Coal Mining Dispute (Hansard, 25 April 1984)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat in the form of a Statement a reply now being given by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy to a Private Notice Question being asked in another place on the current coal mining dispute. It reads:
21 "There are pits working normally today in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Cumbria and North Wales. This means that over 35,000 men in over 40 collieries will again today demonstrate their readiness to continue working. Allowing for holidays and maintenance work, this is a level of activity fully consistent with that of last week and in the previous week, when Parliament was still sitting. Picketing continues but has not deterred those intent on reporting for work.
"Coal stocks at power stations are at a high level for the time of year, sufficient to enable the electricity industry to meet demand for many months. The National Coal Board and the coal trade are maintaining at least limited supplies to most other major customers.
"The Chairman of the National Coal Board has made it clear that the board, for their part, are ready to continue discussion of the industry's long-term problems and how best to achieve the restructuring necessary to realise the high-volume low-cost industry which is the board's aim. It is a matter of regret to all those who want to see the industry resolve its present difficulties that the National Union of Mineworkers have not attended any of the recent meetings of the industry's consultative committees, including the joint meeting today of the Coal Industry National Consultative Council and the Coke Oven National Council. I understand that the national delegate conference of the National Union of Mineworkers decided last Thursday to amend its rules so that no more than a simple majority would be required to carry a motion in a national ballot concerning industrial action; but that the opportunity of consulting the union's membership through a ballot on the present dispute was again forgone."
My Lords, that is the end of the reply.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that we are extremely pleased that the Answer to the Private Notice Question has been reported in full by him this afternoon? But is he also aware that the Opposition believe that the real responsiblity for this dispute lies with the Government—

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
Oh!

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Yes, it lies with the Government, since it is about jobs, about the survival of whole communities and about the future of a vitally important industry. The Government so far have not intervened or done anything else towards solving this dispute, which has been going on for seven weeks.
I wonder whether the noble Earl can answer a number of questions. First of all, can he say to what extent the Government are subsidising the NCB to hold out against this strike? How much taxpayers' money is being used to fund the fight against the miners—money that would be better spent on keeping pits open and the jobs intact? Further, following his reply to me on 12th April, has he now made some estimate of the extra cost to the CEGB of the increased use of oil burn and nuclear power to generate 22 electricity? Can he also say how that is to be paid for? Is it to be paid for by the consumer or by an adjustment to the external financing limit?
Can he also say what are the effects of the dispute on important sectors of the manufacturing industry? Can he justify the closure of Cortonwood and Polmaise collieries without proper discussion? Perhaps he can say how the closure of these modern pits advances in any way the interests of the industry. Where do the closures fit into the picture of the chairman of the coal board's so-called uneconomic pits? How do the proposals made by Mr. MacGregor in the press yesterday differ from his original plan to sack 20,000 miners and close 25 pits? What efforts are the Government making to achieve fresh negotiations—negotiations that will put aside the closure plans and result in a plan for the coal industry agreed by the unions, the management and the Government in a proper tripartite arrangement?

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, I rise in the absence of Lord Ezra who is much more capable of asking the questions that need to be asked than I am. Unfortunately, he is on his way from the Midlands and has not been able to get here in time. We are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the reply. I think that from these Benches we would wish to say that we are somewhat amazed by the Government's attitude. They seem able to stand back from this important dispute and pretend that they are innocent bystanders. We would not go down the road of suggesting that this is all a diabolical plot to destroy the NUM or the trade union movement as a whole. Nevertheless, we are in a position where the most serious confrontation is taking place in one of our basic industries—a basic industry which we need to nurture for the future and which in the recent past produced Plan for Coal, which seemed to give it a viable future.
One cannot help feeling that the Government's appointment of Mr. MacGregor was a step down the road to confrontation—a step which has been matched by the confrontation from the president of the NUM. We therefore ask the Government to say at what stage they propose to act as a catalyst to bring the various sides together. Only when that is done will the country be relieved of the tragedy staring us in the face. The people posturing on both sides of the argument are at the end of the day only destroying their numbers in the industry and the needs of the electorate in this country. There comes a point when the Government must surely—although not necessarily becoming a party to the dispute—step in to see that there is movement in the intransigent position of both sides.

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I think I ought to start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that what is going on at the moment certainly does not lie with this Government. I believe that the Government have amply demonstrated their commitment to the future of the industry. They are funding a continuing investment programme at the rate of £800 million per annum and supporting the redundant mineworker at an unprecedented level of generosity. I believe the taxpayer also deserves consideration. No one can reasonably demand that the taxpayer should continue to make grants to the 23 industry at the current rate of £900 million per annum. This is not a subsidy by the Government of the strikers. This is the taxpayers' money being spent on an industry which the Government believe should make itself competitive.
The noble Lord asked about the increase in oil burn and also mentioned nuclear power. Of course, they balance. One will cost more and the other will cost less. At the moment it is not possible to say what the cost will be. I believe that the management of the board is quite capable of conducting its own business. It was conducting normal business with the two industry unions this morning. I now understand that the board and those unions are making continued efforts to induce the NUM to rejoin their discussions. I believe that what has been forgotten in the supplementary questions this afternoon is the fact that the NUM itself cannot see its way forward to hold this ballot—a ballot which would surely simplify the situation.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, in view of the onslaught on the Government which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, saw fit to make at this delicate moment, will my noble friend say which of the figures he has just quoted indicates the number of pits being kept in operation, the number of miners being kept in employment solely because the Government have stood behind the mining industry by way of subsidy and the number of pits which would have been closed had this been a private industry without Government support? In response to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, will he ask him, in view of his highly offensive reference to Mr. MacGregor, how he would like to have to deal with Mr. Scargill?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his two supplementary questions. Of course, Mr. MacGregor was not there in any way for confrontation. He is there again to make the coal industry produce a product which is more marketable. I believe he was doing a good job towards that end before this unfortunate interruption. I cannot quantify the amount of money concerned in the way that my noble friend asks, but if I say that the average price of deep-mine coal is £45 per tonne he will realise the amount of subsidy we are giving.

§ Lord Taylor of Mansfield
My Lords, we have had a detailed reply from the Minister about a number of things that at the moment are taking place in the mining industry—picketing, the number of men at work, stocks of coal, and so on. Does he agree that the most important thing at the moment is for somebody somewhere to take immediate steps to get the two sides together? That is the most important thing, as I see it. We can talk about some of the other things which the Minister has mentioned—they are very important and it is desirable to talk about them—but does he agree that the most important thing is to get the two sides together, not to the consultative committee but to the negotiating table? If he agrees with that, will he use what influence he can and take what steps he can to get the two sides together?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I would not quarrel with anything the noble Lord has said; in fact, I think 24 I agree with almost every word of it. As I said earlier today, the two unions have been meeting with the NCB and are again continuing their efforts to induce the NUM to rejoin their discussions.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on the Cortonwood colliery, I understand that the local area director has offered the opportunity for a colliery review meeting—the first step in the normal review process. I understand that at the moment there has been no response to this.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, will my noble friend take an opportunity some time of pointing out that coal mining areas all over the world have to close mines as they become redundant or uneconomic and that the last Labour Government in this country closed 300 pits, so the proposal to close 20 pits is not a very substantial blow against the industry? Is not the proposal made in a desire to make the industry more economic and competitive, and is that desire not backed up by the huge investment of nearly £1,000 million each year in order to make the pits modern, efficient and competitive?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, yes. In exchanges in this House before, we have made it clear that the closure of pits is something which has been going on since the war when pits become short of coal. This is something which was catered for in the Plan for Coal and is something which we stand by.

§ Baroness Gaitskell
My Lords, may I ask the Minister why have we faith in Mr. Ian MacGregor? If I remember rightly, years ago, the moment he put his foot into this country 20,000 men lost their jobs. Why have we got faith in him? Why can we not do the thing ourselves and try to sort it out in the proper way?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, the noble Baroness may not have faith in him but I can assure the House that the Government and I certainly do have. If I may remind the noble Baroness, Mr. MacGregor was actually educated in Scotland and went to America after that. Therefore he is actually a Scotsman rather than anything else. I am also surprised that anybody in this House could criticise someone as youthful as that for doing such an excellent job.

§ Lord Blyton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1955 the reason that most of the collieries were closed was that there was a big oil lobby in this country; and because oil was being bought cheaply from Saudi Arabia and Oman they closed pits to get oil? But when the oil people put up the price and coal was competitive, then we were urged by the same oil people to mine as much coal as we could to help the energy industry in this country. So it is not all cake. There were a lot of pits closed under the Tory Government as well.

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I think I have made it clear that there have been closures under all governments since the war. If we go on to the matter of economic argument, then of course the real aim is to get the coal out of the ground at the right price so that we can sell it. There is a market for coal, but not a market for coal at any price.

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, would the Minister bear in mind that at such negotiations only employer and employee are represented? This is a matter which is of the utmost importance to the consumers of this country, and the Government ought to be there at least putting the point of view of the consumer.

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, we believe that the industry should settle its own problem at first instance.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the courteous answers given by the noble Earl, but there are one or two points which arise from those answers.
First of all, of course one realises that management has to be capable of running its own business. But what I think we find difficult to accept is the statement that the solution does not in any way lie with the Government because in a dispute of this sort, where the whole country's economy may very well be affected at some timescale or another, we believe that the Government have a responsibility to bring the sides together for constructive, realistic discussions which will solve the dispute. Does the noble Earl not agree that at some stage the Government have a responsibility, because of their overall responsibility for the economy, to bring the two sides together to discuss the whole of the dispute and the future of the industry?
May I also ask him about Cortonwood? Basically, Cortonwood was the catalyst which caused the present dispute. According to the Daily Telegraph—which I read every day assiduously—last week, the cause of the dispute was the decision by a local manager to close Cortonwood without proper discussion, either at local or national level. Does not this show that there is something wrong within the industry, where the National Coal Board does not know what its local areas are doing, let alone the National Union of Mineworkers? In future should not the pit closure programme be discussed not on a local basis but on a national basis, so that all sides of the industry have some say? Finally, on the question of the ballot—which the Government and the Coal Board have for long created about—if the noble Earl and noble Lords opposite are so concerned about ballots, may I have their assurance that when the Bill concerning the abolition of GLC elections comes before this House they will vote against it?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I think the noble Lord's questions are going somewhat wide of the parliamentary discretion. However, I am pleased to hear that he is being gently converted by the Daily Telegraph. This dispute is between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Mr. MacGregor has made clear his readiness to talk about the industry's problems and prospects, and I honestly do not think it would help the situation at the moment if I were to add to those remarks.