REDUNDANT MINEWORKERS
(PAYMENTS SCHEME)
12.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson)
I beg to move,
That the Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.
This Order establishes the scheme envisaged under Section 3 of the Coal Industry Act, 1967 for making payments out of public funds to mineworkers aged 55 or over made redundant between 17th July, 1967 and 28th March, 1971. It is, therefore, an important Order affecting, as it will, the interests of a large number of mineworkers. This is not the occasion for me to elaborate on the problems of the coal industry. The Government are fully alive to these, and it is an earnest of the Government's concern to alleviate the social consequences of the contraction in the industry that we have devised this scheme.
I must add, however, that the present energetic measures of the Board and of the unions are producing good results in productivity, and new marketing initiatives have given good grounds for confidence that in time we shall see a highly productive and economic industry concentrated in low-cost pits.
But despite Government measures to encourage the demand for coal, a future smaller market and increased productivity mean that manpower in the coal industry will continue to decline over the next few years. The 1967 Act deals, in particular, with the period to March, 1971, and it is with redundancies occurring in this period that the Order is concerned.
The rate of decline is dependent on a number of factors, some of which are not easy to determine: for example, productivity, the number of recruits coming forward, the number of men willing to transfer within the industry, and the rate of natural wastage to other employment.
It is easier to forecast for the shorter term, and this year the National Coal Board expects the rundown in manpower in the industry to be at the same rate as it was last year, when it was about 43,000. The Board has made successful efforts to redeploy men to the maximum [column 625]extent possible within the industry, but with a rundown of this size we are inevitably faced with some redundancy.
Most of the men likely to become redundant to March, 1971, will be 55 years of age or over. When the 1967 Measure was before Parliament, we thought that about 26,000 men in this age bracket, eligible for the scheme, might become redundant by that date, and that the cost to the Exchequer of the scheme now proposed would be about £28 million. I have already mentioned the difficulties in estimating so very far ahead the figures of rundown and redundancy, but it now seems likely that the figure of 26,000 may be too low and that on present information, a figure of about 33,000 should be substituted. The estimated figure of £28 million—
Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)
Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, when dealing with this approach, that the majority of the men who would be falling for redundancy would be of the age of 55 and over? I should like to be clear on that point.
Mr. Freeson
That is what I said. It is not possible to give accurate figures, but that is the figure that has been expected during our discussions and debates here and elsewhere. I certainly confirm that that is what is expected.
As I was saying, we believe that a figure of 33,000 would be a more accurate substitution of the figure of 26,000 previously quoted and that, in the light of that increase, the estimate of £28 million may also increase. But the revised estimates depend, among other things, on the number of redundant mine workers successful in finding other employment. This figure, therefore, for the time being at any rate, still gives a good idea of the order of the cost of the scheme, and we are letting it stand. It is important to distinguish between what one might describe as permanent or semi-permanent redundancy and redundancy from the industry. There will be a period in which there may be movement before we can be more certain of the projected figure for the future than we are at present.
On the figure of £28 million, I should say two things. First, it is not a figure laid down in the 1967 Act itself as a limiting figure. Secondly, it is important [column 626]to remember that it is a gross figure. During the period of benefit under the Scheme, particularly when entitlement to an employment benefit is exhausted, the unemployed beneficiary, but for the scheme, would usually be entitled to supplementary allowance from the Ministry of Social Security. Thus, if we take account of that, we get a net figure, because of the scheme, of between £11 million and £12 million, as distinct from the gross £28 million.
I turn now to the main method of the scheme. In the very broadest terms, it is to assess the redundant mine worker's pre-redundancy earnings in the industry, to deduce from this a figure of take-home pay, and then to calculate a post-redundancy level of income at about 90 per cent. of his take-home pay. The benefit is then fixed at a level which, when added to flat-rate unemployment benefit at the rate for a married man, approximates to this target of 90 per cent. The table making up Appendix 4 to the Order is, in fact, a scale of these additional amounts. The benefit is payable for three years or until age 65, whichever is the sooner. If there are other State or industrial benefits which come into existence or are increased on redundancy, they are deducted from the scheme benefit.
The effect of all this is that the income of a redundant mineworker, who continues to be unemployed, will be maintained for up to three years at a level related to his previous earnings in the industry, but the constituent parts of this income will vary from time to time during the period of benefit as his entitlement to existing State benefits varies.
The scheme benefit is taxable. In assessing the target level of post-redundancy income to which I have just referred in round terms as 90 per cent., we have, in fact, fixed the figure rather above that level. This has been done deliberately so that, after allowing for tax on the scheme benefit, the income actually enjoyed by the beneficiary will be in the area, in the great majority of cases, of around 90 per cent. of previous take-home pay. Tax is not, of course, assessed on the State benefits, which at times are an important part of redundancy income.
The classes of eligible persons the scheme prescribes are industrial grades in [column 627]the coal industry, including under-officials, but not clerical grades, whether employed by the Board or by small mines licensees—I am sorry to be so complicated—working mines licensed under Section 36(2)(a) of the nationalisation Act, or employed as workmen's employees.
Employment at the time of redundancy will, in most cases, be at coal mines themselves, but the Order, in Appendix 1, prescribes classes of places used for providing services or facilities ancillary to the working of coal mines where redundancy, because of mines closing or a reduction in the number of persons employed there, will also make employees eligible under the scheme.
As to length of service, the scheme requires that a man shall have had 10 years' service in total, the last two of which must have been continuous. Thus, most people eligible for scheme benefit will also be eligible for a lump sum under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965. But we have felt it necessary to admit to the scheme, in addition, first, those persons who transferred from one coal industry employer to another in the final two years of service before redundancy and, secondly, those who become redundant twice in quick succession in circumstances where the second redundancy does not entitle them to a lump sum under the Redundancy Payments Act. There will be only a few of these cases, but we felt it fair to provide for them.
In the Minister's general statement last July it was contemplated that redundant mine workers who benefited under the scheme would be entitled to pension at the end of the period of benefit whether or not they had then reached age 65. On considering closely the existing practices in the industry, it has been decided that those mineworkers aged 60 to 65 who already expected a pension of £1 per week under the mineworkers' pension scheme on redundancy may also be paid their pension immediately on redundancy and may also benefit under the scheme. But the weekly scheme benefit is offset by the weekly amount of mineworkers' pension.
In the case of superannuable grades, we have approached the matter rather differently. If the mineworker who is in the superannuation scheme accepts his [column 628]lump sum and monthly pension forthwith on retirement, the Order provides that he shall not be entitled to payments under the scheme. On the other hand, if he defers receipt of superannuation benefits, he will be entitled to payment of scheme benefits.
Special arrangements are made in the Order for superannuable grades who became redundant since 17th July last, but before the Order comes into force. These men could not have been expected to know the alternatives which I have just described. We have, therefore, provided that the superannuation lump sum already paid may be kept, but the superannuation running sums are recoverable against payments under the scheme.
Also, there is an offset in these cases against weekly scheme benefit, to allow for the advantage of retaining the superannuation lump sum. But for this the person in a superannuable grade redundant before the regulations come into force would be preferentially placed as compared with later redundants who will have to defer receipt of lump sum if they are to qualify for scheme payments.
There is one further consideration which arises largely in connection with persons already made redundant before scheme benefits are payable under the Order. Until a redundant mineworker's entitlement has been established and payments start he may be eligible to claim and receive supplementary allowance from the Ministry of Social Security. So when arrears of scheme benefit are paid there will be an adjustment for supplementary allowance which would not have been paid if scheme payments had been made weekly as they became due.
