EMERGENCY POWERS

§ Mr. Speaker

It might be for the convenience of the House if I said a word about how the business should be handled. First, we have the formal Motion to be moved by the Home Secretary. Then there is the second, wider Motion which is debatable only until ten o'clock. Then there is the third Motion, dealing with the regulations, which is debatable for one and a half hours after the previous Motion.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Message sent on Her behalf and communicating to this House that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, to whom had been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent dated the 4th day of February, 1972, had deemed it proper by Proclamation, made on Her Majesty's behalf and in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, and dated 9th February, 1972, to declare that a state of emergency exists. 34 The regulations made under the emergency powers are very similar to those normally moved on occasions when a national emergency has been declared, though they vary in one or two matters to which I will refer.

I should explain to the House—it is certainly my duty to do so—what are the effects of the regulations. The first two regulations are the formal ones about title and interpretation. Regulations 3–5 deal with the control of ports. Regulations 6–15 provide for relaxation in restrictions on road transport. There is a new regulation in this group, No. 11, which gives the Secretary of State for the Environment power to exempt drivers from the permitted hours controls.

Regulations 16–20 relax the obligations and restrictions as to public services and facilities. Here there are two very important regulations. The first is No. 17, which relieves the electricity boards of their statutory obligations about the supply of electricity. The important point to make here is that until the regulations were made the boards could not impose power cuts other than for reasons of their capacity being inadequate. In other words, power cuts to conserve stocks of fuel were not legally possible until the state of emergency had been declared and the regulations made. There is a further new feature of this batch of regulations; namely, that power is being given in the case of both electricity and gas to enable the authorities to enter premises to ensure that control orders are effective. This is a wide power to give. I think the House will agree that it is a necessary power in the circumstances.

Regulations 21–24 enable the Minister concerned to regulate the supply, distribution and price of both fuel and food. It is under this group of regulations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has issued directions about the consumption of electricity in industry.

Regulations 25–28 give the appropriate Minister power to control transport services. Regulations 29 and 30 contain powers to requisition chattels, such as vehicles, and to take control of land. Regulations 31–39, the remaining regulations, follow precedent on offences and penalties, to ensure that the regulations are enforceable and are enforced.

35 That is broadly the effect of this set of regulations, which I have already said follows precedent save for one or two modifications which I think it will generally be agreed were sensible.

The duration of the powers is the duration of the state of emergency, the maximum period, as in the past, being fixed as one month. Should it be necessary at the end of one month to continue the powers, the authority of Parliament would have to be sought.

Those are the regulations before us. The broad purpose of the debate, I understand, is to see whether the House approves that these powers under a state of emergency should be given to the Government.

The use made of the powers to date has been fourfold. The first has been to free the area electricity boards from their statutory obligations. That is done under Regulation 17(1), which enables them to undertake the system of rota cuts, cuts in rotation, which they are now doing, thereby spreading the burden of the reduction of power supply as evenly as possible throughout the country. Secondly, an order was made under Regulation 21 prohibiting the use of electricity for advertising, for display purposes and for floodlighting. Thirdly, an order was made restricting the use of electricity for heating purposes in non-domestic premises such as offices, shops and places of recreation. Fourthly, my right hon. Friend has used the powers given him by the regulations to issue directions to certain consumers restricting their consumption of electricity. Those are the uses that have been made of the powers granted to the Government by these emergency regulations.

The effect on industrial consumption, as my right hon. Friend made clear last week, is, first, that the smaller industrial concerns will suffer the rota cuts which apply to the generality of consumers. Secondly, in the medium range of industrial concerns there will be no use of electric power on Sundays and three weekdays. Thirdly, in the case of the largest industrial concerns, particularly those with continuous process plant, which is so especially important, there will be an equivalent reduction of supplies over the whole period by individual arrangement and individual direction.

36 Those, briefly, are the powers that have been taken under the emergency, and those are the effects of the orders which have been issued by the Government so far.

The next point that I must take up is whether it is necessary at this moment for the Government to assume these powers. I think this is now quite clear. The Act says: If at any time it appears to Her Majesty that there has occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature … as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by proclamation, … declare that a state of emergency exists. There cannot be any doubt that such events exist at present, or that, through the interference with the supply and distribution of fuel or light for the community as a whole, the danger exists. Therefore, it is right to ask the House to confirm that these powers should now be granted to the Government.

It was, of course, clear that if this dispute was prolonged, then at a certain time these conditions were bound to come into being. It was, after all, the purpose of the strike and the purpose of the picketing to prevent the delivery of coal to the power stations. As about 75 per cent. of our power station capacity depends upon the supply of coal, clearly if the strike was prolonged to a certain point an emergency of this kind was bound to arise. This is what is happening now. This is why the emergency powers are justified. The dwindling of the coal supplies to the power stations as a result of the strike has at the same time increased the difficulty of supply of coal both to industry and to domestic consumers, even to priority consumers.

I turn next to the question of the timing of these measures. It is, clearly, very difficult to decide exactly the right moment to introduce a state of emergency. I say again that we must be clear that until a state of emergency is declared the electricity authorities could not introduce power cuts for the purpose of conserving fuel they could only introduce cuts in order to off-shed loads if at any time their generating capacity was overloaded. They could not, therefore, have taken steps before the introduction of the state of emergency to 37 cut back electricity consumption in order to conserve fuel supplies.

The reasons surrounding the timing of the state of emergency are well known to the House. First, the powers involved in a state of emergency are very great, very sweeping and very widespread in the cutting back involved of the normal freedom of individuals and enterprises. The declaration of a state of emergency is a step which should be taken by any Government only when it is clearly absolutely essential to do so. I do not think the House will disagree with that proposition.

