Coal Industry (Hansard, 25 November 1985)

§ 4. Mr. Dormand
asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the modified colliery review procedure.

§ Mr. Peter Walker
At a meeting between the mining unions and the National Coal Board on 30 October, agreement was reached on the composition of the independent review body, which forms the final stage in the modified colliery review procedure.

§ Mr. Dormand
Are there any circumstances in which the review body can make a recommendation about the accounting procedures used by the National Coal Board before a pit is recommended for closure? Are not many professional accountants critical of the NCB's methods of assessing whether a pit is viable? Does that not have a crucial bearing on the proposal to close Horden colliery in my constituency? Will the Secretary of State comment on that?

§ Mr. Walker
An independent review body is an independent review body. It can make whatever recommendations it wishes and listen to what arguments it wishes. If the union side puts an argument to that review body, it will come to its own conclusions.

§ Mrs. Currie
Will my right hon. Friend scotch the rumour spread by the National Union of Mineworkers in my area that all the south Derbyshire pits are under threat of closure? Does he agree that good pits with large reserves and willing and competent work forces are the backbone for the future of the coal industry?

§ Mr. Walker
Yes. Certainly productivity in a whole range of pits throughout the country, including south Derbyshire, is impressive.

§ Mr. Mason
May I question the Secretary of State about the colliery review procedure, especially as it affects pit closures and miners' redundancies? Has the right hon. Gentleman decided on legislation to assist miners who, having been on strike for 12 months, are in doubt about their entitlement to mineworkers' redundancy pension benefits? Will he make a statement to give those men an assurance about the future?

§ Mr. Walker
I cannot make a statement now. The matter is, of course, interconnected with the DHSS, and as soon as conclusions have been reached, I shall make a statement.

§ Mr. Foot
There is a letter in today's edition of The Times from a representative of NACODS. In the light of that, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will immediately set in hand an investigation to ensure that no illegal, illicit or other pressures are brought to bear to reduce pit safety standards?

§ Mr. Walker
Obviously action should be taken by the normal authorities against anything illegal. However, I know of no such action being taken.

§ Mr. Eadie
Is the Secretary of State aware that some of us are not unaware of the role that he played in getting the new modified procedure agreement off the ground? As Secretary of State, he must be aware of the allegations of bribery on the part of the NCB to assist in the formation of a breakaway union. Since the statement of Mr. Jack Jones about being offered pension and car provision represents a most serious offence, will the right hon. Gentleman suspend Mr. MacGregor from duty pending an inquiry into the whole issue?

§ Mr. Walker
In my judgment the only factor that assisted in the creation of a separate miners' union was the behaviour of the leader of the NUM. Had it not been for that, there would not be a separate union today.

§ 5. Mr. Douglas
asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current investment, employment and output in the Scottish coalfields.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt)
Considerable amounts are being invested in the Scottish coalfield to ensure the development of high-productivity, low-cost capacity, necessary to secure the future of the industry. I look forward to seeing the progress being made when I visit the Scottish area tomorrow.

§ Mr. Douglas
Does the Minister accept that considerable progress is being made in terms of re-engaging sacked miners? When he is in Scotland, will he make representations to the board so as to accelerate that process and to ensure that as many as possible of the 206 dismissed miners are re-employed by the NCB at the earliest possible date? In addition, will he make a statement concerning investment in the Fife coalfield, the Seafield Frances complex, the Longannet complex and, in particular, in the Comrie coalfield in my constituency, which seems to be under threat?

§ Mr. Hunt
The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the management at area level. However, I understand that most dismissed miners in the Scottish area, who so wished, have been interviewed for reinstatement and that 63 have been reinstated. The decisions following such reviews must rest with the area management.
As I understand the present position, a very large number of investment projects have been announced by the NCB, including £20 million this year to be invested in new plant alone. In the areas that the hon. Gentleman has referred to, there is a £3 million investment at Castlehill on a new heavy duty coal face and a £4 million investment at Seafield on a new coal face. Very substantial investments are now being made.

Mr. Andy Stewart
As a Scot who represents an English constituency with a coalfield, may I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on Friday about further grant-aid to those who wish to convert their—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The question is about Scotland.

Mr. Stewart
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was delayed in getting to the point. Does my hon. Friend agree that that measure will help both Scottish and English coalfields?

§ Mr. Hunt
I wish that Opposition Members would join my hon. Friend in becoming unashamed salesmen for coal in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Dalyell
When the Minister steps on to the tarmac tomorrow at Edinburgh airport, will he immediately ask his driver to take him up the M8 so that he can smell the Polkemmet bing, which has been on fire for seven weeks and which is a major health hazard to that part of Scotland?

§ Mr. Hunt
I am not quite sure what that has to do with the main question. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Polkemmet colliery. His point had not previously been brought to my notice, but I shall, of course, look into it.

§ Mr. Eadie
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the steps taken by the NCB and the NUM in Scotland in discussing investment and output, although much more still needs to be done. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that there are still victimised miners who have not been re-engaged, even though the strike unded more than seven months ago? When he visits Monktonhall colliery tomorrow, will he inform himself a little more on that matter?

§ Mr. Hunt
I look forward to meeting representatives of the union when I visit Monktonhall tomorrow morning. I remind the hon. Gentleman that investment in the Scottish coalfield has been substantially higher in real terms under a Conservative Government than it was under 598 a Labour Government. Investment between 1979–80 and 1983–84, compared with 1974–75 to 1978–79, was 43 per cent. higher.