HL Deb 15 March 1984 vol 449 cc877-81

4.19 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, will it be convenient if I repeat the Statement now, before there is a debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass? With permission, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place about the picketing that has taken place at collieries in various parts of the country in the last few days. The substance of the Statement begins as follows:

"The legal position is clear. Any attempt to obstruct or intimidate those who wish to go to work is a breach of the criminal law. The mere presence of large numbers of pickets can be intimidating. The police have the duty to prevent obstruction and intimidation, and enable those who wish to go to work to do so. They have the power to stop and disperse large numbers of pickets, and to take preventive action by stopping vehicles and people.

"Picketing has been taking place in Durham, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Lancashire and Wales. In those areas the police have been able to ensure that those who wish to go to work are not physically prevented from doing so. The presence of pickets has, however, led to many miners feeling unable to go to work. Overall, 83 pits were working normally at the beginning of the week. Only 29 are doing so this morning.

"There has, however, been substantial mass picketing in the Nottinghamshire area, with serious disturbances as a result. The police have been responding to this firmly. At any one time more than 3,000 police officers, from a total of 17 forces in addition to the Nottinghamshire Constabulary, are on hand. Of the 25 pits in the National Coal Board's Nottinghamshire area, seven have been working normally; eight have been working at reduced capacity; seven have been open but have had too few miners available to send men underground; three have not been working. The most serious disturbances have been at OHerton. The police estimate that as many as 500 pickets were present there last night and during the night a total of over 200 officers were deployed. It was at Ollerton that a miner from Yorkshire, Mr. David Jones, died. I understand that a post mortem has been carried out, and that he died as a result of injuries to his chest. The House will wish to express its deep regret that this has happened. Although there is no reason to suppose that the police were involved in any way, the Chief Constable has decided in the circumstances that it would be desirable to have the case investigated by a senior police officer from a force not involved in providing support in Nottinghamshire. The House will understand that in the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to comment in more detail on this incident.

"Following the death of Mr. Jones, local management at Ollerton decided to end the night shift, all of whom had attended for work normally, and the pickets moved away to other places.

"During events in Nottinghamshire yesterday, 10 arrests were made, and by the end of this morning some 33 arrests had been made since midnight.

"I need hardly underline the seriousness of this situation. The law permits picketing for the purpose of peacefully communicating and persuading. What it does not permit is what some of the Nottinghamshire miners themselves, who have been the victims of disgraceful conduct, have called mob rule, and what is so horrifying is that it is mob rule that is being inflicted by miner upon fellow miner.

"Miners have the right to take part in a free ballot. In North Wales, Warwickshire and Staffordshire yesterday they conducted a ballot to determine whether or not they will take strike action. The ballot starts in the Nottinghamshire coalfield today at 6 pm and is open for 24 hours. That ballot will be protected, and will go ahead.

"A major co-ordinated police response, involving police officers from throughout the country, has been deployed to ensure that any miner who wishes to work at any pit may do so and any miner who wishes to vote may do so. I have made it clear to the chief constables concerned that they have my complete support in taking every measure open to them within the law to keep the peace and protect the right to work and to vote. The objective of the police is to prevent intimidation, obstruction and other criminal offences. They have mobilised every available officer in order to disperse excessive numbers of pickets. The police have extensive preventive powers under the common law, including, for example, the power to stop coaches, cars and people on foot who are clearly intent upon joining mass picketing which has become intimidatory either because of the risk or threat of violence or simply because of the sheer numbers involved.

"The House may have heard of an agreement recently announced between Mr. Chadburn and Mr. Arthur Scargill which may lead to the withdrawal of the Yorkshire pickets from Nottinghamshire. This does not, of course, affect in any way what I have said about the policy of the Government, the duties of the police, or the rights of the citizen under the law throughout the country. I have asked Sir Lawrence Byford, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, to keep in close touch with the chief constables of the areas concerned. He has left for Nottinghamshire in the first place, and will report personally to me later today.

"I look to the whole House to condemn unreservedly any attempt to force miners not to work if they wish to do so, or to intimidate them from voting freely in the ballots now taking place. The right of miners who want to work and vote is something which is fundamental to a free society. The police are currently doing everything in their power to uphold that right. In doing so they will have the full support of the Government and, I am confident, of the House".

My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement that I have to repeat.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the House will have heard with many emotions, not least the emotion of sorrow, the Statement the noble and learned Lord has just courteously repeated which has been made in another place by his right honourable and learned friend. At the very outset may I make it perfectly clear, if clarity is needed, that my noble friends and I, speaking on their behalf on this occasion, will never uphold violence from whatever source it may come. The history of trade unionism knows of violence. This movement was born and had its chapters of growth built upon the fact that originally trade unionists fought against the violence which they and their children suffered. So there is unanimity in all parts of the House in condemning violence.

Is it not a tragedy that a Statement of this kind has to come before Parliament, a Statement in which it is said that miner is fighting against miner? It is a tragic fight of those miners who, because of their family responsibilities and financial commitments, find themselves unable to make the sacrifice which other miners may find easier. There is no breaking of the ranks among miners as to whether their industry is suffering a very dreadful and, as they feel, unnecessary blow.

