motion 328, signed by more than 150 right hon. and hon. Members, condemning British Coal for conducting the survey.

During the week beginning 16 January, a team of researchers visited the homes of some Kellingley miners, unannounced and without prior arrangement, armed with a questionnaire which, the miners thought, sought to obtain views and information that would be helpful to a private company when British Coal was privatised.

The miners were not given sight of the questionnaire, but they were asked whether they were prepared to work for a British Coal consortium, whether they would buy shares in British Coal and whether they would work for a private company. They were asked about the state of industrial relations and morale at the colliery, what bonus payments they received and what was their standard of living.

The miners' trade union is concerned about the invasion of their privacy and their homes, as is their Member of Parliament. The miners were upset that their names, addresses and works numbers had been given to a public relations company, presumably by British Coal, without their consent. They are concerned to discover that British Coal's money—taxpayers' money—can be spent on a survey for the benefit of potential private owners. They are upset that British Coal has supplied a public relations company with their private addresses and works numbers and feel that that action could be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1984.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the service that he is doing to members of the mining industry and the mining community. Let me add my experience to his. When the Government have closed coal mines in Nottinghamshire, lists of miners to be made redundant have been made available to private insurance companies and brokers—sometimes on the same afternoon that the miners themselves have been told. That has happened in my area and in that of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). Is that yet another example of the way in which British Coal is flagrantly breaching the privacy of those who work for it?

Mr. Lofthouse

I thank my hon. Friend for that example. I have had it confirmed by British Coal that since the survey to which I referred similar surveys have been carried out at 70 other collieries. That gives further weight to the opinion of the Kellingley miners that a campaign is under way leading up to the privatisation of the British coal industry.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)

There is a great danger in these developments. Can my hon. Friend imagine a situation where this information collected by private pollsters could be used in the event of privatisation, and where those miners who have been visited and expressed opposition to privatisation plans might be blacklisted by the companies as a result of this disgraceful behaviour of British Coal?

Mr. Lofthouse

There is always danger in this type of thing. Of course, that is why we look to the protection of the Data Protection Act 1984.

One has to understand the problems of the mining communities to realise why miners feel so concerned about such surveys. Since 1984, they have seen their industry devastated by the policy of this Government. In the area covered by the Wakefield metropolitan district council, where these miners live, they have seen the loss of 11 pits and 11,000 jobs, and their workmates and friends have been thrown on the scrap heap, some without hope of any future employment. They are aware that the average age of the British Coal work force is 34. They are also aware that the millers' redundancy payment scheme is not so generous as it was previously. They are seeing their redundant colleagues hounded by the Department of Employment, which could mean the loss of the benefits that they were promised when accepting voluntary redundancies.

Mr. Meale

Is my hon. Friend also aware that redundant miners aged 50 and over have been told by employment officers when they applied for a retraining allowance of £10 plus bus fares under the restart scheme that they could not go on to the scheme, because the £13.95 payable under the pension scheme from British Coal would cease?

Mr. Lofthouse

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that fact to the House's attention. I was aware of that problem.

The miners are aware of the threat from privatisation of the electricity supply industry, and believe that their industry is to be run down even further before privatisation, to as few as 45,000 men. This view is supported by the report of the Coalfield Communities Campaign. They are indeed in fear of the loss of their jobs. We are talking of men with an average age of 34, without any guaranteed weekly benefits when they are made redundant, and without hope of any future employment.

The miners believe that the coal industry could be privatised before the next election. I am beginning to think that their fears might be well-founded. They are concerned by the Government's track record to date, which indicates that there will be no encouragement to replace mining jobs with alternative employment.

In the area I am referring to, there has not been any Government aid to make good the loss of those 11,000 jobs. The Government have refused to grant it assisted area status, which means there are no national Government or European Community grants. There has been no input of any alternative jobs to employ those 11,000-plus former miners.

I had the privilege this week of listening to the suffragan bishop of Sherwood, giving evidence to the Private Bill Committee on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill on 31 January. I sincerely advise all hon. Members, and indeed the Prime Minister and members of the Government, to take a few moments of their time to read and digest the evidence given by the bishop. In answer to a question about whether there had been any change in miners' morale or self-confidence, the bishop replied: They have a certain not actual depression but a fear hanging over them that the industry is not as flourishing and has not got the future that they thought it had. He also told the Committee about the effect on a mining community when a colliery is closed down. He said: It is a pretty traumatic experience. It is expected. They know it is coming and there is great sadness because a pit village without a pit is a place without a soul. I confirm that statement. My constituency has had the same experience over the past four years.

Miners get angry and worried when their homes are invaded by public relations people asking questions about privatisation of the coal industry. With justification, they say that it is a further kick in the teeth for miners who have always stood by the country in times of need and provided the required energy and fuel.

