HL Deb 19 October 1984 vol 455 cc1194-9

11.20 a.m.

Lord Rochester

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what urgent steps they are prepared to take to deal with the deteriorating situation in the current coal dispute.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon)

My Lords, without the support which the Government have extended on an unprecedented scale, the coal industry would be bankrupt and there would be no future in it for its employees. This support has taken many forms. I shall mention but three: first, massive financial assistance; second, investment way beyond that envisaged in the Plan for Coal; and third, a programme to encourage industrial firms to convert to coal-firing.

No one wishes more than this Government to see an early and constructive settlement to this dispute. The Government remain prepared to continue to commit taxpayers' money to this industry on the scale necessary to secure its future, provided that the determination to operate efficiently and competitively is shared by all who work in it and who speak for those employees. At present the market prospects for coal and the physical condition of the pits are deteriorating day by day. Against that background, the initiative for halting the loss of markets and the decay of pits must rest with those whose action has precipitated the present crisis. The power to reverse this process of decay lies in the hands of those who are on strike or are contemplating the call to strike.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, is it not deplorable that if it had not been possible at short notice to table this Question, there would, throughout the week, have been no statement at all by the Government in your Lordships' House on what is perhaps the most crucial political and industrial issue of the time? Do the Government stand ready to introduce if necessary urgent legislation designed to give members of the National Union of Mineworkers, of NACODS, and of the British Association of Colliery Management the opportunity, under suitable independent supervision and in full knowledge of the offer available to them from the Coal Board, to vote in a secret national postal ballot on whether they wish the formula for settling the dispute produced by ACAS last Friday to be accepted?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am most interested in the noble Lord's constructive suggestion. I am confident that the majority of noble Lords present would join me in deploring the fact that the NUM leadership has sought by violent means to sustain this strike without having called a national ballot. I have no doubt that if such a ballot was held the majority would vote to accept this offer. However, I fear that in a ballot brought about by legislation, the vote would not focus on the future of the coal industry. The leaders of the NUM would inevitably seek to present such legislation as anti-miner and anti-trade union. This would turn the ballot into a more general vote by the miners for or against the Government.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Earl? I think that this is the first opportunity that we have had to do so on his transfer to other duties. I wish him every success in the Department of the Environment. However, we note that he is here this morning. If he is to straddle the bucking broncos of environment and energy, he is a titan indeed.

May I ask the noble Earl whether, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, he had taken into account—because we are talking about compulsory ballots—that we did, indeed, have legislation in this country in the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, Section 141? That legislation was implemented on one occasion only. It was found wanting. It was never used again, and the Act was finally abandoned.

Secondly, will the noble Earl agree that the NACODS strike faces this country with economic, industrial and, indeed, social problems such as we have never seen before? The matter is therefore extremely urgent and demands the Government's urgent attention. Finally, may I take this opportunity of welcoming the Secretary of State's initiatives which he took yesterday? Those are to be welcomed. But can I ask the noble Earl whether he will now prevail upon his right honourable friend to build upon those initiatives urgently today and over the weekend, to get the parties together and to achieve the settlement which I know, and my party knows, is available if there is good will on all sides?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks about my transfer to the Department of the Environment. I must confess that I take it as a mixed blessing. So far as his question about ballots is concerned, I do not particularly want to be drawn into the legislative argument. I know, however, that the whole House agrees that it is a great pity that a national ballot was not held in this case. Of the NACODS strike due next week, I would prefer not to do anything that would in any way infringe upon that at the moment but to say that I very much hope that it will not come off. I say that for the same reason that was supported by the noble Lord in his final argument. What has been offered by ACAS, an independent review body, really does answer all their queries. I am grateful to the Labour Party for using its influence with the NUM and NACODS to make sure that they consider carefully that it is in the interests of the coal industry and the nation that they accept this reasonable compromise produced by ACAS.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, will my noble friend clarify one issue? Is it the case that the ACAS formula was accepted by the Coal Board the other day? Is it further the case that the Coal Board did agree that this application of third party reference could and would be applied to the present list of proposed closures? Is it the case that the NUM rejected both?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, yes, yes and yes.

Baroness Gaitskell

My Lords, is it not time that Mr. MacGregor had a rest and allowed the Coal Board to get on with its own problems and its own difficulties?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the National Coal Board, of which Mr. MacGregor is chairman, is doing a very good job in order to try to get a productive coal industry.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves transcends the current coal dispute? Laws are slighted, the judiciary is put to scorn and the police are brutalised—this in order to subvert a duly elected Government. Is that not the reality of this situation? If that is the reality, will my noble friend also agree that any steps that are taken to remove this siege from our economy must recognise as a priority that we, as a nation, should restore the health of the body politic?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I note what my noble friend says. I agree with a great deal of it. However, I do not think that I should be drawn into this particular question.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his constructive reply, may I ask him whether he is nevertheless aware that this noble House, I hope, would not subscribe to the theory that the mining industry and the miners are the enemy within? We, on this side of the House, believe that the parameters of the problem are so great that understanding is needed and that the direction that is urgently required from this noble House is that we do not consider the miners the enemy within.