This will adjust the initial amount payable in arrears cases, although it will apply in other cases where receipt or establishment of a claim and the first payment is delayed, and where thus the mineworker is paid supplementary allowance. This will be in cases where there may be some discussion and possibly an element of dispute on claims made which will take a little time to resolve.
We are also introducing a rather special benefit for occupiers of coal industry houses in addition to the benefit I have just described. In certain cases, when a mineworker ceases to be employed, there may be an increase in the charge for a coal industry house. Sometimes this is in [column 629]the form of rent, sometimes a payment under licence. This was the subject of an Adjournment debate on 30th May last, when in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), I said that this matter was being looked at, among other things, in preparing the scheme. It only remains for me to mention a few further points. Payment of benefit under the scheme generally speaking, ceases where there is no entitlement to unemployment or sickness benefit.
There is, however, one important exception to this principle. If a redundant mineworker gets work outside the coal industry or becomes self-employed, he will be entitled to receive the basic benefit described in Article 5 subject to a ceiling figure of 60s. per week. We feel that this is an encouragement to the mineworker to seek re-employment and that to discontinue all benefit under the scheme would be wrong.
In the event of loss of the new employment the redundant person will revert to full scheme benefit. I know that my right hon. Friend's predecessor was approached on a number of occasions on this point. I can give the assurance that taking a temporary job will not permanently remove a person from the scheme.
On the other hand, if a redundant mineworker re-enters the coal industry, benefit ceases. The Order, however, provides that if a re-entrant again has to leave the coal industry he will resume scheme benefit without the weeks of re-entry being counted against weeks of entitlement to benefit. Thus he would receive the balance of three years of benefit, subject to his reaching age 65 and to the limiting date of March, 1974, for scheme payments.
Mineworkers will need to claim for benefit under the scheme within 26 weeks of the date of the Order coming into force or of the date of his redundancy, whichever is the later. In cases where my right hon. Friend is satisfied there is reasonable ground for extending this period, he is empowered to do so.
We are grateful for the agreement of the National Coal Board to undertake the big task of administering the scheme. I know that a tremendous amount of preparatory work has been done. Both the Board—in a “pop” version centre spread in the June issue of Coal News [column 630]—and the union have prepared helpful simple question and answer guides on the scheme.
As I have explained, the amount of benefit payable under the scheme is related very closely to certain other State benefits. The necessary liaison between the Board and the welfare Departments has been established, so that due and proper payments can be made in a manner satisfying all the demands of good accountability.
In achieving the apparently simple objective of supplementing the pay of elderly redundant mineworkers we have encountered many technical problems. If hon. Members find my speech undoubtedly detailed, they will appreciate that the scheme itself is necessarily complicated, but it is not for me on this occasion to go into too great detail. This will be a matter for the operation of the scheme when it is actually implemented. But for the many technical problems I feel sure my right hon. Friend would have been able to lay the Order rather sooner than today. We have had close discussions with the National Coal Board and, in accordance with the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, with the mining unions.
I believe that the scheme before the House is a good one. It is an example of how to reshape an industry and the economy in a civilised way. For these reasons, I ask the House to approve the Order.
Mr. Will Owen (Morpeth)
In recognition of the complexity of the scheme which my hon. Friend has outlined, what provision is made for an appeal committee or machinery to be set up to deal with the difficulties that undoubtedly will arise?
Mr. Freeson
There have been consultations between the Department and the National Union of Mineworkers. What is in mind, and the N.U.M. has agreed, is to create informal machinery such as is already operated where there are accidents at work requiring compensation payments to meet this kind of issue.
We are also in touch with the Department of Employment and Productivity to see if there is a possibility that industrial tribunal personnel might also serve [column 631]this purpose in an extra statutory capacity. The latter point has not been resolved yet, but we have resolved the principle and the N.U.M. has agreed that such machinery should be established.
1.30 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East)
In 1947, on the nationalisation of the coal mines, 850,000 of those of us who worked in the mining industry clapped our hands, sang our mining songs at the headstocks, and pulled the flag to the top of the newly mounted flagpole and thought that we were approaching Utopia.
On 14th June, 1968 we are debating not the miners' charter which we in the mining industry were promised in those days, when there was talk of holidays with pay, good sickness benefits, better compensation, better housing, better conditions and shorter hours, but a charter of unemployment for the mining industry. It is a tragedy that the Labour Government, of which I have been a proud member for some years, should introduce a charter for unemployment in the mining industry, which has stood by the Labour Party through thick and thin for the last 60 years.
I should like to make certain criticisms about the delay in introducing this Order. Since the statement was made on 18th July, last year, 322 days have elapsed and many mineworkers have been made redundant. Unfortunately, many of those made redundant are no longer with us—they have died in the meantime. Not all the delay has been the fault of the National Union of Mineworkers. The first draft of the Order must have been terrible if it has taken such a long time and so many detailed discussions for amendments to be made. Those who advised my right hon. Friend should have come into the Tea Room and discussed it with us and we could have given them some advice on how to proceed.
We welcome the general body of the Order, because, for the first time, some compensation for the loss of a job in the mining industry will be paid. The industry has had its ups and downs in this century, its manpower declining from 1,250,000 in 1913 to 340,000 now, a steep drop in a short time. [column 632]
My hon. Friend made great play with the suggestion that the majority of the men made redundant would be over 55 years of age. These regulations will benefit only those between the ages of 55 and 65. Can my hon. Friend say how many men younger than 55 will be declared redundant in the three years up to the expiry of the Order? It would be interesting to know what the Government intend to do for those who are under 55 and who have already been declared redundant in mining areas where there is no alternative source of employment, particularly the grey areas which do not have development area status.
My hon. Friend gave an estimate of the number of men to be declared redundant and the number of men who will be leaving the industry. If he studies the age grouping of the industry, he will find that far more men are voluntarily leaving the industry between the ages of 35 and 45 than 55 and over. We are in danger of losing many men when the Minister's statement is broadcast on the wireless and appears in the newspapers tomorrow. We shall have an exodus from the industry which we can ill afford, and as a result the industry and the country will suffer.
In the discussions with my union about this matter, the issue of the overall take home pay, both in cash and in kind, was raised. In Committee on the Coal Industry Act, 1967, I discussed the takehome pay in kind. One of the main sources of this pay for the miner is concessionary coal. Under the 1965 Act, certain schemes allowed redundant men over 60 years of age to have concessionary coal, but the Order contains nothing about men now covered by existing agreements. It is the Government's responsibility to extend existing schemes so as to include men compulsorily retired at 65 in the concessionary coal scheme.
I have a mass of figures, but I shall quote only one, which is very relevant. In Derbyshire, the area about which I know most, the county coal agreement gave mine workers 10 tons 15 cwt. of concessionary coal per annum. At the average price of £10 a ton, that represents £100 a year.
Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)
Tax-free.
[column 633]Mr. Swain
Multiplied by three years, this means that men declared redundant at the age of 55 will lose £300 in takehome pay in kind. This is a terrible blow to the mining industry. Every industry in the country has some sort of perquisite. Even redundant chairmen of companies have certain “perks” of which they are very proud and of which they boast. I can remember the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) boasting about claiming all his Parliamentary salary as expenses. Members were then getting £1,750 per annum and he claimed every penny of it as expenses, while I was living on it.
Sir G. Nabarro
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
Order. I do not object to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) replying to that, but I hope that hon. Members will not go beyond the limits of the Order.
Sir G. Nabarro
I would not dream of being ruled out of order. Miners' concessionary coal is and always has been tax-free, and rightly so. I do not quarrel with it. I interjected “taxfree” only because the 10 tons 15 cwt. per annum in Derbyshire at £10 a ton would represent £107 10s. tax-free, and for a man paying the full standard rate of tax, that is equivalent to approximately £170 per annum of earned income. I say that only to aid the hon. Gentleman, not to criticise him.
