House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Nov 1991

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : The Minister said that the Government regard safety in the mines as important, so would not it have been reasonable if the Government had entered into a modicum of consultation with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, whose statutory responsibilities involve safety? Does not he understand that one reason for the advances in safety in the mines has been the existence of legislation such as that which he proposes to dismantle?

Mr. Wakeham : The hon. Gentleman's second point is far from realistic, but the first part of his question was perfectly reasonable. To conclude the negotiations in time we have to repeal the Act in steps because the European directive, if agreed, will come into force immediately. I do not intend to sign the order repealing the 1908 Act until the European directive comes into force, but by the time that happens we must have held the negotiations because the directive comes into force immediately.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : I concur with the Secretary of State's remarks about British Coal's excellent safety record, but does he agree that all the

Column 1252

advances in safety in mining took place during the period of nationalisation when there was a mines inspectorate, an independent body under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy? Even now, under the Health and Safety Executive, it can make independent judgments.

Mr. Wakeham : I have considerable doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is right that all the improvements in safety have taken place since nationalisation. I certainly agree with him that we should pay tribute to the significant improvements in safety since 1946 when the mines were nationalised. They have largely been a result of enormous improvements in technology and investment.

Mr. Skinner : The Government say that they will oppose the bureaucrats in Brussels in respect of the advances in the social charter, so why must they take orders from the Common Market on increasing the hours of underground workers? The right hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Leader of the House, who last week suggested to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House that Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers should work a four-day week. This hypocritical Government are introducing a measure to increase the hours of miners. If it is all right for Members to work a four-day week, why is it not right for the miners?

Mr. Wakeham : I do not think that my hon. right hon. Friend's proposals for a shorter working week necessarily applied to Cabinet Ministers, or even to hon. Members, who perform many duties outside the Chamber.

The European directive's impact on the private and the public sectors will vary significantly. The public sector must implement it immediately, but it cannot do so while the 1908 Act is in place. I shall not sign the order repealing that Act until we have an alternative because I fully recognise that a proper regime must be in place.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) rose --

Mr. Wakeham : I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. O'Brien : Coalmining has certainly moved away from the hewing of coal at the coal face and has introduced mechanisation. The right hon. Gentleman assured the House that before signing any document he will wish to ensure that safety is the paramount consideration. Will the Secretary of State consider the conditions that prevail underground? As a result of mechanisation, there are conditions which must be reckoned with. Before he signs away the 1908 Act, will he consult the people working in the industry about the current conditions underground, including dust and other hazards? Instead of agreeing to longer hours per shift for people working in those conditions, will he consider the demand for shorter working hours? That is how we should be making progress in the mining industry. There should be shorter days underground, not longer days.

Mr. Wakeham : It is not for me to negotiate the hours of work or anything of that kind. The 1908 Act will not cease to operate in the British mining industry until it is replaced by an alternative which will be arrived at either through a European directive or as a result of proposals in the House. I have no intention of producing such proposals at the moment.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : The implication of the proposal to repeal, not to revise, the

Column 1253

legislation is that there will be no statutory control from this Parliament over the minimum and maximum number of hours that people work underground. However, the Secretary of State has not mentioned another option whereby the British Government, in negotiations in the European Community, try to ensure that the same requirement in the 1908 Act is part of the directive. The Secretary of State has not addressed that. He has not told us why it cannot be perfectly permissible and legitimate for a similar provision to be contained in European Community legislation.

Mr. Wakeham : The European directive will cover the same issues about hours of work as those covered in the 1908 Act, although not necessarily in the same way. However, that matter has not yet been negotiated. I will not repeal the 1908 Act or stop it operating until we have an alternative which can be discussed. We cannot move into a period when there are no regulations. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right. The European directive could be as restrictive and restraining as the 1908 Act. As I have said, we believe that there are shortcomings in that proposal.

Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Wakeham : No, I have been most generous in giving way and I must now make progress.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wakeham : I will give way to my hon. Friend in a minute, but I must first make progress or we will be here rather longer than we should.

