Coal Industry (Hansard, 28 February 1983)

§ 1. Mr. Skeet
asked the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements in output per man-shift figures in the coal industry he anticipates in the next decade.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore)
The Government have always made it clear that the future of the industry can be secure only if it can produce coal at a competitive price. The greater the improvement in productivity, the better the prospects of doing this.

§ Mr. Skeet
My hon. Friend has not given any figures, but does he agree that the strike against the closure of the Tymawr Lewis Merthyr mine because of geological faulting in the area is not in the interests of the Welsh people? Does he agree also that the only way to improve the output per man-shift of the mines is by the closure of uneconomic pits, by the opening of new mines that have 2 rich seams and by the modernisation of those mines that are capable of being modernised? Is that not the way to a viable industry? Is that not in the best interests of the mining industry?

§ Mr. Moore
Certainly improvements in productivity are a key feature of the long-term potential of the industry. Both sides of the House recognise the sad fact that, in the past 10 years, productivity has increased by only 4 per cent. and not by the 4 per cent. per annum for which we all wished. Obviously no strike can be of benefit to the industry's current and future customers. With regard to the particular, I am advised by the National Coal Board that the mine in question, with 530 men—all of whom have been offered employment elsewhere—and an output per man-shift of 0.59 tonnes, is losing at a rate expected to be £7 million per annum. I in no way blame the men They are clearly working in an area of deep geological difficulty in a pit that is more than 120 years old. The facts speak for themselves.

§ Mr. Dormand
Will the Minister remind his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) that, although coal mining remains a most disagreeable and dangerous job, miners have worked miracles of productivity in spite of working in seams—

§ Mr. Eggar
That is not true.

§ Mr. Dormand
—which were past their best years ago? Why cannot coal receive the same treatment as agriculture in the EC? Why should we not have an EC coal preference policy? Does the Minister agree that we have the best and most efficient coal mining industry in the EC? What are the Government doing about that?

§ Mr. Moore
Fundamental to the Opposition when in government and to the Government today has been the assumption, as enunciated under "Plan for Coal", that, along with massive investment in our coal industry, to the tune now of £4.5 billion, there would go an acceptance of the reality of the need to close, in an attractive industry, uneconomic capacity. The industry is making that judgment. The Government have given, on behalf of the taxpayer, massive subventions. The industry is seeking to make itself more viable.

§ Mr. Eadie
Surely the Minister must agree that in the long-term future of the mining industry in Britain must rest on new capacity, which means new pit sinkings. There has not been much evidence of new pit sinkings by the Government since they came to office in 1979.

§ Mr. Moore
That is where we must deal with the facts. The facts were that, under "Plan for Coal", new capacity was expected to come about from long-life mines combines with new pit sinkings. The new capacity has been produced, as was clearly shown in evidence to the Select Committee on Energy. The uneconomic capacity of 3 million to 4 million tonnes a year was expected to close, but that simply has not happened. Those are the full facts in a world of over supply of coal that we, who wish to see the industry succeed, must face.