Mr. Swain
I am grateful to the hon. Member. Of course, 33 per cent. of the miners in the industry are lower-paid workers and 25 per cent. pay no tax, so that the figure comes down to only £107 10s.
I ask the Minister further to consider concessionary coal, because if a man's wages are being reduced by £170, as the hon. Member suggested, then the assessment is incorrect and unfair.
Miners in most of the counties are making a generous contribution from their tax-free concessionary coal to oldage pensioners' pools. In some cases, they are making a 25 per cent. voluntary grant out of each ton of concessionary coal to a pool for retired miners. Every county which is doing that, however, has now reached the end of what it can do [column 634]in making any more contributions, so the Government must accept responsibility and provide the finance so that men over 55 may have their coal.
I take up only one more point as I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. Many men have positions as union officials and as members of local authorities. A man who is an official in his local lodge at one of the larger pits has a big job to do. Moreover, being a union official, he is likely to be interested in local politics and be a member of his council. As a consequence, he has to attend council meetings on, perhaps, two days a week, and, in addition, he may be away on trade union work for a couple of days a week. In the result, he may work on only one day a week.
If a man works on one day a week, that will be assessed in calculating his take-home pay for the week and arriving at the nine-tenths. After representations made to him by the union, the Minister has refused to look again at the question of local authority members. Between 1947 and 1951, the Labour Government and the National Coal Board did everything possible to encourage younger men coming up in the trade union movement to become members of local authorities, and I am glad to say that we had a fair amount of success in that. Again, therefore, I urge the Minister to consider the question of people who have to lose work because of their local authority responsibilities and trade union activities.
In giving a general welcome to the Order, with those few reservations and criticisms, I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider the points which my hon. Friends and I raise today, and to see whether something can be done, perhaps by the introduction of a supplementary regulation.
1.33 p.m.
Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)
My first question is about housing. As I understand the Order, it is clear that a tenant or licensee may be allowed to remain for a time in a house, or a payment may be made in lieu. I wish to know whether the arrangement under the Order is the equivalent of present procedure within the National Coal Board. I have had a question put to me on this matter. It is [column 635]suggested that these are more favourable terms than those normally offered to anyone living in a Coal Board house. I do not know the answer, and I should like to know.
It has been argued in the House and elsewhere that this scheme is necessary because of the major run-down in the industry at present. In fact, there has been a massive relocation of men in coalmining over a long period. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) spoke about that. Here are some figures. From 1959 to 1962, the run-down in the number of miners was 144,000. During the last four years, according to the 1966–67 accounts, it was only 122,000.
Mr. Swain
rose——
Mr. Emery
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish on this point, it may not be necessary for him to intervene.
This year, the run-down has risen to nearly—we are not absolutely certain of the figure—the same level as in 1960. I estimate that it is likely to be 50,000 or 52,000, which with the years 1965–67 will be within 1,000 of the run-down in the four-year period 1959–62.
I am not trying to make an unfair point. I wish merely to make clear that as high a run-down has been seen before, and previously it occurred without a redundancy payments scheme, without its cost of many millions of pounds. It is important that this be known, because the wrong interpretation is often given of the necessity for the present scheme.
Next, the question of miners who refuse to move. Earlier this week, miners were on strike about their redundancy payments in West Wales. I am informed that the men at the Cefn Coed pit, which was closing down, on a care and maintenance basis or at the clearing-out stage, had been offered other work at Abernant, a little way away from their present homes. They were on strike because they did not want to move out of their valley.
It is natural and understandable that people do not want to move out of their own locality, but all parties have always emphasised the great need for the mobility of labour. I have in mind such a case [column 636]as the one to which I have referred, where people are asked to move not out of their county but within a fairly small area.
I hope that the Minister will make clear that, while one is sympathetic, it would be wrong for payments under this Order to be made when people refuse to take up alternative employment on their doorstep or next door. If that is not made clear, there may well be great unfairness to other miners throughout the country. If the matter is not made clear to the industry and people do not understand that, although one sympathises, the regulations must be applied, we shall have more trouble later on. Indeed, we shall be encouraging trouble.
Now, the question of payments under the Redundancy Payments Act and under the present scheme. The president of the Nottinghamshire branch of the miners' union has made a statement suggesting that men were obtaining £500 in redundancy payments, taking up another Coal Board job starting from scratch, and then being eligible for yet another redundancy payment after being in employment for 104 weeks. Is this so? If it is allowed, it is a strange and unrealised fact. Society is rightly attempting to provide benefits under the Redundancy Payments Act and under this scheme——
Mr. Freeson
I am advised that that Press story has been withdrawn by the newspaper in question.
Mr. Emery
Then the statement made by the president has since proved to be not correct?
Mr. Freeson
indicated assent.
Mr. Emery
I am delighted, because such stories set people thinking and can lead to wrong impressions about the intentions of schemes such as this.
Lastly, I have been approached by people who claim that they were employed by a firm which, although not directly connected with the N.C.B., was totally employed on contract work for the N.C.B. With the closing of a pit, the firm has had to shut down. These people, one of whom had worked for about 20 years on this aspect of transportation, considered themselves to be amalgamated with the coal industry. I realise that [column 637]under the scheme these people would not qualify. Very few people would fall into this category.
If there were provision for appeal, in exceptional circumstances like this, where somebody's whole livelihood had been absolutely tied up, not consequentially in the village, but sub-contracting for the Coal Board, the employee—not the entrepreneur—might be able to receive some benefit. An answer on this point would be helpful so that the few people who might wish to attempt to appeal would know exactly where they stood. On the whole, we on this side welcome the Order.
1.43 p.m.
Mr. Edward Milne (Blyth)
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) put his finger on the pulse of some of the problems with which we are confronted when he related the figures for mine closures and redundancies for the late 1950s and early 1960s. Had we been presented with such a scheme at that period, many of the difficulties now being faced by mining communities would, to a considerable extent, have been mitigated.
We must welcome the Order on the basis that, although it does a tremendous job in cushioning the impact of redundancies and closures, in itself it is not an entire solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Will Owen) asked the Parliamentary Secretary about the question of some machinery in the areas to deal with the questions and problems which will undoubtedly arise on this exceptionally complicated Measure. The reply that there was some informal machinery to deal with this does not go far enough. In the coalfields, joint committees should be set up to iron out the difficulties which will undoubtedly arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), in his admirable lead-in, dealt with the question of concessionary coal. Although this is a linked issue to the general problem of redundancy payments, it will, nevertheless, be a matter of tremendous concern in the mining areas. I hope that we shall receive some clarification on this issue.
It is difficult to deal briefly with the provisions of the Order. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary cleared up some points. This must be the first time that social security benefits have been linked with the question of redundancies. This is some reflection on the payments which will be made.
I want to deal with the questions of alternative employment and of the right to work. These are the hinge points of the Order. As I said, the Order is designed merely as a cushion to deal with a difficult situation. In itself, it is not a solution. We are still endeavouring to introduce new industries in the development districts to deal with past redundancies. We do not want to be overburdened in the future with an increasing amount of redundancies and closures which will mitigate the effects of the tremendous work now being done in these areas to attract new industries and to create new jobs.
There is an impression in mining areas—there certainly is in the Northumberland coalfield—that too many officials at top level in the Coal Board are becoming closure-happy as a result of the scheme. Too often we have been given figures which have been too optimistic about the effects of the Order and of closures.
