HC Deb 14 May 1984 vol 60 cc5-8
4. Mr. Teddy Taylor

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many days' supply of coal is currently available at power stations.

Mr. Peter Walker

Coal stocks at power stations are sufficient to meet electricity demand for many months ahead.

Mr. Taylor

Does not that information show that the miners strike is simply pointless and futile? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only result of the continuance of the strike will be a major loss of wages for miners and, in the longer term, a loss of customers and jobs?

Mr. Walker

Yes. Obviously, the miners have lost a substantial amount of wages. The tragedy of the timing of this dispute is that we were being successful in conquering new markets. In December, 78 applications were made for grants to convert to coal, but at present no one is applying. There is no doubt that the dispute is doing considerable damage to the prospects of the industry.

Mr. Wallace

To what level will coal stocks have to fall and what consequences follow before the Government intervene in this dispute to try to find common ground between the parties and to seek a resolution of it?

Mr. Walker

The Government have already intervened in the dispute to a considerable extent. First, the Government have made available enough money to ensure that the miners have a pay offer which is better than that already accepted by the power workers and gas workers. Secondly, they have intervened to see that money is made available so that all miners will be able to remain in the mining industry if they wish to do so. Thirdly, the Government have intervened to ensure that what the coal industry has enjoyed for the last five years it will enjoy for the next three years — the biggest capital investment programme that it has ever had. All that is substantial intervention.

Mr. Terlezki

In view of the unnecessary and harmful strike that has continued for so long—one never knows when it will come to an end—may there not in the end be many more pit closures than were originally envisaged?

Mr. Walker

I very much hope that the miners will reflect upon the range of offers and opportunities available. With the chance to conquer new markets and the rewards of a massive capital investment programme, there is good potential for the industry's future. At the moment, it is being damaged and harmed. I hope that that harm will cease as quickly as possible.

Mr. Lofthouse

Is the Secretary of State aware that that answer is not satisfactory at all? With his great responsibility for energy in Britain, is it not time that he intervened in the mining industry dispute? Is he aware that there will be no winners and that it is time somebody got the parties around the table for realistic talks? Is he further aware that many miners' families are suffering great financial hardship? Has he not some responsibility for that? Does he think that, like his boss, he can continue to sit on the fence, getting sadistic pleasure out of people being bashed into submission?

Mr. Walker

I take no pleasure at all from disputes in the coal industry. That is why I and my colleagues decided to make arrangements for a decent pay offer, to make sure that there was no need for a single redundancy and to ensure that massive investment would continue. Two of the three mining unions have been prepared to get round the table. I suggest that this coming Wednesday the NUM will have another opportunity, and I hope that it will take advantage of it.

Mr. Raffan

Has my right hon. Friend read the article in The Times today by Jimmy Reid, a leading figure in the Labour party? Does he agree with him, that the way the NUM's national delegate conference has been used to circumvent a national ballot is equivalent to the House cancelling a general election and that, if the Labour party continues to deny democratic rights to miners, it can never be considered worthy of holding office in Britain?

Mr. Walker

I have read that article. In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, it must be said on the day that Mr. Scargill persuaded the delegate conference to change the rules on balloting, the right hon. Gentleman came out in favour of having a ballot. I notice that since then he has not repeated that request, but I hope that he will soon do so.

Mr. Wigley

Given not only the great suffering of the miners and their families, but the loss of trade, to which the Secretary of State has referred, and the long-term danger to the pits, surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot continue to stand back in this dispute? He must get stuck in, get people together, and get a solution to it.

Mr. Walker

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should persuade miners that, with a decent pay offer, no need for a single compulsory redundancy, and the massive investment programme, there is no need for them to suffer hardship.

Mr. Bill Walker

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, because there is hydro power and substantial oil as well as nuclear power, coal stocks at power stations in Scotland will last almost indefinitely?

Mr. Walker

There are substantial coal stocks at Scottish power stations; and coal stocks at power stations throughout the United Kingdom will last for a very long time.

Mr. Patchett

The Secretary of State refers constantly to no redundancies and jobs for all miners. Does he not realise that the dispute is about jobs for future families? Would the right hon. Gentleman not fight for a future for his child?

Mr. Walker

Yes, I do realise that. I believe it is right for the Government to declare that in the next few years they will make available another £3 billion for new capital investment to ensure the future of the industry.

Mr. Rost

Will my right hon. Friend contrast this Government's proved commitment to the future of the mining industry with what is happening under the Socialist Government in France, where the high-cost pits are being drastically closed down and miners are being made redundant, partly because the nuclear industry has proved so much more competitive?

Mr. Walker

The French Government were elected upon a promise to increase coal production by 50 per cent., but they have now decided on a programme to reduce coal production by 50 per cent. In fact, they have also decided to reduce the number of miners by 50 per cent.

Mr. Douglas

Does the Secretary of State accept that his posture is unbecoming to the high office that he holds, and that this attitude that he, on behalf of the Government, will sit it out until the power stations run out of coal is tragic for the industry and for the nation? Is it not in the national interest for him to intervene directly in this dispute and to use the powers of his office to get people round the table to seek a solution?

Mr. Walker

I used the high office that I hold to ensure enormous financial provision to guarantee a decent pay offer, no compulsory redundancies, and record investment in the coal industry. That is using my high office to the great benefit of the mining industry.

Mr. Hardy

Does the Secretary of State realise that he seems to be going rather further than the National Coal Board in saying that there will be no compulsory redundancies, certainly not within particular coalfields? Does he accept that, while he appears to be emphasising the fact that the Government have intervened, he is not doing any service to the industry, to his Department or to the community at large by flatly refusing to take part in tripartite negotiations?

Mr. Walker

I repeat that there are negotiations to be conducted by the industry, if it desires to do so. Two of the mining unions, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are willing to do so. Only one union has decided, month after month, that it will not have such talks.

Mr. Michael Morris

Is not one of the saddest aspects of the dispute that the president of the NUM, who persistently forecasts that coal stocks will run out, is consistently proved wrong, and that we are losing trade to Poland, because thousands of tons of coal are now coming in on long-term contracts, to the detriment of south Yorkshire and south Wales in particular?

Mr. Walker

I do not know of any long-term contract with the Polish Government at this stage. Therefore, I cannot comment on that. It is true that 13 weeks ago the president of the National Union of Mineworkers said that there were only eight weeks of stocks at the power stations, that two weeks ago that there were 10 weeks of stocks, that six weeks ago there were nine weeks of stocks, and that now there are eight weeks of stocks. In fact, there are many months' coal stocks available at power stations.

Mr. Mason

How long does the Secretary of State intend to stand idly by watching the mining industry, for which he has prime responsibility, gradually crumbling into disrepair? Why does he not invite the chairman of the National Coal Board and the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to his office to discuss the future of the industry? Talks might then ensue which could bring an end to the dispute.

Mr. Walker

I repeat that the Government have not stood idly by. They have poured money into capital investment and into making available a decent pay award. They have been far less idle than the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) was a member, on pay, decent terms for voluntary redundancy and capital investment.

Mr. Orme

The question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) goes to the centre of the problem. The Secretary of State's failure to intervene is an absolute disgrace. He and the Prime Minister are hoping for a defeat of the miners instead of a defeat for the policy of Mr. MacGregor. They should get round the table for discussions, the Secretary of State could play his part, and we could work out a policy on energy that would be based on growth and expansion.

Mr. Walker

If there is any disgrace in the dispute, it is the attitude of a party that urges people to strike when the Government are investing more, paying more and looking after miners better than that party ever did.