Does it help to reduce the violence merely to talk of the police? Obviously it is a very necessary force that we must use, but does it help to leave it at that and not to talk at all of attempts at conciliation? May I say this—and I say it with the intention of reducing tension and not increasing if, does it help for the chairman of the National Coal Board to say at this moment, at a meeting which he had with journalists, reported in this morning's Times: My friend"— that was, I believe, a somewhat satirical reference to Mr. Scargill— is not interested in the welfare of miners"? Does that help? Does it help, when he goes on to answer the question on how long the strike would last, to say: Three months, six months—who knows? Possibly it does not matter to Mr. MacGregor personally whether this lasts for three months or six months. It does to the miners and their families. So my plea at this moment on behalf of the Benches I represent is not to say anything which can inflame, but only to plead with the Government and the National Coal Bord to meet, talk, try to conciliate and get rid of this dreadful atmosphere which has been created.

One has, of course, every conceivable sympathy with the family of Mr. Jones who we learned from this Statement met his death. I do not know—and I am not going to make any other reference to this because of what the noble and learned Lord has said about a policy inquiry—but is the press report correct that Mr. Jones was indeed one of the picketing miners and not a miner who was trying to get through the picket lines?

May I conclude what I have to say by trying, when talking of this hope of reconciliation and talks, to cling on to one sentence in the Statement which the noble and learned Lord repeated: an agreement recently announced between Mr. Chadburn and Mr. Arthur Scargill may lead to the withdrawal of the Yorkshire pickets"— and I believe the noble and learned Lord said, and this is not in my copy of the Statement.

from Nottinghamshire". One little bit of agreement has resulted from talks. Can there not be more talks? Can they not be speedy? And can your Lordships be spared another Statement of the kind your Lordships have heard this afternoon?

Lord Rochester

My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having repeated this very serious Statement. I need hardly say that we deeply deplore the violence and disorder, culminating in the death of Mr. Jones, which occurred in Nottinghamshire last night and this morning. As the Statement says, the mass secondary picketing which has been taking place is in breach of the criminal law, and our first concern must be to give our full support to the police whose duty it is to enforce that law on behalf of us all.

I must ask the noble and learned Lord if he is satisfied that the ballot which we are told is to go ahead in Nottinghamshire this evening and tomorrow will be held under conditions which are secure enough to ensure that all those wishing to vote can do so without risk to themselves?

We are extremely disturbed by the report that Mr. Chadburn has reached a compromise deal with Mr. Scargill that Nottinghamshire miners will go on official strike from six o'clock this evening on the understanding that flying pickets from Yorkshire will be withdrawn. What are we to make of this—that in the National Union of Mineworkers intimidation has for the moment so far triumphed over the democratic process, that it is possible for people to vote as to whether or not they should go on strike only after they have done so? How can we be sure that we shall not next be told that under the constitution of the NUM a ballot can only be held at the work place and that as the men are on official strike this cannot be done?

I am sorry to speak strongly but I think on this occasion it is necessary. I can only take comfort from the thought that, if there is one kind of behaviour which the British people will not tolerate for long, it is the conduct of the bully.

Finally, will the Government accept that unlike, it seems, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—whose opinion I respect but with which I cannot on this occasion agree—we take the view that there is no reason why the Government should now intervene in the dispute beyond ensuring that the law takes its due course?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. First of all, may I answer the question which was asked by the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, about the identity of Mr. Jones who unfortunately died. The Statement refers to him as a miner from Yorkshire. That is the only informa- tion I have, but I think it answers the question which the noble Lord put to me.

May I next deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, about the ballot. The Statement says: The ballot starts in the Notinghamshire coalfield today at 6 pm and is open for 24 hours. That ballot will be protected, and will go ahead". That is the nearest thing to an answer which I can give to the noble Lord. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if the text which he had is slightly defective. At the very last moment before I entered the Chamber, I received a manuscript alteration which the House will have heard and which I will read again: The House may have heard of an agreement recently announced between Mr. Chadburn and Mr. Arthur Scargill which may lead to the withdrawal of the Yorkshire pickets from Nottinghamshire". That was the text I read out. I realize—because I too had an earlier text at an earlier stage—that the noble Lord's text might have been defective in that respect. As regards the agreement, I have no information to give the House other than that which is contained in the Statement which I read out in its amended form. I would rather not, therefore, comment any further than that on the basis of inadequate information.

I was glad to hear the condemnation of violence by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the strong support for that condemnation as a first concern—the breach of the criminal law—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.

I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who suggested that the Government should intervene in what is an internal dispute in the coal industry. The noble Lord asked a number of questions, more or less rhetorical, about whether it helps, and he quoted what were purported to be remarks made by Mr. MacGregor. I can only say that I rather doubt whether it would help very much if I criticised either side and I rather doubt whether it did help very much if the noble Lord criticised one of them.

I should have thought that the prospects for coal in this country were very good indeed. I would not have accepted that it was suffering from an unnecessary blow. On the contrary, I should have thought that all the evidence pointed to a bright future and not a bad one, assuming that all those concerned in it work together for the common good of the industry. I do not think it was fair to suggest—as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did—that the Statement merely talked of police. It talks about the criminal law and that is not a question for the police. It is a question of the law of the land and of breaches of the criminal law; although I think that Parliament was entitled to be told exactly what police measures were being taken to prevent a repetition of such breaches as had undoubtedly taken place.

That deals with all the questions I can answer. I realise that I have not answered the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, but that is because I do not have any information to give other than that which I have already given. I think that I have dealt with the other questions.