I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to deal more specifically with the question of the benefits under the scheme and with the question of temporary work. What is the position of the person who is declared redundant, who is engaged on temporary work elsewhere, and who returns to the coalfield? We shall increasingly have many complications of this type.
I know that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and, bearing in mind that the time limit is severely restrictive and that it is taking place on a Friday, which is unsual for an important Order of this kind, I conclude my remarks by welcoming the scheme, again reiterating my plea for some sort of area machinery which can look at its operation in the early stages to ensure that it achieves the success that it deserves.
1.50 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)
I wish to make only a brief intervention, because I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
As the House will be aware, in my part of the country we have the Kent coalfield, and, although I make no special plea for a small area, I would remind hon. Members that we are considering a social problem involved in the massive [column 639]economic problem which we face in the run-down of the coal industry.
I welcome the Order because its terms recognise the social problem facing us, and they are terms which, in the main, are generous. However, there are some aspects of it which should concern us, and the principal one is that there is no provision for men under 55. In the Kent coalfield, there has been a good deal of recruitment in recent years with considerable advertising for miners.
Only last Wednesday, I was down one of the pits in the coalfield, and I spent some time discussing geological problems which they have encountered, and talking to the miners. Most of them were well under 55. Many were young men in their mid-twenties. It may be that there is no problem for a fit man of that age who is declared redundant in getting another job in an industrial area, but I would remind hon. Members that the Kent coalfield is not so situated. It is a long way from any concentration of industry, and 5,000 men are involved.
I do not suggest that the coalfield is in danger of jeopardy. Indeed, only this week one pit has had a jeopardy notice taken off it by the National Coal Board, and I was delighted to be in the coalfield when the news came through.
Mr. Swain
Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the official reason for the pit being taken off the jeopardy list?
Mr. Crouch
The reason is simple. When the jeopardy notice for three months was put on, it was a case of all hands to the wheel. Productivity went up nearly three times, thus making viable the winning of coal from that pit. I am sure that the House would wish to pay tribute to the efforts of those involved.
However, there are occasions when all hands to the wheel will not necessarily put the situation right. In the pit which I visited last week they face a geological problem which only engineering and mining skills can put right, as well as all hands to the wheel. I saw for myself how skill, hard work and sweat can overcome the problem in the Chislet Colliery. I believe that they will achieve success there. If they do not, either this year or in five years' time, and if the economics are not right, I am worried [column 640]about the situation which may face men who are well under 55 and who are made redundant in an area of the country where there is no other industrial employment available.
The mobility of labour is a philosophy to which I would subscribe, but we are discussing today a social problem within a massive economic one. In what is already a generous Order, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear that fact in mind and make it even more generous. If it is made slightly more flexible, he will be able to take into account the special considerations which may arise in such areas where redundancy may mean a man being unemployed for a long period.
This week, I have talked with miners whose morale is low because they are fearful of the future. No amount of hard work that they put in can put that right. I have high hopes that they will overcome the problem which they face, but I would like to think that their fears could be removed from their minds not only by the skill of their Board, their engineers and their own abilities to put the problem right but also by this Order having a degree of flexibility to allow for some payment to men under 55 who may be made redundant.
So often today in matters concerning pensions and payments of all sorts under social security plans, we tend to have the book thrown at us and to be told that a certain category of person cannot have extra benefit because to do so would offend the letter of the law. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, in a case where we are facing a serious and heavy social problem, some flexibility would help to encourage a recovery of the morale amongst men who are looking to the future.
1.56 p.m.
Mr. Clifford Williams (Abertillery)
Although there have been criticisms of minor parts of the Order, I note that hon. Members on both sides have given a general welcome to it. I wish to add my own welcome and, at the same time, congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order. It goes a long way in its humane and not ungenerous financial arrangements to ease the burden of mineworkers who become eligible and, as my [column 641]hon. Friend has said, the field of eligibility is wide.
Men at the pits and at a wide variety of prescribed places which number 22 and range from ambulance stations to training centres, waterworks, workshop stores and plant depôts will all be eligible. The scheme identifies the eligible person and brings in the small licensed mine employee. It assesses for all concerned pre-redundancy pay and fixes a target for post-redundancy income at about 90 per cent. of the take-home pay. I know that this has all been said already by my hon. Friend, but I think that it is worth repeating.
In traditional coal mining areas where pits have closed or will be closed and where, despite their great efforts, the Government have not yet provided alternative employment which in my experience is what mineworkers want, not only will the scheme give financial help, but in its application may remove some of the rancour and bitterness which men feel after years of service in a great industry and then become redundant.
After long service in the industry, like thousands more, I remember the savage treatment that we received when private owners not only closed collieries but complete areas and even organised some pits to work a few days a week to deprive men of their unemployment money. I shall never forget those days, and, today, when we compare the benefits of this order to men made redundant with what happened in days gone by, the House must applaud the realistic protection and humane consideration that it offers to mineworkers who are now or will become redundant in the near future.
I am glad to note that the promises made by the former Minister to N.A.C.O.D.S. and to the N.U.M., that there would be full consultation on the drafting of the scheme, has been carried out. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has followed the same procedure and has accepted some of the suggestion made by these important organisations who now declare themselves to be fairly satisfied with its final form. But I hope—and this is a minor concern—that, after further consideration and discussion, the question of concessionary coal will be resolved in a satisfactory manner.[column 642]
Once again, in company with the N.A.C.O.D.S. and the N.U.M., I should like to express my complete satisfaction with the Order. I congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on it and wish the scheme every success. Indeed, it could be a pattern for other industries in future.
2.1 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher (Ilkestion)
I have tried to do some homework on this problem since I represent—and the fact that I represent such a constituency indicates the tragedy—a former mining constituency. Ilkeston was traditionally a mining constituency. The miners in that area are now in a very small and dwindling minority, and the full and painful impacts of the industrial changes which have produced the necessity for the Order have been felt with particular acuteness in that part of the country.
In welcoming the Order I want to underline some of the points that have already been made from both sides of the House. I emphasise that the Order is no more than, as it were, first-aid. One does not throw away a first-aid kit because it is not a full surgical kit; but it is, nevertheless, only first-aid.
The Order does not pretend to deal with the full-scale economic and social implications of pit closures. That is not entirely the responsibility of my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It is the responsibility of the Government as a whole. But this Order, dealing, as it does, with one aspect of the pit closure problem, has certain limitations and anomalies which have been detected by the eagle eyes of my mining constituents.
I do not propose to bore the House with the details of these anomalies. I shall pass them on to my hon. Friend in correspondence and they will, I trust, be ironed out by him. The fact that these anomalies have been pointed out adds particular force to the demand which has been made from both sides of the House for adequate appeals machinery. It is obvious that this is essential in general, and from my correspondence and the particular cases which have been brought to my attention, it is even more obvious.
The second strand of argument I want to reinforce is that presented by my hon. [column 643]Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain). That is to have another look at the way in which pre-redundancy earnings are calculated. I am thinking particularly of those in the mining industry who spend a lot of time on trade union work. It is a peculiar characteristic that the practice of mining trade unionism has far more to do with the production of coal than corresponding trade union activities have with the production of other commodities and services in other industries.
Everyone will agree—and I am glad to see that my hon. Friends from the mining industry are nodding agreement—that at least 70 per cent. of an active trade unionist's time in the coal industry is taken up with matters directly concerned with the production and distribution of coal. This is a peculiar feature of mining trade unionism which ought to be, and I trust will be, taken into account when this vexed question is further discussed.