Secondly, the prime objective of the Government in this matter and of everyone concerned, clearly, is to try to reach a settlement to the dispute by agreement, a settlement which takes account both of the fair claims of the miners and of the interests of the community at large. Those interests are very large. While accepting entirely the right of the miners to a fair settlement, one must also stress again that the battle against inflation is one in which the entire community, including the miners themselves, are clearly involved, and no single person in this country could possibly stand to benefit if the battle against inflation were abandoned by any Government. It is very important to bear these factors in mind.

In deciding the timing of a state of emergency, it is right for the Government to consider what effect such a declaration would have on the possibility of reaching by agreement the sort of fair settlement to which I have referred. I am certain that the Opposition would have been fairly ready to accuse us of provocation if we had announced a state of emergency earlier than was absolutely necessary.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

Could the right hon. Gentleman confirm the very circumstantial report in the Daily Mail today that he himself appealed for sterner action earlier so that the public could be warned but that he was hamstrung by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Industry?

§ Mr. Maudling

I have seen many newspaper reports. It is not my job to confirm or deny them. In these matters the responsibility is that of the Government as a whole, and I and all my colleagues 38 are fully prepared to shoulder any share of any responsibility at any time. These are far too serious matters for that sort of comment.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said, the effect of picketing upon the power industry was greater than had originally been forecast. A great deal of the coal in the possession of the Central Electricity Generating Board has been immobilised by picketing, and there has been a substantial effect on the supplies of other essential materials, such as flashing oil, for example, and other chemicals. This is a wider form of picketing than has been met in the case of previous disputes. I want to refer later to the whole question of picketing, which is immensely important. While there is a wider form of picketing than has been usual in the past, I would at this stage say that this is not in itself in contravention of the law.

Little in the conserving of fuel would have been obtained in practice by an earlier declaration of a state of emergency, while the opportunities of achieving a solution by agreement might have been severely prejudiced. That was the judgment that we made, and I still believe it to have been wise.

§ Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, Central)

Did not the Government, particularly the Department of Trade and Industry, in planning ahead for the power supply industry concentrate on coal supply but overlook the importance of having sufficient oil to burn the poor coal now available?

§ Mr. Maudling

I do not think that is the point. The point is that the extent of picketing has gone wider than experienced in the past, involving the picketing of the movement of not only coal but oil and other things, often at enterprises in no way involved in the consumption of coal themselves.

I come now to the question of picketing, which is very important and, clearly, gives special concern to me in my position as Home Secretary. New issues have been raised by what has happened in the dispute. There is a great deal of public concern, first, as to the extent and nature of the picketing which has taken place and, secondly, as to the dangers of violence, of which hon. Members on both 39 sides of the House are acutely aware and in which I have a special responsibility.

I will state what the law is on picketing. First, peaceful picketing is lawful and, so long as it is peaceful, it may legally extend beyond the movement of coal to the movement of other commodities. This is the law.

Secondly, obstruction and intimidation are not lawful, and it has been held in the courts that the mere number of pickets present, even though they are behaving entirely peacefully, can itself constitute intimidation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am merely giving the House what has been decided by the courts of law. No doubt there have been examples of unlawful picketing and of intimidation. We have all seen on television examples of this intimidation. [Interruption.] I want to deal with this matter thoroughly and I hope the House will listen. There have been a number of arrests made by the police mainly under the general law governing assault and disorderly conduct.

§ Mr. Richard Kelley (Don Valley)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to quote incidents seen on television as evidence—

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. I have no power to interfere in the content of a Minister's speech unless he is acting against the rules of the House. Nothing has happened contrary to the rules of the House.

§ Mr. Kelley

What I intended to convey to the House was that television cameras can roam in any direction and can choose to show incidents which have no relation to the truth.

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not commenting on the merits of the hon. Member's points. I have to administer the Standing Orders of the House, and there is nothing in the Standing Orders with regard to the activities of television cameras.

§ Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has now been dealing with oral evidence against the pickets. Since a number of cases are to be heard in the courts this week relating to the arrests to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, will 40 you, Sir, rule it out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to give prejudicial evidence before the House today?

§ Mr. Speaker

I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman say anything about a specific case.

§ Mr. Maudling

What I was about to say, if the House will listen for a moment, is that I am quite certain that the National Union of Mineworkers does not support violence and intimidation in any way at all. The fact is that, while the union does not support it, there have been occasions when the police have been forced to make arrests. The bulk of the picketing has been peaceful. The reason why it has been so effective—this is a matter which possibly has escaped the notice of the newspapers—is that the other unions have given instructions to their members not to cross the picket lines. Therefore, peaceful picketing has been very effective indeed. But I repeat that there have been enough examples of unlawful picketing—not with the authority of the union—to give rise to considerable public disquiet. I should be failing in my duty as Home Secretary if I did not say that.

This is a difficult problem. It is hard to know when intimidation begins. It is difficult to know in any particular set of circumstances when the right of people to persuade others not to go into a factory becomes intimidation. It is a difficult line to draw in law, and the drawing of the line must be left to chief officers of police. The police have a duty to ensure that those who want to work are not forcibly prevented from doing so. Equally, they have a duty to ensure that those who wish to argue against people going to work are entitled peacefully to do so.

The police have no more difficult job than that of deciding in individual cases when the limit of peaceful picketing has been over-stepped. They have been doing their job extremely well. I support the representations which were made to me the other day by the mining Members to ensure that liaison is as close as possible between police and the official unions—which, as I have said, do not wish to see violence—so as to make sure that the violence which some people have stirred up against the wishes of the public at large, and against the wish of the unions, does not take place. This is the situation as I see it on picketing.