They know that privatisation of the electricity industry followed by privatisation of the coal industry, means a loss of jobs and possible unemployment for the rest of their lives. No hon. Member can disagree with that. The miners know what privatisation means for the coal industry. They know all about profit taking priority. They know about cutting corners and slips in safety standards. They are aware of the reason some foreign companies can export cheap coal. They know that the accident rate in South African mines is eight times greater than in this country. They know also that the accident rate in American mines is four times greater. They know what conditions in Britain's coal mines were like before nationalisation; they have been told by their fathers. I never get fed up with telling people what mine conditions were like before nationalisation, because I saw them myself.

That was the climate in the mining community when the public relations people arrived with their questionnaire. The miners want me to ask the Minister some questions. I spoke to the Minister on the telephone this morning and told him of my questions. He may not be able to answer them all, and it may be appropriate for British Coal to answer some, but I hope that he will be able to answer some.

Why did British Coal commission the survey? What were the questions on the questionnaire? What was the information to be used for? Who gave British Coal authority to release miners' names, addresses and work numbers to the public relations firm? Why was I, as their Member of Parliament, refused a blank copy of the questionnaire? Was British Coal's action in breach of the Data Protection Act 1984? Is it possible that the coal mining industry will be privatised before the next general election? Why was the local area management of British Coal not aware of the survey? Why was the local branch of the National Union of Mineworkers not informed? Why is British Coal allowed to spend its scarce financial resources—in effect, taxpayers' money—to obtain information which could be of benefit only to the private sector? As I pointed out, British Coal has confirmed to me that the exercise took place at 70 collieries.

The Government have a duty to the miners to provide alternative jobs if the industry is to be run down to the extent that I have suggested. I hope that the Minister will take note of that and attempt to answer the questions which I have put to him.

11.24 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on having secured a debate on this issue, which is important to him. I know that he has had a long personal involvement in the mining industry and that he speaks from that experience and from the heart as well.

I listened carefully to what he said and, indeed, to the interventions of the hon. Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I shall try to cover all the points they raised. I hope that part at least of the debate will be read carefully by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Trade and Industry.

At the outset I should stress that a decision by the British Coal Corporation to carry out surveys of the attitudes of its employees is a matter that falls entirely within its day-to-day management responsibilities. It is not a matter for the Government. I am, however, delighted to reply to any concerns about the corporation's actions that are brought before the House. Indeed, I welcome the opportunity to correct a number of misconceptions and misrepresentations that have arisen over the corporation's survey of the attitudes of its employees, some of which were referred to by the Member for Pontefract and Castleford.

First, I should like to deal with a general point raised by the hon. Member in arguing that the purpose of such attitude surveys is to usurp the function of the trade union through which employees should properly express their views. Certainly a responsible and realistic trade union has a role to play in such exchanges.

In practice, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and unfortunately in the case of the coal industry, one of he unions, the National Union of Mineworkers, has effectively cut itself off from the negotiation process with the corporation by persistently refusing to accept new conciliation machinery. That machinery recognises a substantial body of miners now represented by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. This sad state of affairs makes it vital for British Coal to conduct such surveys if it is to know how its work force feels on issues that are important to the future of the industry.

I will set out some of the key facts of this survey. First, it was not the first such survey conducted by British Coal. Indeed, such surveys have been conducted for a long time. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be interested to know that these surveys extend back over the whole period since nationalisation of the industry. That, of course, includes periods when the Labour party was in government. I do not recall, nor do I know of, any similar complaints by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford or by any of his hon. Friends about those surveys.

Mr. Lofthouse

The Minister is right. There have been surveys in the past. Is he aware that this questionnaire, which unfortunately we are not allowed sight of, had questions on it which were never on the questionnaire, before?

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

Is the Minister aware that the earlier surveys were conducted on colliery premises by British Coal and that they were completely voluntary? The Minister shakes his head. I can assure him that that is right because I conducted some of them.

Mr. Morrison

I would not for a moment suggest that the hon. Member was making an incorrect statement to the House. Some of them might have been conducted by British Coal but, as I will explain in a second, others were not.

Perhaps, I could be helpful to hon. Members by referring to a survey which was carried out in 1976 by the National Coal Board, as it then was. That was not carried out directly by British Coal, but by an arm of Imperial college, London. The questions that were asked in 1976 were similar—I accept that they were not precisely the same, as any survey will move on as time moves on—to the ones in the survey we are now discussing. The 1976 survey related to job satisfaction and security, prospects for the industry, and there were a number of personal questions relating to the age and marital status of the miners concerned. In fact, in 1976 questions were also asked about the mineworkers' wives, which did not feature in the 1989 survey. I accept that the surveys were conducted at the pithead on a one-to-one basis, as the hon. Gentleman has said, which is a difference that I accept.

Mr. Meale

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morrison

I will, but I want to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Meale

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a question which was not asked was whether or not the mineworkers would agree to privatisation?

Mr. Morrison

I can confirm that. Even if I could not have confirmed it, I would almost certainly have been able to say that I can confirm it, because I believe that in 1976 the privatisation of British Coal was naught but a twinkle in the eye of the then Government. It would, therefore, have been an unlikely question to have been asked. I can confirm that it was not asked.