The next point I want to make has little to do with the Order, but I trust I may be allowed to stray for a few moments. I would emphasise that, although the Order applies to a group of men who are being rendered redundant and although it gives them something that cannot be described as a golden handshake or even as a silver handshake, but perhaps as a substantial copper handshake, it must in no way be understood outside this House that these men are of no further value to other industries.
Mining labour, as I have said again and again in this House, is absolutely first-class. It has two characteristics which should commend it to any employer. First, miners are admirable time-keepers and, secondly, they are accustomed, because of their mining employment, to work together efficiently in groups. These are two absolute essentials in modern industry.
With that brief footnote, I warmly welcome the Order.
2.6 p.m.
Mr. Robert Woof (Blaydon)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House will no doubt recognise that the main principle of this Order is a scheme which concedes that [column 644]55 is an age at which men will have great difficulty in finding another job.
The Order has now been presented, after a delay of almost a year since the scheme was first announced. But we are in a position to say that the National Union of Mineworkers has been fully consulted on the drafting of the scheme and is fairly satisfied with its final form. Therefore, on behalf of the National Union of Mineworkers, we want to take this opportunity to express a sincere debt of thanks.
I shall not repeat what has already been said on the financial provisions of this Order, except to say that I believe this is not a day for throwing our hats up in the air with delight. It is not an occasion to evade the stark facts. It is the inconceivable turned conceivable, for the reason that it is not a long time since anybody, especially in the mining industry, would ever have visualised that such a scheme would be introduced.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening remarks, referred to the rundown of redundancy in the industry. I realise the narrow scope of this debate, but I trust I will be allowed to say, in a few words, that, throughout various aspects of industrial life, it was well known that the energy needs of this country were almost entirely dependent on coal. It played a vital part in the economic life of the country. But almost overnight the intrusion of other sources of fuel and the scramble for markets has ultimately dealt the mining industry a heavy blow resulting in the slaughter of employment, and in that sense I regard this Order as the burial fees for the industry.
Ever since the scheme was first mooted in July last year, employees of the National Coal Board have been living with anxiety. Like the rest of my colleagues, I have received scores of letters from constituents expressing their feelings on the long delay in presenting the scheme. Time and time again I have had to explain the difficult task which confronted my right hon. Friend to include the various categories entitled to benefit. But what is really the desired aim of this Order is whether it will make an effective contribution to a solution to many of the human problems which have faced the mining industry for the past 10 years. [column 645]
While having no other choice but to accept the Order, I must also register my disappointment, because, whatever it is intended to resolve in all good faith, the scheme is a direct outcome of the lack of any co-ordination of the fuel industries to ensure that the miners, and the coal they produce, would be given their rightful place in the economy of the country.
I must, however, give my blessing to the Order, even for the sake of being grateful for such a measure to avoid social consequences. Nevertheless, I have disturbing reservations for the great numbers who will lose their employment in the future acceleration of pit closures, particularly those who are in their fifties. Their working life will be guillotined, and that is the burden of our complaint about the approach to human factors in the struggle for a living.
I want to be quite frank with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not for one moment accept what he said in his closing remarks that this scheme will enable us to reshape the mining industry. I am firmly convinced that no redundancy scheme will ever solve the real issue. It will be solved only when, before pit closures take place, adequate and suitable employment is provided for the men who are displaced for evermore.
In the circumstances, we want to make it well known and quite clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the miners are not a privileged set of industrial workers because this scheme has been bestowed on them, whatever benefits they may get from it.
I regret that this is a narrow debate. That is all that I wish to say.
2.10 p.m.
Mr. David Watkins (Consett)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), and indeed, everyone who has spoken today, I welcome the Order. This is the greatest proposal to compensate those who are made redundant through no fault of their own which has ever been presented to the House to deal with the problems of any industry.
There are two matters about which I should like clarification. First, I should like my hon. Friend to explain the position of redundant miners who occupy [column 646]houses owned by the National Coal Board. In his lucid opening remarks my hon. Friend referred to my interest in this subject, and reminded the House that we debated this issue during an Adjournment debate shortly before the Whitsun Recess. I have a fairly vivid recollection of that occasion. The debate was held in the evening when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I were the only ones present, and I thought that the emptiness of the House on that occasion in no way recognised the sheer brilliance of the debate.
For many reasons the Coal Board is the owner of a large number of houses in the coalfield areas, and it is customary for miners to occupy these houses. The conditions of the tenancy vary from coalfield to coalfield, but in the North-East, the area in which my constituency is situated, it is customary for an employee to occupy his house rent free. But when he becomes redundant the situation changes. For the first six months of his redundancy he is charged a nominal rent, which may be 10s. a week. After that the rent is increased, and he may well have to pay £2 a week. What is singularly unjust is that at the same time as he loses his job he has to start paying rent for his house.
The Order deals with that situation, but it sets a limit of 20s. on the amount of compensation which can be paid to miners who find themselves in that position. On the figures which I have quoted—and they are typical of thousands of cases in the North-East—it means that someone who, through no fault of his own, has to pay £2 a week in rent will receive compensation of only half that amount.
The next matter about which I seek clarification is the position of ancillary staff who become redundant because of the industry contracting. Appendix 1 of the Order lists a number of prescribed places of employment. Among these are estate and house maintenance depots. There is in my mind, and in the minds of many people, some doubt about whether the Order is applicable to redundant staff who are employed in such places.
I have reason to believe that the Coal Board is in some doubt about the position, and I have been approached by [column 647]one of my constituents to try to get the matter clarified. He has spent the whole of his working life on this side of the industry, and the Board is not prepared to say that although he is redundant he qualifies for payment under this Order. This emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Will Owen) about the necessity for some kind of appeals machinery to adjudicate upon the interpretations which are likely to be placed on the Order.
I hope that my hon. Friend can clarify the two points which I have raised, first, how the Order will affect those who have to pay increased rents as a direct result of becoming redundant, and, secondly, the position of ancillary workers.
2.19 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)
I join my hon. Friends, and, indeed, hon. Gentlemen opposite in welcoming the Order. Last year, when we discussed the Coal Industry Bill, in which these provisions were laid down, I expressed a personal preference for the way in which I should like to deal with the problem of redundancy. I declared my personal view that I would have preferred to see a pension scheme which was adequate or even generous for miners of 60 years of age. However, we now have this scheme, and I welcome it.
I do not want to go over what has happened in the past. It has been said that the mining industry is cursed by its memories. Speaking as an old miner, however, I can say that miners have a lot to remember. In agreeing to this Order it is very important for us to make it clear that we do not regard men as being dispensable when they reach the age of 55. That is one of the dangers of a scheme of this kind. That is why I would have preferred a pension scheme. In a sense, we are writing off men when they reach the age of 55. With our country facing its present economic problems it is important to realise that we need the skill, ability and service of men of 55 years of age.
We are continually pressing for alternative employment for the development areas, and I hope that this scheme will not be regarded by the Government or anyone else as an adequate substitute for that. The overwhelming majority of [column 648]miners would prefer a job which would enable them to provide a service and earn a reasonable wage. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to remember that we must continue to regard this as an urgent matter. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, is present. Although, compared with what has happened in the past this is a generous provision for miners, we must not regard it as in any way lessening our responsibility to provide alternative employment for men who have been rendered redundant.
It is inevitable that a scheme of this kind should be complicated. It is complicated, first, because the occupations to which it refers must be prescribed. As far as I know, those responsible for the Scheme, in consultation with those in the industry, have covered the whole area, but a few days ago I was asked a question about an establishment which, although not in my constituency, employs many workers who live in my constituency.