41 I must express some concern that recent developments are giving rise to a great deal of questioning in the public mind. The right of peaceful picketing, of persuading people not to cross a picket line, is jealously safeguarded—and I understand why. But at the same time there is considerable public concern if it in any way appears that illegal picketing should have prevented coal which is available to the Generating Board being burnt by the board to enable people to keep warm and to keep employed. These are very difficult issues indeed. It would be wrong to try to reach decisions on these matters in the heat of the moment. [Laughter.] These matters are more important than that. The bulk of the picketing to date certainly has been lawful, but has had a considerable effect on the power supply by denying to the Generating Board coal already in its possession which otherwise it would use to provide fuel for the employment of our people.

§ Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

The right hon. Gentleman surely should address his mind to what is really concerning the public, and that is why a state of emergency had to be reached before a court of inquiry was ordered, and also why we should be discussing matters such as picketing when the dispute was allowed to get out of hand.

§ Mr. Maudling

Picketing has been a feature of the dispute from the beginning. I think I am right in saying that the court of inquiry has been a matter which the union has not been prepared to accept throughout the dispute, despite suggestions having been made to the union on this matter. I thought it right that I should speak on the whole question of the law on picketing since there has been a great deal of public concern on this topic.

§ Mr. Maurice Orbach (Stockport, South)

Where?

§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

The Home Secretary is all out of proportion.

§ Mr. Maudling

No, I am not out of proportion. In my position as Home Secretary I am, of course, rightly concerned about this matter. I have been trying to give hon. Members a balanced account of what has been happening. I have said repeatedly that the bulk of 42 the picketing has been lawful, and the union has made it clear that it is not in support of unlawful picketing violence or intimidation.

I come to the present position. I have explained the effect of the regulations and have made it clear that regulations of this kind are quite essential. I have talked about the law on picketing. I—

§ Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

Before the Home Secretary leaves the law on picketing, will he give the House his opinion on those who intimidate people who are carrying out peaceful picketing, in the course of which some miners have been slain?

§ Mr. Maudling

All intimidation, from any quarter, is unlawful.

§ Mr. Orbach

Then why have not some of them been arrested?

§ Mr. Maudling

It is for the police to enforce the law. If any hon. Member thinks that the police on a certain occasion have not done what they should have. I hope he will let me have details.

§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Willesden, West)

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have tried to put down a Private Notice Question to him asking about five pickets—five out of a total of eight—who were arrested in my area. Will he look into those cases, of which there are a number, where the police may have intervened when nothing really bad has occurred?

§ Mr. Maudling

Certainly I shall examine any suggestion put to me where things have been done badly. But I believe that in the face of a very difficult situation our police force has done a very good job.

Clearly, I cannot comment at the moment of the merits of the miners' claim. It would be wrong for me to comment now that the court of inquiry has been established. Indeed, if I were to comment hon. Members opposite would very soon accuse me of trying to prejudice the court of inquiry.

An offer has been made already to the miners' union. It has been told that its members can have that straight away if they return to work and that anything that the Wilberforce court of inquiry recommends subsequently will be accepted by the National Coal Board. I believe that there is very widespread 43 public opinion that the miners should return to work and cease their picketing on that basis.

I have little doubt that that is the view of people who are suffering from the shortage of electric power in many ways when coal is not being mined and, even more immediately, when coal which is available to the Generating Board cannot be moved by reason of picketing. In view of the fact that the existing offer can be taken immediately and that anything awarded by the court of inquiry will be available subsequently, the widespread public opinion is that, on that basis, the miners would be well advised to return to work and cease their picketing in the national interest.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government took no action in relation to the industrial situation until he himself came to the House last Wednesday, by which time, on the Prime Minister's own estimates, many millions could have been thrown out of work? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why there was no consultation with industry about it? Will he tell the House his own estimate of the number who will be thrown out of work this week, and will he undertake, for the benefit of the House and the country, to publish the figures which are collected every week of the number temporarily stopped? Figures of this kind have been available for many years. Will he publish them, so that we may know exactly how many people are signing on as temporarily stopped?

§ Mr. Maudling

Certainly figures are collected, and so far as they are relevant they will be published. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously asks me the reasons underlying the timing of the state of emergency, I can only assume that he did not listen to my speech.

§ Hon. Members

Shame.

§ Mrs. Shirley Williams (Hitchin)

I find it very difficult to believe that the Home Secretary has finished his speech. I looked round the House to see for whom the right hon. Gentleman was withdrawing, and I was amazed to discover that he was withdrawing for no one but the Government.

44 We on this side of the House want to make it clear that the right hon. Gentleman's calmness of manner in what he has said today totally belies the desperate situation that the country faces. I do not intend to follow up what was the right hon. Gentleman's clear bid to try to win the public over on the Government's side. I do not intend at the moment to follow up his detailed description of the regulations. They are familiar to us, and there will be an opportunity to debate them later. Instead, I propose to go into the reasons why the country faces a state of emergency.

It is clear that Britain faces the most serious industrial crisis since the war. It was described on 11th February by The Times as . .a situation that is more dangerous than that of any other industrial dispute since the war. We believe that the Government's obstinacy, incompetence and incredible complacency have done a great deal to create that emergency. It is an emergency which should never have happened. It is an emergency of the Government's own making. That is why we shall vote against the emergency regulations tonight.

I am sorry that it was not possible for me to make this speech before the House heard the Home Secretary. May I ask the Government exactly how this situation has arisen? May I ask why on 9th January the Minister for Industry said that there were at least eight weeks' stocks of coal supplies and that these would be adequate to continue for two months, depending upon normal winter weather? We have not had normal winter weather. To that extent the Government have had the Almighty on their side. Even so, after a month we find ourselves with power cuts, creating unemployment for more than half the country.