The Earl of Avon

No, my Lords. At respective Question Times, I have laid great stress on the fact that this Government look forward to the future of a good mining industry.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question that was directly put to him by my noble friend Lord Rochester. Why have we not had a definitive Government statement this week on this crucially important issue? If it had not been for a last minute switch of Questions on the Order Paper, we would have had no opportunity to hear any Government spokesman on this matter. Will the noble Earl give an undertaking that we shall have a definitive statement on this matter next week on two aspects of the question: first, the general industrial situation in the coal mines and, secondly, the public order questions which arise night after night? It really is not good enough just to see the Secretary of State for Energy on television. We should have a Statement in this House.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as the noble Lord is well aware, that is really a matter for the usual channels, for which I am certainly not responsible.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said about the efforts of certain members of the Labour Party in this matter. Would he not agree, however, that the time has come for his right honourable friend and the Government generally to take a positive initiative in this matter in order to achieve a settlement? Would he not agree that the area of disagreement between the parties is now relatively small and that a settlement is within reach? Would he say to the House that he will advise his right honourable friend, or will ask his right honourable friend, to call the parties together? It would be the first time that the Government themselves have taken a positive step. In view of the effect of this dispute on the economy of the country, is it not really in the public interest that the Government themselves now take a positive and constructive initiative, which has been absent thus far?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I believe myself that the Government have ensured that adequate funds are available for massive investments, but we do not want to intervene to write a blank cheque for the taxpayer for the production of coal which is no longer of benefit to the industry and which is holding back the board's ability to develop the future of the industry. As the noble Lord is aware, this present action is very fluid, and I do not think I should comment any further.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I should like to press the noble Earl because he is sliding past the main point I put to him. Would he not agree that, in view of the fact that the disagreement between the parties is now a relatively small one and that there is a willingness on the part of the National Union of Mineworkers to achieve a settlement, the Government should take this step now to bring the parties together?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I think the answer must be that the difference has always been very small. It remains very small, and in spite of the ACAS proposals for an independent review body the other side still has not moved one inch.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, is it not true that there was an initiative yesterday morning from Mr. Willis of the TUC in going on the radio? Should not that have been followed up, and should not attention have been paid to suggestions which have been made in various places, including articles in The Times, that what is needed is for the Government to call the parties together to discuss the Plan for Coal, to discuss the updating of the Plan for Coal on the principles that were laid down all those years ago when my noble friend was involved—an updating of the Plan for Coal which will give confidence for the future on the basis of current economic trends?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the Government have contributed fully towards achieving the objectives of the Plan for Coal and particularly in providing the investments I have been talking about, but the productivity improvements forecast have not been achieved; nor has the closure of low capacity proceeded at the rate indicated in the Plan for Coal. The NUM has now introduced a concept entirely new and alien to the Plan for Coal, that no colliery should close as long as it has coal in it. The plan itself recognised that some collieries would inevitably need to close as their useful economic reserves of coal were depleted. Some of the initiatives which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has mentioned took place only yesterday. I hope very much that they are being followed up, but I am not in a position to say.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, would the noble Earl explain a little more clearly the Government's objections to the proposal for a secret ballot put forward by my noble friend? It is well known that the principle of one man, one vote is anathema to the Labour Party, but could the noble Earl explain why such a ballot should be regarded as a vote for or against the Government and why, then, the Government lose?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, it is, of course, a matter of opinion whether it does or not. If the noble Lord will study my supplementary answer he will see that the reasons I put forward are valid.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that the fact that the House has broken all the rules by turning Question Time into a debate is indicative of our deep sympathy with the problem and our anxiety that it should be settled without delay, and that we really must wait until certain people at the other end of the corridor tackle it direct?

Noble Lords

No!

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am always prepared to listen to your Lordships' House first.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, surely we would not wish that to go unrebutted. Parliament has been sitting for a week in the shape of your Lordships' House, and it is quite wrong that we should be expected to wait until another place graces its own Chamber.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am always delighted in this week in the silly season when we can say so much more which gets media attention to such a high degree.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that a Private Notice Question could have been put down any day this week to elicit the statement which noble Lords opposite are complaining has not been made?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I think we are getting a little bit wide of the Question. I have no knowledge of that.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, has not the House the good fortune of having Ministers of the Crown, of the Government, sitting here, answerable for the Government, who can answer for the Government?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, will not the noble Earl at least acknowledge that attempts were made earlier in this week, through the usual channels, to obtain a statement from the Government on this matter, and that that attempt was unsuccessful?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as I have said before. I am not responsible for the usual channels.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the leaders of the Churches have invited the nation to pray on Sunday in thanksgiving for the fact that Her Majesty's freely and democratically-elected Government were spared from the terrible disaster last Friday, and also for those who were hurt there? Almost certainly the atmosphere of prayer, following our own words, of the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all Her people", to quote our daily Prayers, will be much in the thoughts and minds of churchpeople throughout the nation. The Minister may take comfort from the fact that there will be a volume of prayer for the nation in all its needs. This is a major area of anxiety and I believe there will be even-handed prayer for a proper and just solution.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for those remarks.