It is a coal preparation plant, formerly worked directly by the N.C.B. but now operated by a private firm working under contract for the Board. Some of the workers complain that they are not permitted to enjoy what they would have been enjoying if this preparation plant had still been operated by the N.C.B., namely, concessionary coal.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this question, which has been referred to already. Anybody who knows mining areas knows that concessionary coal is not merely an economic matter; it is deeply rooted in tradition. The provision of concessionary coal goes back many years, and I warn my hon. Friend that he had better be careful about this subject, because it can “raise Cain” . I can recall many heated disputes about it. I therefore hope that the prescribed list can be looked at again, and if it is found that, inadvertently, a place which should be included has been excluded, the matter will be put right. The list is fairly comprehensive, but it may exclude some places which ought to be included.
The scheme provides for workers over 55 years of age and for collieries that are closed between certain dates prescribed in the Order. One of the main difficulties arises in respect of dates. Some men over [column 649]55 and others over 60 were rendered redundant by pit closures before the date in respect of which the scheme operates. Anomalies are inevitable in a scheme like this. I thank my hon. Friend and all those concerned for the care which has been given to the preparation of the scheme, but it is clear that some thorny disputes will arise and I want to add my word to those which have been uttered by my hon. Friends. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to his right hon. Friend—I am sure that the N.C.B. and the N.U.M. appreciate this—that it is essential to establish proper machinery for adjudication and to make sure that it is not only fair but is seen to be fair.
A scheme like this can be ruined if it causes large numbers of men to feel aggrieved at being shut out without any chance of pursuing their claims or arguing their cases. My hon. Friend has said that consideration is being given to this matter, and he talked about informal machinery being used to decide disputes. However good such informal machinery may be, I do not think that it will be sufficient. I therefore hope that serious consideration will be given, in association with discussions with the N.C.B. and the N.U.M., to the possibility of devising machinery which will provide aggrieved persons with the right of appeal against a decision excluding them. I know that the scheme will be approved by the House, but we must do our best to see that it is carried out properly and that it serves its purpose.
Having been connected with mining all my life, the decline in the industry has always caused me to be torn between two emotions. I would like to see the day when there is no necessity for any man to go down any pit anywhere in the world to provide us with the fuel and energy that we need, yet we know that as the mining industry declines and pits close down something very precious is being lost to the country. The mining industry has produced wonderful characters and communities.
The scheme deals with one aspect of a very large problem—the way in which we should handle the decline in the industry in a civilized way. Most of my life in the industry was spent considering problems arising from the run-down of the industry. In South Wales, the industry was cut in half in 10 years, from the ‘twenties to the ‘thirties. In those [column 650]days the process took place in an uncivilized and brutal way. It is to the credit of my hon. Friend, the N.C.B. and the N.U.M., that they are ensuring that the problem is now being dealt with in a civilized way.
But this is only one of the problems. The major problem remains. The men in these communities need work, and we must not let the introduction of this scheme weaken our effort to see that these men are given an opportunity of continuing to make their contribution to the economy of the nation and to earn their own livelihoods.
2.30 p.m.
Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (Finchley)
We on this side, and the packed benches behind me, welcome this Order. I am sure that it is far better to have such a scheme to diminish the bad effects of change than just to try to keep mines open to produce coal which cannot be sold.
I always enjoy the speeches of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), but I must disagree with him one one point. I do not think that the scheme shows that we are throwing men of 55 and over on the scrap heap. It admits that there are considerable areas where men over 55 will find it impossible to get another job. Starting from the point of realism, it tries to compensate them over a temporary period. I am the first to admit that it will, in any case, be difficult after the end of the three years and that this is a compromise Order. But I do not criticise it for that. Probably it was the only kind of compromise which would have been acceptable in present circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke also about alternative employment. We must recognise that, if a man is paid 90 per cent. of his net take-home pay for three years and that take-home pay has been very good, human nature being what it is, he will not dash at another job which offers him less than that net take-home pay. That is to say, if, under the scheme, he was drawing a good weekly income, say £20, even though for only three years, he will not jump at another job which offers only £18, £19 or even £20. The alternative job would have to be much [column 651]more highly paid to provide any incentive.
Mr. James Griffiths
I do not accept the hon. Lady's defeatist view of human nature.
Mrs. Thatcher
It is not a defeatist view and perhaps in this connection the strike which we heard about last week is somewhat to the point. I was very disappointed to read on the tape and in the papers that, as my hon. Friend said, 13 miners staged a sit down strike at Neath Colliery, because they were not sacked. They wanted to be sacked but they were offered alternative jobs in another colliery instead of having notices of termination of employment served upon them——
Mr. James Griffiths
This has been mentioned. This was not in my constituency, but I do know about it. There was a sit down strike at Cefn Coed, which is now all over and discussions are taking place between the N.U.M. and the N.C.B. about the offer of alternative employment 10 miles away at Aberamen. This is nothing to do with the scheme, and since the discussions are taking place about a settlement, perhaps it would be better if we left the N.U.M. and the N.C.B. to deal with the problem. Let us hope for a settlement and leave it there.
Mrs. Thatcher
I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation and leave it. I used it only to counter his argument that a man would accept alternative work even if it were less well paid than the 90 per cent. take-home pay under the scheme. I doubt whether he would—
Mr. Swain
Has the hon. Lady considered the other side of the coin? If there were 100 men at a pit over 55 and only 45 redundancies, is it not fair to assume that the N.C.B. would offer the redundancies to the lower-paid men and not the higher-paid men, since the latter will inevitably be better skilled or physically better able to do the job?
Mrs. Thatcher
I have always assumed—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me—that there will not be alternative work for the more skilled men. That is broadly true in a number of areas—perhaps not in the East Midlands, but [column 652]in a number of areas, certainly in the Kent area and in some areas in Wales, we know that there will not be any alternative work for some time to come——
Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot discuss redundancy in general on this Order, which is about the terms of redundancy payments.
Mrs. Thatcher
Of course, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to redundant miners who will not be able to get alternative work and therefore will be eligible for benefits under the scheme, which will be reduced the moment that they find alternative work, and who will not be eligible beyond the extent of 60s. a week if they find alternative work in the area and not with the National Coal Board.
I turn now to some details of the scheme. I notice what R. Freesonthe Parliamentary Secretary said about the taxation provisions, but I have considered it in some detail and I must confess that, between the three Ministries concerned, the Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Social Security and the Treasury, they seem to have got it into something of a muddle.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me if this analysis is correct. The redundancy payments as such, according to him, are taxable. Wagerelated supplementary unemployment benefit and the flat rate unemployment benefit is not taxable, so over the period during which these benefits are payable, the following situation will apply. First, during the first seven months, that part of the take-home pay which is made up of redundancy payments will be taxable, that part made up of earnings-related supplementary benefit will be non-taxable, as will the part made up of flat rate unemployment benefit. At the end of seven months, the wage-related benefit will be replaced by redundancy pay, so the net take-home pay will be the smaller because, at that point, the redundancy pay will be taxable, whereas what it is substituting for was non-taxable.
We then go on for another period of months until the flat rate benefit runs out and that will then be substituted by redundancy pay. Therefore, at the end of that period, there will be another increase in tax, so although the amount paid out under the scheme will be the same, the taxation consequences will be [column 653]heavier at the end of the period than at the beginning. There is a further possibility—[Interruption.] Is the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head? This is not difficult—
Mr. Freeson
I was smiling.
Mrs. Thatcher
Well, I never smile at increased taxation.
There is another possibility. As far as I understand the Order, a person will be able to go out to work for up to 21 hours a week. That is as it should be. If one is in senior benefit, there must always be an incentive to help oneself. This will operate without the person concerned being docked of any redundancy pay. Does that mean that he will be docked of none? I know that he will be docked of none of his basic redundancy pay, but what about the rate which is equal to the flat rate unemployment benefit? Clearly, if one is receiving unemployment benefit, that will be reduced to the extent to which one is working during certain days of the week.