May I ask the Government why as recently as 7th February, in answer to Questions in this House, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to there being only … a possibility of cuts in power supplies ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 973] and why he gave an almost entirely complacent picture of the situation facing the country?

Why have the Government failed to consult the Confederation of British 45 Industry, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the T.U.C. on the measures now being taken—or did they consult them, in which case we should have liked details from the Home Secretary? We have not had them.

Why did the Secretary of State for Employment not intervene at a very much earlier stage in an increasingly critical situation? Why even now does the Prime Minister maintain an almost total silence, leaving his colleagues to dispute amongst themselves who is responsible for the catastrophe that the country now faces? The Prime Minister reminds one rather of Lord Raglan at the Battle of Balaclava, who, I believe, lived in a ship in the harbour and advised the Light Brigade that it was Their's not to reason why, their's but to do and die". We on this side of the House indict the Government on four counts. The first is that they have hopelessly miscalculated the determination of the miners. Perhaps they believed that the miners' resolution would crumble after a couple of weeks. Perhaps they believed that the 41 per cent. of miners who did not support the strike would trickle back to work. But miners are not made in that way. This is an industry which is marked by loyalty and solidarity above any other. It is an industry which feels very deeply. I commend this seriously to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because we are not anxious to see this dispute continue, to the suffering of a large part of the community.

It is high time that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite recognised the massive contribution towards modernisation, productivity and pit closures that the National Union of Mineworkers has made over the past decade. Fifteen years ago there were 700,000 men employed in the pits. Today there are 280,000. Over that whole period of massive rundown there has not been a single official strike by the National Union of Mineworkers.

§ Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

The House knows that under the Labour Government 218,900 miners lost their jobs and there was not one solitary sound from miners' representatives on the other side of the House. We also know that during the whole of that time the miners' living standards actually declined. They had the biggest increase ever last year 46 under the Tories. However, during the time of the Labour Government there was not one murmur from miners' Members opposite.

§ Mrs. Williams

First, that statement about mineworkers is not correct. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Labour Government brought in a very generous scheme of early pensions for miners. He is only making the point which I have made, that this is an industry which richly deserves public consideration.

Secondly, in miscalculating the solidarity of the miners the Government also miscalculated the degree of public support that they have been able to arouse. It was not a Labour newspaper but the Daily Express which three days ago said: The miners have enjoyed almost unanimous public sympathy. I do not believe that the Government will be able to undermine that public sympathy by their crude attempts.

Thirdly, the Government have failed to recognise how essential the rôle of coal still is. As the Home Secretary rightly said, nearly three-quarters of our power supply is still founded upon coal. Yet coal is made to feel that it is an unfashionable, untrendy sort of fuel. But oil prices are going up dramatically as a result of the last O.P.E.C. agreement. Natural gas still supplies only a tiny margin of industry's needs. As for nuclear power, many hon. Gentlemen are aware of the difficulty faced by nuclear reactors in recent years.

The second major count against the Government is that they have utterly failed to calculate the serious repercussions of the stoppage on the economy. For a month they have consistently played down the effects of the coal strike on the economy. The National Coal Board made, and then withdrew, an offer. We all know that no really improved offer was made until 9th February, three days before the crisis hit the country. We all know, too, that feelings were so inflamed then that an offer that the National Union of Mineworkers has said it would have accepted a few weeks ago was no longer acceptable. This owes a great deal to the Government's mishandling of the situation. We know that the N.U.M. does not want a long dispute, but it is being forced into a long dispute by the 47 way in which these negotiations have been conducted.

§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

Is the hon. Lady aware that the General Secretary of the N.U.M. cast some doubt on that in a radio broadcast at lunchtime today? He said that that was the opinion of the president, but it was not necessarily his opinion.

§ Mr. Molloy

He did not say that.

§ Mrs. Williams

I did not hear the broadcast, but I base my remarks upon the comments made by the president only this morning. That seems a fair basis on which to make them.

It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion—a conclusion which I think is coming home to more and more hon. Members—that the reason why the National Coal Board took so long to make a better offer, a better offer which I stress would have been acceptable at an earlier date, was that that strings of the National Coal Board were being pulled by the Government.

It has been clear since the Chancellor's speech last November that the Government have been operating a tacit incomes policy in the public sector. But that policy calls for a norm of settlement of 7–8 per cent., or, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said over the weekend, a norm of 7–8 per cent. minus 1 per cent. on each settlement which takes place. It is hardly surprising that this afternoon the Home Secretary went such a long way to confirm that interpretation of the National Coal Board's approach.

Our third count against the Government is that they have abdicated responsibility. Last month the Secretary of State for Employment said: If we are asked to make a relative improvement in the miners' position, other people must be held back, relatively speaking. That is a matter of clear definition. Unless or until the Opposition, individual union leaders and the T.U.C. make it clear that they are prepared to co-ordinate the making of claims to bring about this state of affairs, it is an idle hope".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 341–2.] But the Government have again shunted off their responsibility for the business of government on to other people.

§ Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East)

rose—

§ Mrs. Williams

It is not the business of the Trades Union Congress, it is not the business of the Opposition and it is not the business of individual union leaders to govern for the Government—not even for this Government. If the Secretary of State for Employment believes that the miners have a strong case—he indicated this last week—he should have the courage to act upon that belief.

§ Mr. Rost

On the question of abdicating responsibility, will the hon. Lady now tell the House whether she believes the miners should go back to work pending the inquiry?

§ Mrs. Williams

If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall be able to get to that part of my speech.

On the fourth count, the Government have failed to clarify the whole picketing question. I welcome what the Home Secretary said today. I also welcome the way that, consistently throughout the dispute, he has made very clear that it is the right of men on strike to engage in peaceful picketing. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks this afternoon—he has made them before—recognising that the N.U.M. has been throughout completely opposed to violence, and only this morning indicated that it does not want the support of those elements from outside who introduce violence into local picketing situations.

But the Home Secretary knows—he has said so—that the law of picketing is in some respects a little vague. It is not always very easy to interpret the situation locally. That is why I welcome, but regard as very late indeed, his circular to chief constables which was sent out last Friday giving advice on what steps they should take. This followed a visit by a miners' delegation and myself to see the right hon. Gentleman the previous day.

Also, the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has allowed the situation at the Saltley Gas Works, Birmingham, to run on after a proposal for a constructive solution had been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy 49 Jenkins) and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) and Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) in whose constituency the depot is. When that solution was put into action the heat went out of the situation immediately. In our opinion, it should have been done very much earlier.

On the whole question of the inflamed relations between the two sides, the N.U.M. has throughout the dispute indicated that it would support the passage of priority supplies to hospitals, to the old, to the sick and to the handicapped, and that its co-operation is still very much available for this purpose. But there has been a singular failure of communication. It seems astonishing—I repeat, astonishing—that Ministers in the appropriate Department have not consulted industry. I quote what the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said in its telegram at the end of last week: all Chambers of Commerce deplore the lack of prior consultation about severe power cuts announced by you"— the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry— in the House today. Moreover, this inadequate notice limits the opportunity to plan, especially as cuts could be on intermittent days. This is an unnecessary additional handicap to production. I find it amazing that throughout the entire dispute the President of the N.U.M. has never been invited to meet either the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Minister for Industry who is directly responsible for the coal mines.

It is, we believe, essential that the dispute should now end and as soon as possible. My answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is that it is not the business of the Opposition to tell the N.U.M. to get its men back, but it is our business—[Interruption.] I shall make my speech in my own way—to do all that we possibly can to speed up the settlement of this dispute. At the weekend my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that it should be possible for the court of inquiry to report within three or four days, and we on this side of the House—and I am sure the Government, too—are extremely grateful to the whole group of people sitting on the court of inquiry for the action they are taking to speed up 50 their hearings. We shall, of course, also wish to see the quickest possible consultation by the N.U.M. of its members following the court of inquiry's findings.

It is for the miners' leaders, after the court of inquiry has reported, to put the settlement to their members—I am talking about the settlement made by the court of inquiry; they cannot put the settlement to their members before they know what it is going to be—either by a ballot or by consulting the branches. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there is anything in Section 65(5) of the Industrial Relations Act which would make consultation with the branches slower because, as I understand it, the normal rapid procedure, which is to have a show of hands, would not be possible under that Act.

Throughout this discussion—and I do not in any way criticise him for it—the Secretary of State for Employment has said that a settlement above the norm would lead to an increase in the price of coal. Equally consistently my right hon. Friend the Shadow Minister for Fuel and Power has pointed out that the coal mining industry is still paying interest charges of £33.6 million a year. I notice some hon. Gentlemen opposite shaking their heads. That is the official figure. In 1965 the Labour Government waived part of the debt of the National Coal Board, and it would be open to the Government to do so now and, therefore, mitigate any inflationary effects.

I do not want to dodge the argument about inflation. The double duty to which the Secretary of State for Employment referred is a double duty which falls upon any Government. It is a duty to bring about just wage settlements, but it is a duty, also, to try to reduce inflation, and my colleagues on this side of the House believe that the solution to this dilemma lies in the Government's own hand.

The Government cannot pursue a housing policy, a social services policy and a taxation policy which adds immeasurably to the burdens of the lower paid and then urge upon them restraint. At present there is passing through the House a Bill which will increase the rents of council house tenants by £1 a week. The Government cannot say to men whose rent is being increased by £1 51 a week that they should not make wage claims to cover that amount. [Interruption.] The Government cannot tell ordinary men and women to desist from making wage claims at a time when the Government are putting up the price of school meals, withdrawing school milk—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. These interruptions are interrupting the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams).

§ Mrs. Williams

The Government cannot tell ordinary men and women not to make inflationary wage claims when they are increasing the price of school meals, withdrawing school milk, increasing social service charges and taking other actions which will put up their daily cost of living. Above all, we say to the Government that they cannot mobilise the country to fight inflation when they themselves have done so much to create it.

Mr. Campbell Adamson, the Director of the C.B.I., said at the end of last week: This is a battle for the economic future of this country. That future can only be secured by a recognition of the needs of all sections of the community It is time that the Government abandoned their policies of social and industrial brinkmanship, for they have created the chaos in which they find themselves. We believe that the country can no longer be asked to pay so high a price for the obduracy of one man.

§ Mr. Christopher Tugendhat (Cities of London and Westminster)

We have heard a great deal during this dispute about the cost of coal, and one of the most impressive features of the coal miners' case is the fact that they do a difficult and dangerous job which requires special treatment from the community. It is a case which, on the whole, has been widely and sympathetically received, and one in which I think most people would sec a good deal of validity.

But one of the difficulties which have faced this Government—and every previous Government—in dealing with special cases has been the amount which should be accorded to the special case in any given year. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employ 52 ment was able to show last week that the Government have tried to do something for the miners and that the trend which was so apparent under the previous Government has to some extent been reversed. Many of us would like to see this trend still further reversed in future. but the problem is that it is not possible, at one time, to accord increases on the enormous scale which the miners have requested, and we are now faced not with the cost of coal but with the cost of the dispute.

We have a situation in which 280,000 men are, in effect, holding the country to ransom. It is not a case of criticising their past record. It is not a case of criticising the particular tactics which they may be adopting. It is a case of saying that here are 280.000 men who have been offered an increase which they can take now and which in no sense prejudices any further increases which they might get, but who are remaining on strike at immense cost to the country.

§ Mr. Fred Evans (Caerphilly)

Will the hon. Gentleman now explain why in the initial stages, when the position was negotiable, pressurising by his Government made the National Coal Board withdraw its offer instead of leaving it on the table? From then on things began to harden, and they have become so rock hard that the hon. Gentleman's argument is irrelevant.

§ Mr. Tugendhat

I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have attempted not to take too controversial a view. There are two sides to any dispute. It is beyond doubt that the leaders of the N.U.M. have adopted an extremely obdurate attitude. There is room for more than one opinion about whether they would have accepted a settlement earlier on. Certainly they have not shown any willingness to conciliate. But that does not alter my point that 280.000 men are holding the country to ransom and that they do not lose anything by going back. The court of inquiry is not prejudiced if they do return to work and immense pain and suffering is being caused to the nation as a result of their refusal to take up the offer and await the result of the court of inquiry.

If the miners refuse to go back now, all reasonable people will wonder whether two questions do not arise. In the first 53 place it will be wondered whether the N.U.M. is not embarking on its own private war with the Government using the nation as a battleground. Secondly it will be wondered whether the union, its members and families care about the suffering and harm they are doing to the rest of the community. No one doubts that they have a case or that they are a special case, but this does not excuse them forcing the country into the position it is now in when they can go back and take the increase and when nothing is prejudiced in the court of inquiry.

§ Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

The hon. Gentleman has said that no one doubts that the miners have a case. How, then, does he account for the fact that his Government allowed the Coal Board to withdraw its niggardly offer?

§ Mr. Tugendhat

I said that no one doubts that the N.U.M. has a special case. The negotiations were at all times based on the assumption that the miners would receive a substantial increase; the argument was on "how substantial". It does not seem really relevant to the argument as to whether the miners have a special case to discuss the manner in which the head of the Coal Board and the head of the union negotiate. I am trying to talk about the broad case of the mineworkers in the community, not about the progress of the negotiations.

§ Mr. Brown

The Government did not accept that the miners had a case.

§ Mr. Tugendhat

Everyone accepts that they had a special case. If they had not, the argument would have been not about the size of the increase but about whether there should be an increase at all.

I turn now to the position of the Government. A great deal of laughter goes up on the Labour Benches when it is said from this side that the Government have achieved much success in their fight against inflation. The figures are irrefutable. In the two years before the end of last year prices were rising at an accelerating rate. They are certainly still rising too fast, but the rate of increase of inflation has dropped by nearly half. This is something which is in the interests of us all, something as much in the interests of the miners as anyone else.

54 I was much encouraged by the speech made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) during the coal debate last Tuesday when he said explicitly that he hoped—and he spoke for the Opposition although not for the union movement—

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Not for the Labour Party.

§ Mr. Tugendhat

There are, I know, some differences within the Labour Party. The right hon. Gentleman said that other unions would not take as a precedent any special treatment according to the N.U.M. Many of us would certainly agree with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) that one of the weaknesses in the system of wage bargaining—it has been with us under all Governments for many years—is that each cash settlement granted to one union is used as a precedent by the next union regardless of the circumstances in which the settlement was made.

This has had two serious disadvantages for the country. In the first place it has led to much more rapid inflation than would otherwise have been the case since each special case has not been regarded as such but rather has been regarded as a justification for already highly-paid unions to take more. The second disadvantage has been that it has led to social injustice. Instead of the special circumstances of individual low-paid groups of people doing unpleasant difficult and dangerous jobs being accorded the special treatment they deserve, they have received the same percentage increases as or frequently lower increases than other more favoured groups with the result that on the whole the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer. The car workers in the Midlands have managed to increase their wages by a much greater rate than the coalminers, while people who are not in trade unions at all—there are many millions—have been left behind.

If we are to break out of this spiral it is necessary to try to find some system of wage negotiation, bargaining and settlement which takes account of these social criteria as well as the economic criteria which have dominated the thinking of all Governments since the war. When the hon. Lady says it is not the duty of the trade union movement or of 55 the Opposition to do the Government's work she is right, but the right hon. Member for Cheetham put his finger on the point when he said that if the miners are to be regarded as a special case, if they are to receive the treatment they deserve—

§ Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East)

They do not want to be regarded as a special case.

§ Mr. Tugendhat

I think that they are a special case, and so does the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), and he said so in an eloquent speech last Tuesday. Most people think that. If they are to receive this sort of treatment it is essentially important that the trade union movement should recognise the special cases when they exist and should not take them as a precedent to govern wage negotiations as a whole.

There is one area in which I hope the miners will set a precedent. I hope they will set a precedent which will enable this Government now and in future to be able to support wage settlements, and to introduce settlements tailored to the special circumstances of special industries and not based on straightforward percentage terms across the board which can be applied with equal force to everyone every time. Our thinking has been dominated by economic criteria. This has been essential. We have faced catastrophic inflation which has done immense harm to everyone. But if we are to have a lasting system of economic stability in which wages do not outrun productivity it is vitally important that we should be able to introduce social as well as economic criteria into our system of wage bargaining. If this terrible dispute enables us to set the foundations of that it will also enable us to do something which has eluded all Governments since the war, and in that sense it will be a great step forward.

it is not the right way to begin if 280,000 men hold the country to ransom—when they can go back and lose nothing—and millions of people all over the country lose an immense amount. This is the essential feature, and it is on this point that the miners can really help the nation to get off to a new start.

§ Mr. John E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

My hon. Friend mentions the figure of 56 280,000 men. If as we are told 41 per cent. were against the strike, it reduces the figure to 168,000, which is no more than three large football match attendances. That is the measure of those who are holding the nation to ransom.