The coal industry's performance over the last five years has been remarkable by any standards. British Coal has raised productivity by over 100 per cent. since the 1984-85 strike. It has cut colliery unit costs in real terms by over 40 per cent. during the same period and last year British Coal achieved a bottom-line profit for the first time in 13 years.

Those achievements, which I am sure are welcomed on both sides of the House, would not have been possible without massive support from the Government. That support includes the £6 billion provided under the Coal Industry Act 1990. That £6 billion provision enabled the corporation to carry out a major financial reconstruction. The debt burden of the corporation was reduced by over £4 billion and it was relieved of annual interest payments of some £400 million. As a result, British Coal's financial results now more accurately reflect the performance of the current ongoing business. I have been informed by the chairman that British Coal is once again on course this year to make a bottom-line profit.

That excellent improvement in British Coal's performance has not been achieved without difficulty and sacrifice. The market for British Coal has been in decline for decades and in recent years British Coal has also needed to deliver coal prices falling in real terms. In the past five years over 70 collieries have closed and the number of employees has been reduced by over 100,000.

This problem is not new. The coal industry has faced difficult periods of adjustment and reconstruction in the past, including during the term of office of the Labour party from 1964 to 1970. In April 1964, there were 576 pits.

Column 1254

By the time Labour left office in 1970, the number had fallen to around 300--a reduction of nearly half, down by 280 collieries and about 170,000 men. It is a tribute to the work force and management that the recent contraction in the industry has been achieved without disruption.

British Coal has been able to offer alternative jobs to any man who has chosen to remain in the industry. Those who have decided to leave have received substantial sums in redundancy payments. They can also obtain retraining and counselling through schemes run by British Coal Enterprise.

The Government's commitment to the industry goes far beyond providing the finance needed to ease the problems of redundancy. I want to reaffirm the Government's commitment to an ongoing economic coal industry and its long- term future. Since 1979 we have approved investment expenditure of over £7.5 billion in the coal industry. That is more than all other Governments since the war taken together. We have also provided grants totalling over £11 billion in addition to the £6 billion provided last year. We expect to provide nearly £700 million in grant this year.

Our commitment to the coal industry is not only demonstrated through financial assistance. Last Session, for instance, we tackled the long- standing problem of subsidence. The provisions of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 should greatly improve the coal industry's relationship with those under whom it mines.

What of the future for British Coal? Our main aim is to ensure that we achieve the largest coal industry that is economically sustainable. The main challenge for the industry is to try to win the best possible outcome from the contract negotiations with the generators. The measures that I have described are essential to the future of the industry and would be necessary whether the industry's future lay in the public or the private sector.

Of course coal, not just in this country but worldwide, faces challenges over the next five to 10 years. Here in Britain the power generators, the market for the bulk of the corporation's coal, are turning increasingly to environmentally friendly gas. Our policy and the policy of all Administrations over the past two decades has been to support diversity of fuel supply. Nuclear, renewable energy and gas all now have key roles to play as well as coal. Increased use of gas in generation brings enormous benefits to the electricity consumer and to the environment.

The consumer benefits from the lower electricity prices that will result. The environment benefits from lower levels of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions. The threat of global warming and the problems of acid rain are reduced. The Government are not going to hinder the development of the competitive market that we have created with the privatisation of power generation by interfering with the use of cost-effective gas. We are not convinced by doomsters who say that all coal not extracted now will never be accessible in future. It is foolish to subsidise coal extraction now when improvements in mining technology are likely to make much of that coal exploitable on an economic basis in later decades.

I turn for one moment to the Labour party's plan for the coal industry. On the surface that plan is straightforward. It is, according to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), to maintain the coal industry at its present size--by protecting it at all costs from the rigours of competition that everyone else has to face. How would the Opposition do that? They

Column 1255

would stop coal imports and restrict the mining of opencast--or so they say. They would "deter" the use of gas for power generation and phase out nuclear power--or so they say. They would renationalise the national grid, at huge cost to the taxpayer, and attempt to force the generators to burn high-cost coal--or so they say.

The coal industry recognises that it has to live in the real world--not in the twilight zone that some Opposition Members seem to inhabit. For the truth, as most people now know, is that Labour could not fulfil any single one of the pledges that I have just outlined. Restrictions on imports would be contrary to the European internal market--less than 14 months away--and to our obligations under GATT. They could not restrict opencast coal mining without putting at risk 10,000 deep-mined jobs. They could not "deter" the use of gas because gas stations are already being built and the gas has already been contracted for.

The hon. Gentleman's pledge

"to maintain the coal industry around the size it is now" is not worth the paper it is written on. He could not fulfil his pledge--nobody could. I challenge him to say specifically what he would do to fulfil his pledge and to say what the costs to the consumer, the environment and the taxpayer would be.

I make just one other point on Labour's plans, although I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is not here to take note. That concerns the inherent contradiction between Labour's environmental commitments and its energy policies. There is no way in the world that the Labour party could ever meet its commitments on carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions at the same time as meeting its commitments to the National Union of Mineworkers. If Labour is determined to phase out nuclear power and to deter the use of gas, at the same time as meeting the environmental obligations that it has set itself, it would have no option but to destroy the coal industry. Opposition Members can seek to protect the environment or they can seek to preserve the coal industry at its present size--but their policies will not do both.

The Government believe that the best protection for the coal industry is to become economic and we have demonstrated our commitment to that objective, with finance, support and action. I believe that it is time for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to give the House a proper explanation of his party's policies and what it would do--and perhaps with a little more precision than is usual for him.

I do not normally comment on what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras says before breakfast, but I have received a message from the management of British Coal that they are incensed at his suggestion this morning that there would be any reduction in safety standards in the British coal industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to withdraw any such suggestion.

Finally, British Coal must face the challenges to its market head on. No one can deny that much has been accomplished in the years since the miners' strike. Much still needs to be done. British Coal must fight for every tonne of commercially viable business. It must build on the increases in productivity already achieved. Further productivity gains are essential if the growing competition from other fuels and imported coal is to be met.

Column 1256

The Government have provided strong backing and very large sums of taxpayers' money to enable the industry to restructure and increase productivity further. The Government will continue to give strong support to this important industry. I commend the Bill to the House. 5.3 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras) : As the House will recall, on Thursday 31 October, in the debate on the Queen's Speech the Government said that they would

"continue to prepare for the privatisation of the British Coal Corporation."--[ Official Report, 31 October 1991 ; Vol. 198. c. 6.] On Friday 1 November, they published this Bill. Nothing could be clearer-- the Bill is intended as the next step on the road to coal privatisation. It does two things. First, it doubles the money available for redundancy payments from £1,500 million to £3,000 million, and extends the date that that will be available beyond the existing deadline of 1993. That is necessary, because, if privatisation occurs, there could be as many as 30,000 redundancies in 1993-94 alone.

Secondly, the Bill would reduce the cost of mining by reducing safety standards, by repealing the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. Before the Secretary of State quotes British Coal in support of his contention that lengthening mining hours will not affect safety, I remind him that Mr. Moses of British Coal once gave his opinion that a 10-hour shift would not be objectionable.

We will vote against the Bill because it tampers with the safety of mines and miners. It is a disgrace that the Government have brought it forward.

Let us look first at the doubling of the restructuring grant to pay for redundancies. The previous Coal Industry Bill was before the House almost exactly two years ago, in November 1989. It doubled the redundancy fund from £750 million to the present £1,500 million, and extended its period of availability to the present limit, 1993. We said then that that was to finance as many as 30 pit closures with the loss of 30,000 jobs in the three and a half years until 1993. The Secretary of State accused me of scaremongering. British Coal called us Jeremiahs.

I invite the House to consider what has happened. In November 1989, there were 77 collieries in operation. Since then, British Coal has closed 21 collieries and announced the proposed closure of another five. Against our estimate of 30 closures in three and a half years, we have seen 26 closures in the first two years. That is worse--far worse--than anything we predicted. When the Tories challenge our predictions now, people should remember what they said about our predictions two years ago.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : I understand the passion that one sometimes hears from hon. Members who have been down the mines, but then I look at the record and see 295 pit closures under Labour Governments, and I am not surprised to find that Labour mining Members are to test the loyalty of their leader at a meeting. If Labour Members do not trust the Labour party to look after the mines, why should the miners?

Mr. Dobson : If the hon. Gentleman from that well-known mining area of Battersea has been sent in by

Column 1257

the Tory Whips to ask a question based on a totally misleading article in today's Evening Standard, the best that he can do is to keep quiet.

Mr. O'Brien : I have worked down the pit for more than 30 years, so I know exactly what the conditions are. The figures that were given and the suggestions that were made two and a half years ago were on target. Notices have been issued to collieries in west Yorkshire that, within the next six months, there will be a further rundown of manpower. In my own colliery, Sharlston, there is an indication that there will be a rundown of manpower. The figures that we gave the previous time we discussed mining legislation were correct. Included in the Bill is the intention to take away the concessionary fuel allowance for miners' widows and retired miners that has been available ever since the industry began. Why should that happen in this legislation? May we have an assurance that retired miners and miners' widows will not lose that fuel allowance?

Mr. Dobson : I regret to say that I cannot offer any assurances about what the Government or British Coal might do. In the light of the assurances that have been given by successive Secretaries of State for Energy and chairmen of British Coal, it is clear that nobody in their right mind would accept any assurance from any of them because they scarcely ever deliver.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson : I shall give way in a moment.

I do not have the up-to-date figures for the number of job losses since November 1989, but when 18 pits closed, 20,000 jobs went too. Those closures not only harm miners, their families and the coalfield communities, but the whole country.

Mr. Gerald Howarth rose--

Mr. Dobson : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me get on a bit. Taxpayers will have to pay out a fortune if pits are closed. Enormous sums will be required in benefits, and there will be not only a massive loss of income tax, but also of other taxes, including VAT. Those are the consequences for the taxpayer of this scale of closure.

Another consequence of pit closures for the rest of the country is the effect on the balance of payments. In the first nine months of this year, 15 million tonnes of coal were imported. I remind the Secretary of State that foreign coal also produces sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide and cannot be said to make a big contribution to the environment. That 15 million tonnes in the first nine months of this year compares with the 15 million tonnes that were imported for the whole of last year and grotesquely exceeds the 4 million tonnes that were imported in 1982. We all know that PowerGen are investing in more and more coal handling facilities at ports around the country and that they intend to import more and more coal and to put more and more British miners out of work by closing more and more British pits.

During the summer the Government appointed Rothschild merchant bank to advise them on coal privatisation. Lest anyone should think that an objective,

Column 1258

professional and expert approach will necessarily be adopted, I remind the House that the privatisation unit at Rothschild is run by an exceedingly neutral and objective person--the Tory candidate for Hampstead and Highgate. At great expense to the taxpayer, Tory merchant bankers have produced secret reports that can be considered in secret by Tory Ministers. The Secretary of State has refused to publish any of the Rothschild reports. Some of them have been leaked--[ Hon. Members :-- "Oh."] When I published the information that Rothschild considered that only 28 of the then 60 collieries would remain after privatisation, I faced the usual charge of scaremongering. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) went on the radio in the east midlands to say that I did not know what I was talking about-- [Interruption.] Well, the next thing that happened was that the Financial Times produced another document that proved that Rothschild had whittled down its figure of 28 to just 14 collieries that might survive the privatisation process.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : Will the hon. Gentleman specifically deny that it was he who leaked the Rothschild report to the power generators and that the Labour party was entirely responsible? In doing that, does he accept that he has jeopardised British Coal's commercial position and sold down the river the prospects of every single person who works for British Coal?

Mr. Dobson : If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble--

Mr. Hughes : Answer the question.

Mr. Dobson : Yes, I will answer that question in a minute, but I shall make my own speech in my own way-- [Interruption.] Let me make it clear that if the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) had read the Rothschild report, which I made public--[ Hon. Members :-- "Ah."] Yes. If he had read it, he would have found that Rothschild recommends that the Secretary of State should get involved in the discussions between British Coal, National Power and PowerGen to ensure that, for a start, it got a good contract. I sold no one down the river--[ Hon. Members :-- "You did."] Well, I shall tell the hon. Member for Harrow, West and his hon Friends that I have not received any complaints from any miners in this country about releasing information about the Tory bankers who advise Tory Ministers behind the backs of the miners and their families and who seek to treat them like chattels to be bought and sold.

Anyone reading that report from Rothschild will understand why the Secretary of State kept it secret. It envisages a deep-mined output of just 20 million tonnes in this country, and imports of 30 million tonnes ; reducing the number of deep mines by 1993-94 to 20, which will then fall to 14 or even 12. It also envisages 33,000 redundancies in 1993-94 and that most of the British coal industry will end up in foreign ownership. In other words, there will be more pit closures and more redundancies. The Government need this legislation so that they can find the money for the redundancy bill that will prepare the industry for privatisation.

Mr. Peter Rost (Erewash) : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Rothschild report also recommends a miners' buy-out as one of the privatised options? As the Rothschild investigation considered that to be a reasonable prospect, does the hon. Gentleman support it?

Column 1259

Mr. Dobson : Either the hon. Gentleman has another version of the Rothschild report or he has not read the one that I have. The report specifically warns miners to be wary of investing and buying shares in their own pits. Creswell and Gedling collieries in the Nottinghamshire coalfield have closed in the past three weeks. If the miners there had owned shares in their own pits, they would have lost their savings as well as their jobs. That is what Rothschild warned. It does not recommend the course of action to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

The Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends still deny our assertion that the coal industry will be virtually destroyed. On Monday, the Secretary of State once again described me as a Jeremiah. I assume that that was intended as an insult, but modern Tories are an ignorant lot. I went to a grammar school in York that was founded during the reign of Henry VIII by an archbishop of York. It was wise to learn a little bit about the Old Testament. I learnt that Jeremiah prophesied dire consequences if the people in charge did not mend their ways. He was denounced by the powers that be, who ignored him. They did not mend their ways. The destruction that Jeremiah predicted then happened. I do not take it as an insult if I am called a Jeremiah. He was certainly a better forecaster than any Tory Minister. In deference to one of my newest hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), I should add that that Tudor archbishop of York would probably have been on our side in this debate because his potted history relates that he was born a poor scholar in the parish of Hemsworth near Pontefract. Let us have no more Tory talk about Jeremiahs.

We do not need a prophet's crystal ball because we have the Rothschild report. We know what the hard-faced Tories think should happen to the coal industry. They want to run it down, close it down and sell it off. They would be closing the cheapest and most efficient coal industry in Europe. It costs three times as much to mine a tonne of coal in Germany as in Britain. The dearest coal in Britain is cheaper than the cheapest coal that is mined in Germany. As the Secretary of State referred to Radio 4, I shall do so. This morning on Radio 4's "Today" programme he said that we needed to import cheap coal to stop the rise in the price of electricity. As he is not a physician, I cannot say, "Physician, heal thyself." But as he is an accountant, I can say, "Accountant, read thine own figures." Over the past five years coal has not increased in price whereas electricity has increased in price by 30 per cent.

It is not the fault of British miners that electricity prices have risen. The coal industry and the coalfield communities look set to be sacrificed on the altar of the Tory privatisation dogma. They have already been severely damaged by electricity privatisation and now they are being damaged by preparations for coal privatisation. The impact of coal closures on not only miners but on entire communities is truly awful. As that impact is felt we get crocodile tears from Tories around the country who feel that their seats might be at stake.

Speaking about the closure of the Coventry colliery, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) is reported as saying that he wanted to

"make sure that everything is being done to protect the interests of my constituents who work there."

I wonder whether this is what he meant. It is taken from the Coventry Evening Telegraph of 9 November this year :

Column 1260

"Humiliated miners have been forced to play bingo for the chance to work. Hundreds of miners were given raffle tickets and were told to wait in the pit canteen for their numbers to be called out. The winners' received an interview with private contractor Thyssen which is recruiting salvage teams at the colliery. The losers were simply ordered into the redundancy line. On Tuesday there was a queue of men three deep and 50 yards long desperate for work with the contractors. The following day, they were giving out tickets to the men who were told to wait in the canteen where a man with a microphone called their numbers out."

