Miners' Dispute (Hansard, 20 July 1984)

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon)
My Lords, settlement of the dispute remains a matter for the NCB and the NUM. I believe that we in this House all share the aim of seeing an early conclusion to it.
The National Coal Board has put forward reasonable and constructive proposals, and Mr. MacGregor has stressed his readiness to continue negotiations at any time. It is a matter of the deepest regret that the leadership of the NUM has shown no positive interest in negotiating a settlement to this damaging and senseless dispute.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is equally distressing, and damaging, that a person brought to this country because this Government were of the opinion that no Britisher could run the National Coal Board should cause such offence to so many people in the mining industry? However, there now 1745 seems to be progress towards a settlement. It would also appear that there has been private intervention by the Prime Minister herself, if I may put it that way. Therefore, the matter must have been discussed at Cabinet level. So, if this present negotiation was initiated at Cabinet level, why cannot the Cabinet continue to try to help to resolve this disastrous problem which faces not merely the mining industry, but also our whole nation?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the Hansard report of the Prime Minister's Question Time, he will realise that what he says is not true. As regards the noble Lord's remark about the chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. MacGregor's first point in his programme for the coal-mining industry says: We will continue a major investment programme far greater than that of the coal industries of the whole of the rest of the European Community, an investment programme which will provide Britain with the most effective and efficient coal industry in Europe". I am sure that that is what we all want.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the suggestion contained in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, would be utterly futile inasmuch as the continuance of this strike has been declared by the leadership of the miners' union to have political aims, including the destruction of the Government? Therefore, is it not for the miners themselves to take a hand and stop it?

§ The Earl of Avon
Indeed, my Lords, one would welcome a ballot of the mineworkers, so that they can make their own decision.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is it not the case that if we are to use terms such as "the enemy within", they would be better applied to Mr. MacGregor than to Mr. Scargill?

§ The Earl of Avon
No, my Lords, certainly not; and any reasonable person who has read what the coal hoard has put forward would entirely disagree with the noble Lord.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some years ago when the Labour Party asked Parliament to nationalise the coal mines they insisted that the National Coal Board should be constitutionally independent?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing that point to the attention of the House.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that, so far from blaming Mr. MacGregor, we should all look to the affront to democracy and, indeed, to the brotherhood of man, constituted by a strike which has no democratic basis? Should we not bear in mind that no man is an island to himself?

§ The Earl of Avon
Indeed, my Lords; as I said in answer to an earlier question, the mineworkers who are working did ballot, whereas those who are not did not have a ballot.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the noble Earl's reply to my noble friend's original Question was singularly and uncharacteristically unhelpful. At the present time we need an emollient, rather than the opposite. Is it not a fact that Mr. MacGregor would be very happy—indeed, anxious—to settle the present dispute but for the Prime Minister's insistence on having total victory over the National Union of Mineworkers, and Mr. Scargill in particular? Indeed, her Falklands mentality is, unfortunately, continuing, to the detriment of the mining industry and of the country as well.
However, I should like to be helpful. Indeed, the Labour Party wants to be helpful in this particular dispute. May I, therefore, return to the suggestion which I made earlier and ask—

Noble Lords
Speech!

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am prefacing my question with some apt remarks, and it is useless asking questions which are not understandable to noble Lords. Therefore, perhaps I may return to the suggestion that I made a week or two ago and ask the noble Earl the Minister whether he would suggest to his right honourable friends that they should offer to both sides in the coal dispute the opportunity to have a court of inquiry which would be able, quite impartially, to examine the reasons for the dispute and the future of the coal mining industry. Would the noble Earl listen to that suggestion and perhaps pass it on?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord will find that I am reasonable, but, on the other hand, unhelpful questions are rather apt to receive unhelpful answers. What I should like noble Lords opposite to do is to back to the best of their ability the nine-point plan which the coal board has put forward, and to ask the mineworkers who are on strike not to intimidate those miners who wish to work. I believe that if they were to do that, we would see a speedy conclusion.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches want as much as anyone to see a quick, peaceful settlement of this dispute, but that we are also very much of the view that the dispute must be settled by sensible negotiations and not as the result of capitulation to what amounts to force?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I am aware of the views expressed by the noble Baroness's party, with which of course I agree.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Question was raised in order to be helpful? Among the most responsible elements of the British press and the CBI there are indications that there has been some form of meeting between Mr. MacGregor, or his representative, and the Prime Minister. Perhaps that 1747 started this round of negotiations. If we in this House can make a contribution, let me concede that I believe that it would have been a good thing if there had been a national ballot.
Secondly, despite there having been no ballot, there is massive support for the miners, which has been exhibited by their wives and children more than by anyone else. Is the Minister aware that it does not help us to try to make a contribution to resolving this dispute if we spit venom and hatred towards Britain's coal miners, their wives and their children? We also ought to have the courage to say that the image of our police in carrying out their difficult task is not enhanced by the behaviour of some of them. If we can therefore say—

Noble Lords
Speech!

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, it is a speech, but there is a great deal of importance attached to this question. If we can encourage both sides now to get together with the geologists—not just with the financiers such as MacGregor—who understand coal mining, in order to resolve the question of pit closures, that will be the way to peace within this mighty industry of ours.

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I should like to make one remark about the noble Lord's speech, and that is that there are a lot of pits working, and we are here talking about only a part of the industry. One of the sadnesses is that the industry is split in half. The other comment I should like to make, in regard to his second point, is that at the moment there is very little difference between the two sides; the interpretation of the word "beneficial" is one of the differences, and I hope very much that this can be resolved.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we on this side of the House desire nothing more than a fair and equitable resolution of this unhappy and disturbing dispute? Does he not believe that, given the amount of violence which exists in the country, not only in this sphere but in others as well, it is at this time very much in the public interest that the Government themselves should take an initiative? Is he aware that if such an initiative were now taken it would be greatly appreciated by all the people of this country, and it would certainly be preferable to what is by way of developing into an obstinate refusal to do anything at all to seek a resolution? If the noble Earl is not able today to comment on the proposal of my noble friend that the matter should be referred to an independent public inquiry of some kind, would he be good enough to discuss it with his right honourable friend, who would in turn discuss it with the Prime Minister?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I must again put to the noble Lord the point that this dispute is now on a very small issue indeed, and we very much hope that that will be settled. But in the meantime Her Majesty's Government have made available a massive investment and have quite clearly laid it on the line that they want the most efficient and effective coal industry in Europe.

Lord Oram
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the tremendous, patient and diplomatic efforts that have been made by my right honourable friend Mr. Stanley Orme, the spokesman for these matters in another place, to bring the two sides together? Would it not have eased the situation considerably if a spokesman of Her Majesty's Government had joined in those efforts?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I am aware that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Orme, did indeed help in getting the National Union of Mineworkers to the table. I am delighted to say, as I said earlier, that the National Coal Board's door is open at any time.