Coal Industry (Hansard, 23 February 1981)

§ 4. Mr. Dormand
asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future investment in the coal industry,

§ Mr. David Howell
I and my colleagues meet the chairman of the NCB frequently to discuss aspects of the board's affairs. In my recent tripartite talks with both sides of the industry I reaffirmed the Government's commitment to investment in the coal industry's long-term future.

§ Mr. Dormand
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great moral debt owed to the coal industry and, particularly, to the miners, because of the ineptitude shown by the Government over the past two weeks in disrupting the good relations in the industry? Will he bear that in mind when he has the investment talks—I read in the papers that there is to be a meeting on Wednesday—and seek to introduce legislation immediately to amend the Coal Industry Act 1980 and to deal with the importing of coal? In closing uneconomic pits, are the Government likely to meet the agreement on production targets that they reached in Venice last year?

§ Mr. Howell
There is no need for legislation. I should make it clear that there is no question of having a general system of import controls. I do not like import controls. What is being proposed is that the NCB should have the resources to price more of its coal competitively with the imports being brought in by the CEGB and the BSC and thus help to reduce imports towards the irreducible minimum. That is what the Government have said that they will discuss with an open mind towards movement next Wednesday.
The undertaking at the Venice agreement was that there should be a doubling of coal production in the next 10 639 years. The vast bulk of that will come from the United States, Canada and Australia. Britain is by far the best performer, almost in the world, in terms of coal burn in electricity and coal use for electricity generation. We are well ahead on that.

§ Mr. Skeet
Is my right hon. Friend aware that funds for highly profitable, low-cost pits will not be available if money goes to some of the uneconomic pits'? Is he also aware that it is not satisfactory to the United Kingdom if we have one set of economic laws for the miners and another set for the rest of the country?

§ Mr. Howell
The implication of my hon. Friend's question is correct. The long-term interests of the industry, which has a great future, lie in investment in modern pits and effective investment in new faces in existing pits. As it is an extractive industry, that inevitably involves a degree of closures as well. That has always been recognised by both sides of the industry and it is the basis on which we shall plan a common sense future together.

§ Mr. Skinner
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the past 10 years, pits have closed on the basis of having no further reserves, and not on the basis of being uneconomic at a particular time? Pits that are uneconomic at one time could become economic later. Will he confirm that the irreducible minimum of imports will be 1 million tonnes, as suggested by Sir Derek Ezra on the night of the concession made by the Government' Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how long it will take to reach that figure? That is very important for the miners. Will he also bear in mind that, to assist the miners and industry generally, the Government have a duty to change their policy in order to get away from the recession, to build up industry, to burn more coal and to help everybody else in the process?

§ Mr. Howell
The reduction of imports by the CEGB and the BSC will be discussed with the industry next Wednesday. It is right that that matter should be discussed in the tripartite forum in a common sense atmosphere. With regard to the NCB's policy on closures, the board and the unions have been asked to discuss a pattern for closures consistent with the Plan for Coal, and consistent also with the severe economic realities that all industries face. The Government have indicated that they are prepared to discuss the financial implications with an open mind and also with a view to movement. That is what we shall discuss at Wednesday's tripartite meeting.

§ Mr. Eggar
Is it not the case that the coal industry cannot be immune from the economic recession? Does not the Plan for Coal specifically envisage extensive pit closures, only about half of which have been achieved since the plan was agreed?

§ Mr. Howell
No industry can be immune from the difficulties faced by all those in business and industry during an economic recession. My hon. Friend is correct on that point.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
As the whole matter of cash limits and imports needs to be considered positively, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government are not going into the talks on the surly basis that they were defeated last week?

§ Mr. Howell
My right hon. Friend and I have made clear the basis on which the discussions were held last 640 week and the basis on which the talks on Wednesday will be held. The words that I used in the House on Thursday were perfectly clear. They were the words used to both sides of industry. They are the words that were accepted by both sides of industry. They will be the basis for our talks at the tripartite meeting on Wednesday.