I assume that that is what a Treasury Minister sees as protecting the interests of his constituents. That is the humiliation which is heaped on miners, their families and their communities. We do not oppose generous redundancy terms for the miners. We do not want them to be made redundant in the first place.

On safety, we start off with some clear facts. British coal mines are the safest in the world. They are twice as safe as those in Germany, five times as safe as those in the United States and 50 times as safe as those in South Africa, Colombia or the Soviet Union. Any Government should take pride in that record, seek to keep it up and, if possible, improve it. Any Government who had pride in this country would seek to promote the raising of standards around the world to match our standards. Any Government with any real pride in our people would get on to our European partners and say, "Bring up the standards in your coal mines to our standards." God knows, not many British industries are three times as efficient and twice as safe as their German counterpart. But that is true of the coal industry.

However, the Government are not thumping the table and telling other countries to bring their standards up to our level. Quite the reverse. They are repealing the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908--the only legal limit on the hours worked underground--and applying the European directive on working time.

Mr. Lofthouse : I agree with my hon. Friend that British mines are the safest in Europe and probably in the world. However, they are not as safe as they used to be. British Coal is not using the safest method of supporting the roof. I have here a death certificate of a miner killed at Allerton Bywater colliery only a few weeks ago. Under cause of death it says :

"following and due to a fall of roof associated with the application of tension to roof bolts in the course of his employment at Allerton Bywater Colliery".

The chief inspector of mines has told the Energy Select Committee on two occasions that that is not the safest method. The safest method of supporting roadways is by arch girders. British Coal is no longer using that method.

Mr. Dobson : Indeed. I was going on to refer to the way in which the Government, including, I regret to say, the mines inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, have gone along with proposals from the management of British Coal which damages safety. This morning British Coal was apparently so incensed by what I said that an official rang the Secretary of State to complain. I have to say that no one rang me.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes : I wonder why.

Mr. Dobson : The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know how often British Coal rings me on other matters.

The European directive sets minimum standards for all workers in all workplaces. It does not even pretend to

Column 1261

cover especially hazardous work in especially hazardous workplaces. The directive makes it clear that Britain can still apply laws and regulations which provide greater protection for health and safety. It is a bit rich for the Secretary of State for Energy to say that in future he will rely on the European working times directive at the self same time as the Secretary of State for Employment is foaming at the mouth, denouncing it as a gross interference in British affairs and seeking to persuade his fellow Ministers in Europe not to adopt it.

The Government's proposals affect the safety of miners. Setting aside issues such as decent industrial relations and promises that other people have made, one would have thought it common courtesy for the Secretary of State at least to ask the miners whether they thought that the change was reasonable. Has the Secretary of State consulted the miners? No. Has he consulted the underground supervisory staff? No. Has he consulted the colliery managers? No. He has included the provision in the Bill without even consulting the Health and Safety Commission. It is no good him saying that he consulted the officials of the executive. The commission is responsible and it has not received a paper. Its secretariat told me that it might not even be able to consider it before Christmas. However, the provision was put in the Bill on 1 November.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson : No.

This is the legislative approach of Tombstone : legislate first, ask questions afterwards. The proposal epitomises everything that the Government are about. They are a Government of know-alls. They think they know better than the people whose lives are at risk in the mining industry what is good for safety in that industry.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo rose--

Mr. Dobson : No.

In their comfortable offices in Whitehall they think that they know what is best for the safety of men working a mile or more below ground. The industrial accident that Ministers are most likely to suffer is to trip on a carpet or cut their finger on the sharp edge of a piece of paper. Yet they think they know more about safety than a man working a coal cutter three miles under the North sea off the Durham coast.

However, I have to say that that has not been a common characteristic all along.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson : In a moment. Let me finish that point.

When the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was Secretary of State for Energy he appeared before the Energy Select Committee and said that no steps to repeal the 1908 Act would be taken without consultation with the miners. He said :

"I think if the industry were agreed that this"--

getting rid of the 1908 Act--

"was beneficial to the industry and the talks I have mentioned could take place successfully"--

that is with the representatives of the miners--

"I would presume any Government would be very happy to change the legislation The reason why the

Next Section

Home Page