11. Mr. loan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Energy what new financial arrangements have been made with the National Coal Board to ensure maximum production of coal.
§ 20. Mr. Welshasked the Secretary of State for Energy what additional amounts he expects to be provided to the National Coal Board following his discussions with the industry.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore)I am at present reviewing the NCB's financial arrangements. It is too soon to say what the outcome of that examination might be.
Mr. EvansWhat action do the Government propose to take to substitute more British coal for imported coal, in view of the large stocks in South Wales? Do the Government propose to help with the additional costs that will be involved in withdrawing the pit closure proposals?
§ Mr. MooreAt the recent tripartite meeting all sides sought to limit imports to an irreducible minimum. At that meeting, on 11 March, Sir Derek Ezra stressed that there were uncertainties in trying to establish the exact cost. He estimated the cost of import substitution to be between £100 million and £200 million.
§ Mr. WelshIs the Minister aware that miners sometimes question statements by the Government? Will he give an assurance that money will be made available to keep open the pits that were due to close before the recent discussions between the NCB and the Government, either until agreement is reached with the NUM or until they must close because of seam exhaustion?
§ Mr. MooreI am sure that all hon. Members realise that the hon. Gentleman is seeking an assurance on a matter that is in no part of the Government's responsibility. Individual pits and the details concerning their management are matters for the NCB and the unions under the normal consultative procedure.
§ Mr. LyellBefore more taxpayers' money is made available, can my hon. Friend say what is happening to the £74 million per annum that is being lost on the 23 pits that the NCB hoped to close this year? Is it not the case that of the 13,000 people employed in them, more than two-thirds were to be re-employed? Can my hon. Friend assure us that this matter will be tackled in a sensible way?
§ Mr. MooreAgain, we are encroaching on detailed discussions about the management of the board's business. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in all these areas we are concerned about valuable taxpayers' money being used as subsidies.
§ Mr. EadieWill the Minister confirm that the NCB did not propose to close all the pits that his hon. Friend suggested? We are aware that negotiations are still going on and that there is everything to play for. However, will the Minister comment on the enhanced payments under the miners' redundancy pension scheme? Does he agree that that has been misrepresented in some quarters, in that the lump sums have been added to the weekly pension thus presenting it as a total payment? That is grossly misleading and unfair.
§ Mr. MooreThe hon. Gentleman will recall that last Wednesday we debated the orders for enhanced redundancy payments. At that time both sides of the House sought to make it clear that the payments stretched over many years—in many cases, over 10 years—and that the information that had appeared in the media was somewhat exaggerated.
§ Mr. FormanIs not the wider use of British coal now every bit as important as maximum production? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that his Department and others are making every effort to publicise widely the Chancellor's recently announced scheme to encourage the direct use of coal in British industry?
§ Mr. MooreI am delighted that my hon. Friend has again drawn the attention of the House to the scheme announced in the Budget by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend is right. Happily, production is not the key problem. It is how we use the coal. It is, therefore, crucial that our coal industry remains efficient and competitive so that we can develop in the new markets, especially the industrial markets.