Given this background, I find it difficult to understand why hon. Members are so complaining about the current survey. I am looking at like with like. There is never any obligation—there was not in 1976—on any member of the public or a householder to agree to be questioned in such surveys. I am assured that this was the case with the agencies employed by British Coal, and, indeed, the code of practice that governs the operations of such agencies —it was an opinion research agency, not a public relations agency—and, which the agencies accept, specifically rules out any pressure whatsoever on members of the public to participate. When met with a refusal, the interviewers simply walk away and pass on to the next name on their list.

Moreover, the survey referred to in the early-day motion was not, as has been reported, restricted to Yorkshire or to Kellingley colliery. The survey was conducted among a sample of the Corporation's employees at some 70 collieries. Between 1,000 and 1,100 men were interviewed, representing just over 1 per cent. of the total workforce.

It has been alleged that the method used to conduct the survey amounted to an invasion of privacy. As I have already pointed out, no invasion was involved. Those who did not wish to be interviewed could turn the agency's representatives away from their doorstep, as indeed, some did. I am also advised that the conduct of such surveys among employees on behalf of their employers is a common practice.

That is particularly so among large organisations, which find it a very positive way of seeking their employees' views. Moreover—and I have specifically asked—British Coal states that it is satisfied that it has acted in accordance with the Data Protection Act.

As said, the survey was carried out on only a sample of the Corporation's work force. At Kellingley colliery, which has a work force of over 1,600 men, the names of just under 100 were provided to the research agency, of which only 30 interviews were required for the survey. I understand that only seven of those contacted exercised their right not to be interviewed. The interviewer simply walked away. There was no debate, no argument and no compulsion. Indeed, I think that the House would agree that it would be a particularly foolhardy interviewer who would seek to argue such a matter with a miner on his own doorstep.

There has also been some wide-of-the-mark speculation about the use to be made by British Coal of the information received from such surveys and in particular about whether answers might be traced to individuals or to collieries in which they worked. I have been advised, and I can assure the House, that the results of the surveys carried out on their behalf by British Coal are presented by the research organisation in statistical form only.

The data collected are analysed at area and national level, not on the basis of individual pits, and there is no possibility that the attitudes of individual miners expressed in the interviews can be traced back to them.

Indeed, this is not the purpose of such surveys. British Coal is by no means the only employer to seek by these means to have a better understanding of the opinions and wishes of its employees. It is surely reasonable for any employer concerned about the future of its company and the health, safety and welfare of its employees to be as accurately informed as possible of its employees' views on aspects which are crucial to the current operations of the company and its future. Such surveys provide helpful feedback to employers on reaction to initiatives and plans that they may put into action.

The hon. Gentleman also suggested that this survey was in part aimed at securing information that would assist the privatisation of the industry. There is no truth whatsoever in that suggestion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear on several occasions, the Government's intention is that after the next election we shall privatise the coal industry. In those circumstances it was entirely reasonable for British Coal to seek to establish how this prospect is viewed by its present employees.

Mr. Lofthouse

Is the Minister giving the House a categorical assurance that there will be no privatisation of British Coal this side of the next general election?

Mr. Morrison

I can repeat what I have said The answer is, in practice, yes, but as my right hon. Friend has said—even, I think when we had energy questions ort Monday of this week—it is our intention after the next general election to privatise British Coal. That amounts to the same point as the hon. Gentleman was making in the way that I think he and I understand it.

The hon. Gentleman requested that British Coal release the information obtained by such attitude surveys. This again is a matter for British Coal, but I have no doubt that it will read with close interest the remarks made by the hon. Member, albeit that releasing the information is not the normal practice.

Finally, I congratulate the employees of British Coal on the really great efforts they have made to put the industry back on its feet since the disastrous events of 1984–85. Whatever attitudes they may have expressed in the surveys, they have worked hard to improve productivity. This has increased by well over 70 per cent. since the strike and within this extremely creditable record there have been some really outstanding performances.

Mr. Lofthouse

The achievements referred to have come about with a much smaller work force, and many records have been broken. Those achievements have been by men accepting voluntary redundancy. Will the Minister pass on to his Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State for Employment the present position of these redundant miners aged 50 and over who are being hounded by the Department of Employment to answer questions, and so on, which could mean a reduction in the weekly redundancy payments that they were promised when they accepted voluntary redundancy?

Mr. Morrison

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was asked a question on similar lines at Question Time last Monday. I cannot remember the precise words that he used, but I recall that he responded in a hearing sense. I shall respond in precisely the same way and shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point.

British Coal has come a long way, in productivity terms, since those really bad days of 1984–85. Those efforts are indicative of the basic attitude of most mineworkers towards their industry. They want it to succeed. That is the attitude most needed to enable the industry to produce assured supplies at competitive prices and so help safeguard its future and that of its employees.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock.