HC Deb 23 July 1984 vol 64 cc707-8
16. Mr. Skeet

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the total cost of the coal dispute.

Mr. Giles Shaw

The total cost of the dispute will depend on how long it lasts. To date, one thing is clear —the dispute has cost the miners themselves some £380 million in lost wages.

Mr. Skeet

I agree that the cost will probably depend on the length of the dispute, but will my hon. Friend confirm the view that I have heard, that the total cost to date is in excess of, or perhaps approaching, £10 billion? Does he recognise that it is not the Government, but the public, who ultimately pay?

Mr. Shaw

I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that many purely speculative figures are being bandied about in regard to the ultimate cost of the dispute. The fact remains that the public will eventually be at risk if our coal industry is not competitive in terms of price and therefore produces more expensive electricity.

Mr. Woodall

Does the Minister agree that the dispute has cost far too much already? Will he have a word in the Secretary of State's ear to ask him if he will meet the chairman of the NCB to do one thing—to tell him that he is sacked? Does he agree that the chairman has been an utter disaster and that it is time that he retired and took his old-age pension?

Mr. Shaw

The hon. Gentleman, who should know better on these matters, should recognise that the chairman of the NCB has asked for further major capital investment in the industry and has gone ahead with the Asfordby project. It is the chairman of the NCB who wants improvements in the redundant mine workers' payments scheme to ensure that not one man is made redundant compulsorily and it is the chairman of the NCB who believes in the future, when coal can be produced at prices that will lead to an increased volume in the market.

Mr. Eadie

Is the Minister aware that we saw a shudder go through the Government Front Bench when the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) suggested that the cost of the miners' dispute might be £10 billion? None of us has used that figure before. Does he agree that the dispute will be damaging and costly? In answer to a previous question, the Secretary of State denied that the NUM had asked that the talks that broke down should carry on into the morning. Is that not a classic illustration of why the Secretary of State has a responsibility to meet both sides to resolve this damaging and costly dispute?

Mr. Shaw

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there have been 35 hours of negotiation on proposals that were made at the NUM's request as far back as 6 March. He also knows that the negotiations have resulted in a close examination of the proposals and in some changes in how the NCB is presenting its case to the NUM. All that is required is some recognition of the fact that the NUM must accept that the closure of uneconomic pits is an essential ingredient in the restructuring of the industry.