Does the Order mean that such a man can go out to work for 21 hours a week and receive no reduction in his redundancy, plus the amount equal to his flat rate unemployment benefit, or does it mean that the number of days that he is working will disqualify him for a certain amount of the flat rate unemployment benefit? One would like to know the answer, because one knows the provisions with regard to unemployment benefit, but it is a highly complicated Order. We will obviously consider with great care what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, but it seems to me that the taxation provisions and the 21 hours of work provisions are not easy for anyone to understand although the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) may understand them. Perhaps there will be a number of teething difficulties in this Order and some of the anomalies will come out only when it has been in operation for some time.
Having welcomed the Order in general and pointed out one or two of the problems to which it gives rise, I should like to ask about one or two of the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. I thought that he said that, during the last year, the industry had lost 43,000 men. I have here his latest pink form which [column 654]shows that, on 27th May last year, there were 405,000 men in the mining industry—in fact, nearly 406,000—whereas, on 1st June this year, an equivalent week one year later, there were only 352,000. That, of course, is a loss of 53,000 and not of 43,000 men, on his latest figures which are available. So the rate of run-down is rather greater than his figure would have revealed to the House.
Does the Minister still stick to the figure which he gave for the cost of the scheme? He said that the scheme is likely to cost only £11 million net, the reduction from £28 million having taken place, according to him, because some of the difference is made up by the wagerelated unemployment benefit. I think that the figure of £11 million net is far too low and that the scheme is likely to cost a good deal more. I do not complain about that, having welcomed the Order, because I would rather that we made generous provision for redundancy than have them working to produce coal which cannot be sold.
A further point arises from the dating of the Order. The redundancies which qualify come to an end on 28th March, 1971, which is very near the last possible date for a General Election. Does the Minister contemplate that the pit closure programme will be completed by that time?
Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot discuss the pit closure programme on this Order.
Mrs. Thatcher
I naturally accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that the Order arose from the closure of pits.
Mr. Speaker
It may arise from the closure of pits, but it deals specifically with the provision of redundancy payments under certain terms, and that is what we must discuss.
Mrs. Thatcher
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister would answer the question which I asked earlier, which arose from his speech, in which he referred to the rate of run-down in the mining industry. Does he confirm that rate of run-down for the period up to 1971?
I do not wish to prolong my remarks. It is pleasant to have the miner Members [column 655]with us on a Friday afternoon. They, too, have been brief. The details of the Order must, I am sure, have been thoroughly worked out by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, and if the Government can get the Order past him, they can probably get it past the rest of the House.
2.42 p.m.
Mr. Freeson
I will do my best to deal with the points raised by hon. Members. Some of the points were stressed by hon. Members in succession, and if I do not pick them up point by point but deal with them as a group I hope that I shall be forgiven.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and others asked what would be the position for men under 55 years of age. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) asked the same question. It must be made clear that the scheme, as announced nearly a year ago by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, is intended to relate to and to deal with the problems of the older redundant miners and not with the problems of all redundant miners.
There is no question of the scheme being extended to deal with redundant miners under 55 years of age. That was made clear when the announcement was first made. It would be wrong of me to suggest or hint that there has ever been an intention to extend the scheme to miners under the age of 55.
Several hon. Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, asked me to review the decision about concessionary coal. The question of concessionary coal has been before the Department while the scheme has been under consideration. The National Union of Mineworkers has been making strong representations to the Coal Board that something should be done to maintain the provision of concessionary coal.
I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend dealt with the point at Question Time, but certainly, in correspondence, he said that unless the Board grant the concession which the N.U.M. have been urging upon it, the Minister considers that there is nothing which he can do in [column 656]the sense that it ranks for Exchequer help. It is a matter within the structure of the benefits which operate in the industry. I understand that the N.C.B. has stated clearly that it does not intend to accept a continued liability for concessionary coal, following redundancy. I admit that that is not arguing the position. It is simply stating what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East and other hon. Members asked about the provisions within the scheme for those redundant miners who have spent a great deal of their time as officials on trade union work. Reference was also made to those who have served on local authorities. In answer to a recent Question, as well as in correspondence, my right hon. Friend stated that local authority service cannot be taken into account. The point about miners who have been trade union officials and who have worked only part-time in the collieries is at present with the Department, and I cannot state this afternoon the results of their consideration of those representations.
The hon. Member for Honiton put the case of a person who had been fully employed with a sub-contractor who depended wholly on the activities of the colliery or collieries in the locality. When those collieries were closed, the redundant miners over the age of 55 would benefit under the scheme. He asked what would be the position of employees in 100 per cent. sub-contracting firms.
As he said, the scheme does not cover those people. I am sorry to disappoint him, but it must inevitably be the case that no such person will be able to use whatever appeal machinery is created to seek to be brought within the scheme unless he is at least prima facie eligible as a coal industry employee. The answer therefore is that employees of firms who are affected by closures cannot claim under this Scheme.
The hon. Member asked why the scheme has been introduced now when we have had redundancies on a similar scale in the past—if not regularly over the years, certainly at particular times. He overlooked the important factor which has been brought out on many occasions in debates in the House as well as elsewhere—that, while the rate of redundancy from one year to another may be no [column 657]higher, or little higher than, that of a number of years ago, it is taking place against the background of an already contracting industry. The scope for reabsorption within the industry is getting less and less. The problems of net redundancy, the true problems of redundancy, therefore, grow greater in proportion to the declining capacity of the industry. Even if the closure programme were not maintained at the present rate, the problem would increase in time. The increasing rate of productivity with new techniques, in a contracting industry, is bound to create greater problems even if we have the same rate of redundancy, statistically, as some years ago.
Mr. Emery
I agree entirely with that, and I did not make the point which the Minister is answering. I made the point that an argument had been put that the rate of redundancy was greater than ever before. That is not the case. Nevertheless, I accept the hon. Member's argument.
Mr. Freeson
Perhaps, if I am to use a fine term, I should have referred to the proportional rate of redundancy. In relation to the industry as a whole, it is greater and currently it is higher than it has been up to a year or two ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) was the first to introduce the issue of appeals machinery—the subject was raised in many following speeches—and he urged the Minister to consider establishing statutory machinery for this purpose. The unions were approached by the Ministry and agreed to a scheme, which will be similar to the arrangements which have been operating in the past, for examining disputed cases under the Fatal Accidents Scheme.
Although I do not have first-hand knowledge of this, hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that this procedure has operated well in the past. The unions find it acceptable, as does my right hon. Friend. and it seems that this should be a generally acceptable arrangement for the future. I also indicated that the question of industrial tribunal personnel being able to act in this sphere in a non-statutory fashion was being considered by the Department of Employment and Productivity.
Perhaps the use of the word “procedure” is not apt in this respect because [column 658]the actual procedure is more informal. It is not specially provided for in the Order or the Act, but that does not make it any the less satisfactory in operation. I use the word to give the matter a special sense, and not to imply that it is statutory. It is more than merely a number of people sitting round a table discussing matters. There will be a definite procedure, although it is not in the Order or the Act. This question has been raised so frequently in the debate that I am sure that my right hon. Friend, when reading the Official Report of this debate, will pay close attention to the points made in support of this plea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth then hoped that the scheme would not be used as an excuse for stepping up closures. Although he did not put his question in that way, he used the phrase “closure happy” as being characteristic of some parts of the industry in certain parts of the country. I assure my hon. Friend that there has been no such feeling in the Department, or at Board level in the industry. I also assure him that the scheme is in no way an easy method of increasing the number of closures. The closure programme is related to other factors and not to the fact that the Government are introducing a scheme of this sort.
