House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Nov 1991

Mr. MacGregor : I am making arrangements with the Clerk for the Committee to meet as soon as is practicable, but I certainly do not think that we shall be able to have a general debate on the matter in the forthcoming weeks. As I have said, we have a great deal of other business to handle.

Mr. James Cran (Beverley) : It is indeed welcome news that we are to debate the future of the European Community next week. In the light of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), however, will my right hon. Friend think again about the amount of time that is to be allowed? I know perfectly well what my right hon. Friend has done to secure a two-day debate, but the fact remains that most Back Benchers will be crowded out. Essentially, the debate will be reserved for Privy Councillors, former Ministers and the like, and we shall not get a look-in.

Column 1241

If my right hon. Friend is unable to do anything about that problem, will he at least ensure that no statements are taken on those two days? Statements would further curtail Back Benchers' time.

Mr. MacGregor : I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. Given all the business that is ahead of us, I feel that two days constitute a large amount of time. I shall, of course, endeavour to avoid the scheduling of statements on those days, but sometimes--today, for instance--a statement is needed urgently, and can be made only on a specific day.

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn) : I understand that a new Director of Catering has been appointed, and I wish the lady well. May I ask her to examine, as one of her first duties, the continued abuse of our catering facilities by outside organisations? An organisation known as the Tobacco Alliance, for instance, is currently writing to newsagents throughout the country telling them that they are invited to tea at the House of Commons, provided that they bring along their Members of Parliament. That, surely, is a breach of privilege.

Mr. MacGregor : I seem to recollect that the way in which catering facilities are made available for activities in which outsiders can participate was examined recently. I did not know of the specific case referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that those concerned will take note of what he has said.

Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : Further to what was said by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 776?

[That this House, conscious of the fact that real care for the men and women of our armed forces has enabled our country to rely, even to the point of ultimate sacrifice, upon their loyalty, steadfastness and efficiency in times of grave national threat, is astounded to note that, when digging a trench during an official Army exercise in Canada in July 1989, three men of the Grenadier Guards (Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey) detonated a six year old unexploed shell which was not only rendered them limbless but caused them such grieivous wounds that Mr. Ray and Mr. Povey are still, after almost two years, in receipt of hospital treatment ; notes that the Ministry of Defence find themselves unable, on the grounds of unattributable negligence, to pay compensation ; and calls upon the Prime Minister to review this case personally and to ensure that, regardless of the possible legal responsibility of some unknown nation who failed to clear' the shell some six years previously, Her Majesty's Government is seen to follow truly a policy that shows an appreciation of human understanding, human dignity and the value of a human life on earth by awarding generous compensation and a return of the accumulated legal costs to these youthful British Grenadiers.]

Despite the successful conclusion of the case, the tabling of that motion indicated that something is very wrong with the present legislation relating to compensation for those who are injured in the course of their duties in the armed forces. The problem, essentially, is that currently the onus is on an injured soldier, sailor or airman

Column 1242

to prove negligence by the Government. Surely the onus should be on the Ministry of Defence, as a good employer, to prove negligence by its personnel. In the meantime, the Government merely suggest that service men take out personal accident insurance. Surely the Ministry of Defence should take out blanket insurance cover for all its personnel.

Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend knows, the matter has been discussed before. As I recall, the early-day motion concerned a specific case. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces spent a great deal of time in reaching a conclusion that proved satisfactory for all concerned.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Will the Leader of the House reconsider the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that a debate on internal matters be held next week to avoid a repetition of yesterday's unseemly and undignified scene? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the event of any such debate, the parliamentary Labour party would be entirely willing to supply scrutineers for internal Tory elections to ensure the fairness that, apparently, did not operate yesterday?

Mr. MacGregor : I do not agree ; I think that the process was perfectly fair. What yesterday's events demonstrated was the great enthusiasm within the Conservative party to discuss and vote on European matters.

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton) : Since, in practice, most of next week's two-day debate on Europe will be dominated by the thunder and lightning of the twilight of the gods and godesses in the Privy Council, will my right hon. Friend consider extending Wednesday's debate, when there will be no vote, to midnight to give the ordinary squaddie a chance to take part?

Mr. MacGregor : I am not sure that that is an appropriate description. I have to take into account the need to give adequate time for debate and also the wish, expressed in most of the responses to the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), that the House should not rise too late at night on these occasions. I shall give thought to my hon. Friend's request, but without commitment.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : May I draw the Minister's attention to clause 17 of the Education (Schools) Bill which relates to an exclusively Scottish matter in what is otherwise an English Bill? It is yet another example of Scottish matters being shoehorned into English legislation. It means also that decisions will be taken by Members of Parliament with no knowledge and experience of or participation in the Scottish education system ; the Conservatives have no electoral mandate in Scotland. Will the Minister consider transferring this particularly Scottish clause to the Scottish Grand Committee or to a Scottish Standing Committee for consideration, or drafting a separate Scottish Bill in order to allow informed comment and decision making on it?

Mr. MacGregor : But I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that Scottish Members are entitled to participate and frequently do so in many debates and votes

Column 1243

on many English matters, including the whole of the region of East Anglia. I have not heard them complain about their ability to do that.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Further to the points that have been raised by my hon. Friends about the European debate and in the interests of fairness to those who sit on the Opposition Benches, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has done his mathematics to ensure that there will be time for at least a 10-minute speech to be made by each of the 42 Labour party Members who have distanced themselves today from the position of the leader of their party, including the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I suspect that quite a number of those 42 will, for one reason or another, not wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge) : Is the Leader of the House aware of the 22,000-signature petition, handed in to No. 10 Downing street on Tuesday, which calls for urgent action by the Government to stem the badly misnamed practice of joyriding? Why are the Government not giving the matter urgent priority? People's lives are being disrupted daily by that practice, and every day that the Government delay further lives are in danger of being lost.

Mr. MacGregor : I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's description of joyriding. That is absolutely the wrong word to describe the dreadful practice that takes place. I agree also with him about the need to have legislation as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it is important that it should be drafted correctly. The Government intend to bring forward legislation as soon as they possibly can. As I hope and believe that such legislation has support on both sides of the House, I hope that we can pass it speedily.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the work of the national health service trusts? Is he aware that Guy's hospital, the flagship trust, has been able to report that there has been an 8 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated and a substantial reduction in waiting lists and that it will be giving NUPE employees a Christmas bonus and a salary increase in January? Is not that the sort of progress that anyone who cares for the national health service will welcome?

Mr. MacGregor : I have seen the excellent progress report from the Guy's NHS trust. I am sure that it will be followed by others. I hope that a great deal of publicity will be given to that progress. It illustrates how well the reform is moving after a very short time. I cannot, however, promise a debate next week.

Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South) : During next week's debate on nuclear defence, will the House have an opportunity to debate the case of the British nuclear test veterans? Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's continued refusal to pay just and adequate compensation to these victims of Britain's nuclear tests is becoming less and less credible as more and more evidence accumulates?

Mr. MacGregor : That will be a matter for the Chair, but the debate will be fairly wide, as it is to be on the Adjournment of the House.

Column 1244

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Will the Leader of the House guarantee that in next Friday's debate full account is given to the supremely important issues raised in early-day motion 157? [That this House recalls that five months before the start of the Gulf War, on 19th April 1990 (Official Report, column 1013-4) the honourable Member for Newport West requested the Government to initiate investigations at the International Atomic Energy Agency into the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme, and that the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the Right honourable Member for Bristol West, replied that Iraq was a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, "and as such has undertaken not to develop nuclear weapons. We expect Iraq to abide by her international obligations. We do not envisage taking the specific action outlined by the honourable Member." ; notes that in a parliamentary answer on 11th November 1991 the Minister of State at the Foreign Office the honourable Member for Grantham, replied to the honourable Member for Newport West "We now know that Iraq circumvented IAEA safeguards in seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability. This is a cause for concern. The IAEA is considering how to strengthen the system.".] It recalls that five months before the start of the Gulf war the Government had refused a request to increase the international surveillance of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme on the extraordinary grounds that Iraq had signed the international non- proliferation treaty and the Government believed that Iraq would abide by its obligations and would not build nuclear weapons. As those conditions still exist and 30 other countries might be deceiving the international community, is not it crucial that we now have proper international surveillance of all those unstable countries that might be building nuclear weapons as Iraq would have done? If the war had not started, Iraq would have continued to deceive the world and would have nuclear weapons by now. Is not the most important issue to create world peace by reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows well the Government's position on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It seems that he has already made his speech for next Friday. It is likely that that could be covered in the debate, but I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised it.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : May I press the Leader of the House further on the proposed closure of Westwood hospital? Is the Secretary of State for Health required to approve the closure and the disposal of the grounds--estimated to be worth at least £11 million-- for residential development? Is he aware that, in the bogus consultation exercise before the establishment of the second trust in Bradford, there was no word about the closure of the hospital or the flogging off of the grounds? Is he aware that earlier this year--

Mr. Speaker : Order. We cannot have a debate on this. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question about next week's business please?

Mr. Madden : The chairman of the health authority told me earlier this year that there was to be a 50 bed

Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question?

Column 1245

Mr. MacGregor : That is a bogus question for the business statement because it is not asking for a debate on a particular point. However, I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : With regard to the request made to the Leader of the House to extend next Wednesday's debate to midnight, may I point out that I have the Adjournment debate that night and I would rather be called at 10 o'clock than at midnight ?

With regard to next Wednesday's meeting of European Standing Committee B, will the Leader of the House impress upon his ministerial colleagues the need to dispatch the relevant documents to the members of that Committee in plenty of time ? The Department of Energy has set a fine benchmark in that regard and other Departments should attempt to achieve that record.

Mr. MacGregor : On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have noted with interest the view that he expressed. It shows the different considerations that I have to take into account when reaching decisions on questions of business. I shall bear it in mind. On the second point, the hon. Gentleman knows that I am anxious that, wherever possible, Departments should get the documents to the members of the European Standing Committees as early as they can. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will have noted the tribute paid to the good lead given by his Department. I am keen that as many Departments as possible should send out the documents quickly. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is not always in our hands, because some of the documents come rather late from the European Community to the Departments.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : In light of a dramatic increase in crime nationally and, in particular, in my constituency, can we have a statement next week on police numbers and police authority budgets ? Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary whether he would be prepared to meet Labour Back Benchers individually to discuss policing problems in their constituencies ?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman's second point is not for the business statement. On the first point, with the business that we have next week, it is unlikely that we shall be able to have a specific statement on the question of police numbers.

Column 1246

Points of Order

4.23 pm

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given notice of my point of order to you and to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is in his place. It relates to the Education (Schools) Bill which is due for its Second Reading next Tuesday. Page 382 of "Erskine May" concerns the citing of documents not before the House and makes it clear that a Minister may not "read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table."

It is well known that the Education (Schools) Bill, which seeks to privatise the schools' inspectorate, is a matter of great controversy. The Bill is based partly on an internal review of Her Majesty's inspectorate which the Secretary of State has refused to publish. I disagree with his refusal, although I realise that he is entitled to take that position. He says that it is a confidential document.

That document was today leaked in part in The Independent and the newspaper also contained my allegation that the Secretary of State may have misled the House in relation to figures that he quoted last week in the House. Normally, when Ministers face the problem of leaked documents, they refuse to make any comment on the content of the document or, sometimes, on its existence. In doing so, they maintain clear security from the contents of page 382 of "Erskine May". In this case, the Secretary of State has today issued a public statement disputing various parts of the report in The Independent and he has sought to quote from other aspects of the internal review which he has said is so far confidential. If I may--

Mr. Speaker : Order. This is not a point of order. It would be more correct to raise the matter in debate. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here earlier, but a question on the matter was raised with the Leader of the House during business questions and he answered it. It is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Straw : With great respect, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to take time to consider the point of order and it is, indeed, a point of order. By his statement today, the Secretary of State has shown his readiness selectively to quote from the review outside the House. Hon. Members of all parties may wish to quote inside the House next Tuesday what the Secretary of State has said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt wish to quote from the report. In those circumstances, and given the readiness of the Secretary of State to quote from the report outside the House, surely it is incumbent on him now to lay the report on the Table. It is a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker--although you may wish to take time to consider it--because page 382 of "Erskine May" makes the position absolutely clear. If a Minister wishes to quote from a report or state paper, he must lay it on the Table.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will explaibriefly to you, to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and to the House why the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in what he has just said. I announced to the House in reply to a parliamentary question that we were carrying out the review of Her

Column 1247

Majesty's inspectorate. I made it clear that it would be an internal review carried out by my officials and that it would remain confidential on the usual basis that advice to Ministers remains confidential.

As the hon. Member for Blackburn correctly said, there appears to have been an unauthorised leak to The Independent --

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras) : As opposed to an authorised leak?

Mr. Clarke : Not an authorised leak, but a very unauthorised one. Not surprisingly, I have commented on the newspaper article. My comments address the article and point out that the proud possessor of the leaked document has drawn some fairly ridiculous conclusions from what he had in front of him.

The question whether I misled the House has been raised. The hon. Member for Blackburn has previously bandied about the numbers. He refers to numbers that were put forward for the size of the inspectorate, which The Independent says come from the review carried out by officials on the basis of their proposition. I have given the House the figure of 175 members of Her Majesty's inspectorate, based on the opinion of the senior chief inspector and myself about the number of people required to carry out my policies. The independent, all-powerful HMI needs 175 people to carry out its duties. That figure remains accurate and perfectly straightforward. I have not misled the House in any way and the hon. Member for Blackburn should not make such ridiculous statements.

Mr. Speaker : I think that this is all part of the debate that will take place next week. It is not a matter of order for me. [ Hon. Members :-- "It is."] I repeat that it is not a matter of order for me. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with me. I did not issue the document.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : We are entitled to seek your advice, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has been quoting from the report and the rules in "Erskine May" are clear--if Ministers refer in the Chamber to documents or to reports, they should table them. Is not the best way to clear up the matter in the interests of the Secretary of State and of parents whose children will be affected--of whom I am one--for us all to see the report?

Mr. Clarke : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish that the Opposition would at least listen to what I say. The hon. Gentleman will find that I did not quote the report, and I advise the Opposition to concentrate not on nonsense in The Independent but on the policy of the Bill which will be debated next Tuesday. It will create a stronger and more powerful inspectorate and will introduce regular reports to parents on the results of its inspections. The Opposition should stick to the issue rather than to silly legalistic nonsense.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a simple fellow, I seek your ruling on a simple question. If it is in order for a male

Column 1248

member of the House for the most honourable reasons to take his dog into the Division Lobby--the dog looking after him- -why is not it in order for a female hon. Member to take her baby into the Division Lobby? After all, hitherto at any rate, women are the only things that bear babies.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not responsible for such matters. I think that I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on early-day motion 142 which has been tabled by 17 Opposition Members and which criticises my conduct in an issue in my constituency. Are we to allow a situation to arise in which two local councillors, one of whom will be my opponent in the general election, can instigate on the Order Paper without any investigation an early-day motion that criticises me and which is signed by 17 Opposition Members, none of whom has taken the trouble to talk to me about the rent rises-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to finish.

Mr. Hind : If that is to be allowed, it will mean that, with his colleagues, every Conservative candidate for a Labour-held seat could initiate early-day motions that could equally be signed in ignorance by Conservative Members and we shall have 650 early-day motions every day. They would blight the Order Paper and abuse the system. Is not it time that the matter was sorted out and that members of the Opposition talked to other hon. Members instead of stabbing them in the back for political purposes?

Mr. Speaker : I deprecate the use of the Order Paper for personal attacks on hon. Members, but the early-day motion involved was in order. If it had not been in order, that would have been brought to my attention by the Table Office but that was not the case. We had better proceed.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on this morning's Hansard. I refer to columns 1061-78 and to oral questions. Some Scottish Back Benchers have every sympathy with your earlier strictures on the need for Front-Bench spokesmen and Ministers to offer concise answers to questions. If one reads the exchanges between the Front Benches, one sees that that is where most of the time was taken up. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of Scottish Questions next month, to remind Front-Bench spokesmen and Ministers of your earlier strictures.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has done that himself. In the interests of Back Benchers, I must stress that lengthy questions and answers from the two Front Benches take time from the Back Benchers, and I hope that that will be borne in mind.

Column 1249

Orders of the Day

Coal Industry Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker : There is considerable pressure to speak in the debate, and I propose to put a cautionary 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. However, if Members called before that time bear the limit in mind I hope that it may be possible to relax it later in the evening.

4.35 pm

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is of great importance to British Coal, enabling the corporation to continue the restructuring of the industry which is essential for its future.

Clause 1 extends the availability of restructuring grant by three years from March 1993 to March 1996 and raises the ceiling on the payment of grant from £1,500 million to £2,500 million. That ceiling will be increasable by order to £3,000 million. Restructuring grant was introduced by section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987. It provides support for British Coal's expenditure on redundancy, early retirement, transfers and retraining. It also assists the finances of British Coal Enterprise.

The existing ceiling on the grant is likely to be reached during the next financial year. Without restructuring grant British Coal would face heavy losses and a financial crisis. It is clearly necessary to raise the limit, but the increase is only an increase in the limit. It is not based on a specific view of what any future manpower rundown may be.

The actual requirement for restructuring grant payments will be determined primarily by the degree to which British Coal succeeds in cutting costs further and winning business.

Clause 2 concerns the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South) : The 1908 Act is most important. Has the Secretary of State arranged for it to be available for us to read? The Act concerns more than just the number of hours to be worked. It has wider implications.

Mr. Wakeham : The Act is available in the Library. I do not have a copy of it here, but I shall explain what the Government have in mind.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose --

Mr. Wakeham : I had better make a little progress first, then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Clause 2 concerns the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. That Act, which regulates hours of work, has long been recognised as out of date by most of those working in the industry--mineworkers and management alike.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) rose --

Mr. Wakeham : The 1908 Act restricts hours of work to a prescribed period of no more than 7.5 hours. Everyone

Column 1250

working in the industry knows that to be too rigid a constraint. The limit reflects neither the latest mining methods nor good mining management.

Mr. John Cummings (Easington) : How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Wakeham : The hon. Gentleman will not know anything if he shouts instead of listening.

Mr. Cummings : I was 29 years underground.

Mr. Wakeham : Absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman listens to the arguments he may learn something to his benefit.

The 1908 Act does not take account of the technology that has been the backbone of the industry's modernisation and increasing competitiveness. Mechanisation has been under way in the coal industry since the 1950s.

Over a period of 40 years or so the 1908 Act has been becoming increasingly impractical and constraining. It is by adopting greater flexibility in working practices, by developing improved modern management and by investment in modern mining technology that the industry has achieved the improvements in productivity that are so vital to its future.

The safety of mine workers is of paramount importance. The Government's policy is that the much-improved standards that have been achieved must be maintained. The Government will not bring forward any measure that will prejudice safety. Unnecessary fears have been raised by the Opposition.

Mr. Redmond : Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there should be special legislation for those working underground?

Mr. Wakeham : That question arises in relation to the European directive--

Mr. Redmond : Not just that.

Mr. Wakeham : The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question ; perhaps he will do me the courtesy of listening to the answer.

What replaces the Act depends entirely on whether it is possible to meet the conditions of a European directive that covers these matters. The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to safety. Before we presented this legislation we consulted the Health and Safety Executive, which advised us that no questions of safety arise under these proposals.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras) : Does the Secretary of State agree that the Health and Safety Executive consists of paid public officials whose responsibility is to the Health and Safety Commission, which has not been consulted?

Mr. Wakeham : As I understand it, the Health and Safety Executive is presenting its views to the Health and Safety Commission. The latter will then know what the position is.

The commencement order for this Act becomes operable after Royal Assent. I give an undertaking that I have no intention of signing the necessary papers to operate the commencement order until a European directive is in place--or at least until I have come to the House to explain what is happening. I have no other intentions at the moment. Opposition Members would be a little wiser if they allowed me to explain the Govenment's

Column 1251

intentions before being so free with their criticism. I shall explain what I intend to do and then allow hon. Members to intervene.

The safety of mine workers is of paramount importance. Government policy is to maintain the much-improved standards that have been achieved. The Government will not introduce any measure that will prejudice safety--the fears that have been raised are ill-founded. The repeal of the 1908 Act will not prejudice safety. The improving record of mine safety is due primarily to technology. Last year there were 11 fatalities at British Coal workplaces and I am sure that we all agree that that was 11 too many. But at the beginning of the century, when the 1908 Act was introduced, there were more than 1,000 fatalities a year.

The harsh labouring conditions of that era led to the legislation which prescribed a limit of 7.5 hours per shift. But, like so many industries, coal mining has seen major improvements in working conditions over the past 80 years. The industry has long left behind the days of hewing coal by pick and shovel. No one who has a genuine interest in the future of the industry wants to see its efforts being hampered by the antiquated legislation of a bygone era. Conditions in the coal industry have been transformed by mechanisation and by the application of modern technology. Outdated constraints clearly need to be removed if the coal industry is to be able to compete. The proposed European directive on working time would present the British coal mining industry with a difficult challenge. The directive is still under debate and the outcome is uncertain, but it is clear that a combination of the 1908 Act and the directive could increase the industry's unit costs. It could also reduce the earnings of its employees.

If the directive comes into force, it will apply immediately to British Coal as a public sector body, while private sector companies will not have to comply until the United Kingdom implementing legislation came into force. To ensure that British Coal would have time to negotiate new working agreements, we are including a provision in the Bill to enable the 1908 Act to be repealed by order at the appropriate moment.

Next Section

Home Page