§ Mr. Tugendhat

I do not want to go into precise numbers. The principle that small groups of people should not misuse their power was what I was getting at.

§ Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

That is what the City has been doing—

§ Mr. Tugendhat

I was giving way to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart).

§ Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)

I have been trying to get in for a long time. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the language he has been using during his speech has been very inflamatory? Would he not further agree that talking about holding the country to ransom will not help anyone and will certainly not encourage the miners to go back to work? It seems that the hon. Gentleman has been arguing for an incomes policy, which is denied by the Prime Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman in dispute with his right hon. Friend? All the way this Government have been arguing for competition and for people to charge what the market will bear. The market will at present bear a very heavy price for coal, and the miners are, therefore, in an extremely strong position. The hon. Gentleman is advocating that they should leave that position—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Order. The hon. Gentleman rose to make an intervention but is making a speech.

§ Mr. Tugendhat

I was thinking that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was almost as long as my speech.

That the miners are in a very strong position nobody doubts. The question is whether anybody has the right to abuse his position, especially when it is a strong one. My speech has not been meant to be inflamatory, and it has been far from inflamatory—[Interruption.]

I have conceded that the miners have a special case and should receive special consideration. We also need a system of settling wages and bargaining in such a 57 way that it takes account of the various criteria to which I have referred. At this moment, while it seems that no hon. Gentleman opposite is anxious to intervene in my speech, I take the opportunity of silence and sit down.

§ Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

The immediate occasion of this debate is the question whether it is right, as the Government think, to introduce a state of emergency.

In trying to justify that to us, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary laid great stress on what he regarded as the unexpected success of picketing. I remember well—any member of the public who has followed the matter will remember—that before the dispute began the leaders of the trade union movement made it clear that, whatever they might or might not be able to do to help the miners, they would certainly advise their members not to cross the picket lines.

Anyone who can understand plain English should have realised from that two things. The first was that there would soon be created a considerable power crisis. The second was that there was the most massive sympathy and support for the miners among the general body of working people.

§ Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that for that reason the House should tonight not grant the powers for which the Government are asking? Does he intend to support his hon. Friends in voting against these powers being given to the Government?

§ Mr. Stewart

I thought that that trick question would be asked and that hon. Gentlemen opposite would ask whether we approved of a state of emergency being introduced. My reply is the same as that given in a slightly different context by the present Lord Chancellor, who said, in effect, "If a man throws himself off a cliff and bounces from one crag to another, it is idle to ask whether one approves or disapproves of his bouncing. He should not have thrown himself off in the first place." Hon. Gentlemen opposite must get this straight in their heads.

It is interesting to note the passionate desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to pro 58 nounce on this topic during speeches made by my hon. Friends. Some of my hon. Friends have gone down and stood with the picket lines. In view of the flood of eloquence from the benches opposite, I am expecting hon. Gentlemen opposite—accompanied by the massive numbers of members of the general public whom they always say are on their side—shortly to go down and orate to the pickets, showing them what splendid things the Conservatives have done for the miners and demonstrating the wrongs of holding the nation to ransom, as hon. Gentlemen opposite put it. I can see the picket lines melting away in shame under the oratory of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

The real question we are debating is the profound and general one of what principles should govern the sharing in this country of the wealth that is produced by the joint effort of all who work by hand or brain. It is the argument about that that has produced this situation.

My belief has always been that any Government, whether or not they like it, will end up by having an incomes policy. There is in one of Moliere's plays a character who is astounded to learn that he has been talking prose all his life. The Government must in the end have an incomes policy—again, I mean any Government—just as we must talk prose and a Government who begin by saying that they will not have an incomes policy end up by having an unjust and bad one. That is what is happening to this Government, for three principles have governed their approach to the matter.

The first principle is their belief that in the main one should have a policy which will chiefly help those who are already well off. That, as was demonstrated in a brilliant article in The Times not long ago by one of my hon. Friends and in other sources, has been the main effect of the Government's policy over tax relief. Their aim has been to give substantial help to those who are already well off.

It is true that this has been decked out with a few showy pieces of selective social services support. I do not know how many hon. Gentlemen opposite and members of the Government read the Labour Weekly. I commend it to them, even if they must read it by candlelight.

59 The latest issue points out that owing to the operation of rent rebates, family income supplement, this that and the other, if the miners were to accept here and now all that is available to them a considerable number of them who are the least well paid would be worse off.

§ Mr. Fred Evans

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the N.U.M. in the South Wales area has estimated that 80,000 miners could, if their pride did not prevent them from doing so, qualify for family income supplement?

§ Mr. Stewart

That does not surprise me, and it illustrates that this Government's policy, despite their attempt to deck it out with income supplements and the rest, in the main has been a policy to increase the inequality of the distribution of wealth.

The justification from their point of view is that it enables the people in charge to make higher profits, and that this is the great incentive. They claim that because of the greater incentive all will work harder and we shall all be better off. This is the doctrine which, off and on, the Tory Party and employers have preached for the last 100 years, and it has never worked because the attempt to make it work has created justified resentment among poorer sections of the community.

The second principle of the Government's incomes policy has been to discriminate against public servants because they have not been able to bash other groups of workers. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ask whether any of my hon. Friends are prepared to tell the miners to go back to work now. What they are really asking is whether we are prepared to underwrite and approve an incomes policy of this kind, and the answer is "No. Most certainly not." Neither is the public at large prepared to accept it, as public reaction has recently demonstrated.

Much of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite has been a last-minute attempt to try to shunt public opinion against the miners. That is the point of phrases like "Holding the nation to ransom" and "The battle against inflation".