My hon. Friend also sought an assurance—in fact, I gave it in my earlier remarks—about temporary work. I said earlier that a temporary job would not permanently remove a person from the scheme. I do not wish to go into this aspect in detail now because it is involved and because individual cases will be subject to the application procedure. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this general assurance.
Mr. Milne
Will my hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that, in determining the rate of closures, greater attention will be paid to the question of providing alternative employment and industries?
Mr. Freeson
I had intended to touch on that later in my remarks. As I represent the Ministry of Power, I can only assure my hon. Friend that we are seized of this problem. He will appreciate that it is not directly a matter for my Department in terms of responsibility—I have in mind the placing of employment and industry elsewhere in the country—[column 659]although it is a part of Government policy. A great deal is being done in consultation with other Departments. There is liaison with the regional planning councils and I assure my hon. Friend that, in connection with the closure programme—
Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot discuss closure policy on this Order.
Mr. Freeson
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are co-operating as far as possible with other Departments, as is the N.C.B.
The hon. Member for Canterbury, in addition to raising the question of those under 55 years of age, with which I have dealt, spoke of the needs of men in future, the difficulties of younger men and the problems facing his constituency. While I do not wish to underestimate these difficulties, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that, compared with the problems facing many other parts of the country, perhaps he was slightly overstating the difficulties in his constituency. One cannot compare the position anywhere in South-East England with that of, for example, the development areas.
Mr. Crouch
The hon. Gentleman will agree that the position cannot be overstated for a person who is unemployed. Some elements of industry in my constituency are so “down” that I know of men who have been unemployed for 10 years. I am concerned with the future of the whole Kent coalfield, not all of which is in my constituency, and I want to be sure that there is hope for this coalfield in future, that it can be viable and that jobs will be available for men in the area. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to be seized of the need for flexibility in areas such as mine so that men need not face years of unemployment. I want instruments such as this to be more flexible.
Mr. Freeson
The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the position as it will be affected by this scheme, particularly from the point of view of South-East England. The scheme relates only to the over 55s and to the period up to March, 1971. There can, therefore, not be any appeals procedure for people who are not [column 660]covered by the scheme. That being so, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks—that men under 55 will be able to appeal for consideration under the scheme. It does not deal with such men. While nobody wishes to belittle the problems of anyone who is unemployed, it is wrong to compare the problems of South-East England with those of the older, basic heavy industrial areas, particularly the development areas.
Mr. Swain
As the regulations to be made under the Order represent a departure from anything done in any industry—and this applies with double force to the mining industry—and since this is inevitably an extremely complicated matter, would my hon. Friend consider producing a simple booklet for distribution among mineworkers—and perhaps an even simpler form could be produced to explain the position to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—so that they may not only know exactly where they stand, but—
Mr. Speaker
Order. Interventions must be brief. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech.
Mr. Swain
Would my hon. Friend consider publishing a simple pamphlet to explain what is being done?
Mr. Freeson
On this occasion, at least, I think that I have been ahead of my hon. Friend, though I may not be able to satisfy him. Some time ago I thought that it might be useful to produce what might be called a “pop guide” for persons liable to be affected. Then I spotted the excellent version in question and answer form of what I had in mind in the June issue of Coal News. It might be best to let the matter be dealt with in this way by the N.C.B. and the N.U.M., who can more effectively get to the pit heads with their circulars and other material than can a Government Department with even the most popular version. However, the subject can be looked at further, and I will take it up in the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), following a recent Adjournment debate, referred to applying the benefits of the scheme to those living in coal industry houses. As I understand, the position is that in certain circumstances the Board increases the [column 661]cost of occupation of coal industry houses and, as I indicated in that debate, close consultation is going on between the Board and the N.U.M. The Order will permit the payment of up to 20s. a week as a contribution. I hope that it will not be thought that in this scheme we should undertake to pay, from Exchequer funds, full reimbursement for rents so increased but, in any case, we are, over and above the basic payments provided for in the scheme, seeking to meet this problem—
Mr. David Watkins
Does the social security scheme cover these people? I have the impression that it would not. My point is that these people, through no fault of their own, are out of a job and, for the first time, paying rent.
Mr. Freeson
I hesitate, as it were, to answer on behalf of the Ministry of Social Security—
Mr. Speaker
Order. It will help if the hon. Gentleman will address the Chair: the reporters can then hear.
Mr. Freeson
As I say, I hesitate to answer on behalf of the Ministry of Social Security, but I imagine that in appropriate circumstances, men in this situation would be as free as anyone else to apply to their local office of the Ministry of Social Security for rent allowances. Beyond that, it is not for me to comment. It is a matter that is best taken up with the appropriate Ministry.
My hon. Friend also asked whether redundant ancillary workers, such as those employed in estate and house maintenance depots, would come within the scheme. I must repeat that individual cases of this kind are better dealt with by the machinery of the scheme rather than at the Dispatch Box, otherwise we shall get involved with hon. Members raising individual cases with which I cannot possibly deal here. There will be machinery to enable people to appeal against decisions that they think are unfair or wrong.
One or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Finchley were ruled out of order. I shall deal with the others as best I can. The hon. Lady was at pains to try to break down the actual payment which will be made to a redundant mine worker. She asked me to say what the effect on taxation would be on precise [column 662]parts of a broad range of payments. I cannot give actual figures, but throughout the varying element in the total payment, the payment coming by way of redundancy pay, will be subject to tax.
The total effect, even when taking into account all taxation, will be such that in the majority of cases a man will be left with something like 90 per cent. of his original take-home pay. This is the important figure on which to concentrate. Figures have been worked out to provide for this.
Mrs. Thatcher
Take-home pay will vary with the variation of the component parts. The specific point on which I want an answer is what happens when a person goes to work for up to 21 hours a week? What happens to certain parts of the take-home pay for which the Order provides?
Mr. Freeson
These points can be pursued in detail and we shall go through the Report of the debate to study the questions which have detailed implications. I understand that payments of redundancy pay will continue. The part-time employment aspect should not affect the rates for a person under the scheme. We can follow up particular illustrations with which hon. Members are concerned after studying the record of the debate.
On the suggestion that there will be variation, all I can say now is that I doubt this. It should be possible to work out the taxation rates on a varying part of the total payment attributable to the scheme so as to get a phasing down or up and the total would still be 90 per cent. of take-home pay. It would be interesting to examine actual cases when the scheme operates. I do not think that there need be any concern on this score because the taxation aspect has been looked at particularly with this in mind to allow for the 90 per cent. of take-home pay.
There was questioning about the figures I gave in relation to redundancy. I will read again, to make quite clear, what I said in my opening remarks. This year, the Board expects the run-down in manpower to be at about the same rate as last year. For 1968–69, it should be approximately the same as in 1967–68, which was about 43,000. These figures were obtained from the N.C.B. In the [column 663]middle of the year one cannot give firm figures, but these are expectations which can be used as a guide to the passing of the Order.
Finally, I make a general observation in view of various remarks made in the debate. They were echoes of the anxiety and concern felt about the industry. Of course there is no intention that this scheme should be other than part of an overall effort to alleviate a difficult situation. The final answer must come in broader policies which the Government are pursuing at an ever-increasing rate throughout the development areas.
I again commend the Order, which is the result of long, hard work and consultation with all concerned. It marks a deliberate intention to reshape industry and conduct economic policy, in very difficult circumstances, in a civilised and humane way, a way which I am sure hon. Members would wish us to pursue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.