What are the figures in this battle against inflation? Roughly speaking, in 60 the first 12 months after the Tories came to power they managed to produce a rate of rise in prices about twice that which occurred in the previous 12 months under Labour. I admit that since then the rise has not been as much as twice as great, but to call it a victory in the battle against inflation is the kind of military calculation that could only have occurred to Lord Raglan, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) referred.

I believe that the British command in the Crimean War was partly hampered by the fact that the commander-in-chief forgot that he was fighting the Crimean War against the Russians and thought he was engaged in a war against the French, who were, in fact, his allies. That is the trouble with some of the more innocent hon. Gentlemen opposite, who really believe that they are engaged in a battle against inflation when, bluntly, they are engaged in a battle against those of their fellow citizens who are not so well off and particularly against those who happen to be employed in the public service.

The third principle of the Government's incomes policy, if we can call it an incomes policy, is that of "Stand on your own feet", even if it involves, as it so often does, standing on a great many people's corns as well; or, putting it bluntly, it is the principle of "To each what he can grab". The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) talked of the miners waging a private war against the nation. For the reasons I have given, I believe that charge to be wholly unjustified—

§ Mr. Tugendhat

I did not say that the miners were doing that but that if they failed to go back this question would arise, because they could go back without loss to themselves.

§ Mr. Stewart

That is to say that the hon. Member does not think it right to use that piece of abuse yet. It will be turned on perhaps next week if it is considered necessary.

But even if the charge were true, even if the miners were waging a private war against the nation, on the basis of Conservative philosophy why should they not do so when business men say. "Unless our taxes are reduced, unless our profits are increased, we cannot be expected to 61 undertake the organising of the nation's exports"? One could just as well call that holding the nation to ransom or waging in a war against the nation.

The trouble is that Conservative hon. Members and many publicists have never tried to hold the scales even between people who earn their living, getting wages and salaries, and people—generally better-off people—who get their incomes from interest and profit. It is always generally assumed that if there is a dispute between those two groups and the nation is suffering it is especially up to the employee to put the nation's interests before his own pocket rather than that at least the same obligation rests on the employer—who, by the way, in this case is the nation at large, and it is very far from clear that the nation at large is demanding that the miners should immediately go back to work. A good many people are first awaiting the Wilberforce report, and privately thinking that Lord Wilberforce should have been appointed a good deal earlier, and that if the whole thing had not been mishandled we should not be in this present situation at all.

Yet people who get wages and salaries, particularly in the more laborious occupations, do understand. It was spelt out for us 50 years ago—in 1921, when there was a great mining dispute. Apropos that dispute, there was written a book which immediately dealt with the rights and wrongs of the dispute but contained also a profound study of the nature of the kind of society in which we live. I refer to Professor R. H. Tawney's "The Acquisitive Society", which from that day to this goes on selling and which it would be well worth the while of anybody to read. Professor Tawney spells out that if we live in a society where we are constantly reminded of private enterprise and told "Stand on your own feet" and "Look after for yourself", the Nemesis of such a society is that we gradually rot away all the ordinary loyalties towards one another that one hopes human beings would have and which tend to unite society.

It is that element which is lacking. We now face what Tawney called the Nemesis of the acquisitive society, and nothing less than a really radical change in heart and philosophy will get us out of the situation. Whatever the result 62 of this present dispute, the problem will recur for one group of workers after another as long as our society is based on the uncivilised philosophy with which we now try to make it work.

In practical terms, I believe that the Government ought to have, if not necessarily for publication, a private guide line in their own mind something like the following. They should say that for the present there is to be an upper income level, and that no one above that level can expect public policy to be arranged in a manner which will put anything more into his pocket until some of the worst injustices have been remedied and until there is a more equal distribution of wealth among those who carry the heavy end of the stick in society.

Much has been spoken of the nature of a miner's work. It is not only the miner who has to do dangerous and difficult work, but I believe that one element in an incomes policy is that the people who write about it are too often inclined to forget the nature of the work. The reason is that writing for the newspapers and the weekend magazines is an intellectual and not a manual occupation, and an intellectual occupation involves hard work. I trust that all of us here can say that we work hard, but we do not have the kind of work which means that every day one runs the risk of anything from a broken finger to a broken back.

A large number of our fellow countrymen do that kind of work. We do not return from work, nor do the editors of newspapers and those who draw cartoons unfriendly to miners do the kind of work, that leaves a man at the end of the day dirty right through the skin, bruised, scratched and physically exhausted in a way that many kinds of work do not exhaust a man. If we are to have the kind of society in which we can appeal to human beings: "Don't wage war on the nation. Think of the public interest", this is the kind of thing we must think of more than we have ever thought before.

It is because there is not the slightest hope of getting such a change of heart or thought out of the Government that all of us on this side will vote against them with great enthusiasm tonight.

§ Mr. Cecil Parkinson (Enfield, West)

I have listened with great interest to the 63 remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart). The nation had the chance at the General Election in 1970 to have its say about the sort of society it wanted, and it is true to say that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends had their chance over a period of six years. They tried a statutory incomes policy and many other manoeuvres. Many of us on this side and many people in the country believe that a great many of our problems stem from the fact that people when in office with those half-baked ideas gambled with and wasted the nation's time and energy.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) talked in terms, very common among Labour supporters now, of the Coal Board's niggardly offer. Even after the largest ever cash increase in pensions last September, the offer made by the Coal Board was still 50 per cent. of the pension, and the increase being demanded by the National Union of Mineworkers is more than the old age pension. If the hon. Member describes those figures as niggardly, I can only suggest that instead of organising rallies for old pensioners to complain about inflation he does his bit by telling the National Union of Mineworkers that it is demandi