British Coal (Hansard, 15 December 1986)

§ 10. Mr. Powley
asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the latest productivity in British Coal.

§ Mr. David Hunt
For the week ending 29 November, average revenue output per man shift was 3.64 tonnes, the eighth time the record has been broken in 10 weeks. This continued improvement shows the growing confidence of miners in the future of this great industry.

§ Mr. Powley
Does not British Coal deserve the heartfelt congratulations of the House and the country for the productivity improvements that it has achieved, which have resulted in a much more economic price for coal and more coal being delivered—which will help inflation and old-age pensioners during a severe winter? Would my hon. Friend care to speculate whether these improvements would have been achieved under an alternative Government with the support that the Labour party gave to the National Union of Mineworkers, which inhibited the efficiencies that have taken place?

§ Mr. Hunt
These tremendous efforts by the miners and management are good news for the consumer, the industry and the country. Weekly output per shift is an impressive 49 per cent. higher than the average in 1983–84, the year before the strike.

§ Mr. Skinner
As the Minister is praising a few miners for having achieved this extra productivity, and as he refers to figures such as the 49 per cent. increase, will he follow up his words with action and recommend to British Coal that it should consider a proper pay increase for the miners to reward them for this productivity—not on the bonus scheme, but on the flat rate of pay in a similar fashion to the Government's reward to the top generals and top civil servants? If it does that, the miners will be rewarded for their extra efforts.

§ Mr. Hunt
The hon. Gentleman should take some time to reflect on what he has said. The result of these magnificent efforts, as the "New Earnings Survey" shows, is that miners have once again been restored to the top of the pay league, and long may that remain their position.

§ Mr. Forth
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding this impressive increase in productivity, obtaining energy from coal and oil involves a much higher proven rate of accidents and fatalities than nuclear power? Will he bear this much in mind when considering the next stage of development of Britain's energy-producing industries?

§ Mr. Hunt
My hon. Friend draws a comparison between the coal industry and nuclear power. Safety is paramount among men and management in our great coal industry and, fortunately, the safety record is improving. As my hon. Friend observes, however, there is still some way to go.

§ Mr. Wrigglesworth
In congratulating the management and workers in the mining industry on achieving these targets, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the best way to add good news to our congratulations is by ordering further coal-fired power stations? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no reason why that should not be done in advance of the decision on Sizewell?

§ Mr. Hunt
No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has already heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State respond to that question. It is only by reducing costs and winning markets that the coal industry can build a secure future and protect long-term employment.

§ Mr. Brandon-Bravo
Does my hon. Friend feel that this growing confidence is undermined by the deplorable conduct of Opposition Members, who have sat silent and rooted to their seats while the Coal Industry Bill has been considered in Committee, thus showing a deplorable attitude to British miners?

§ Mr. Hunt
I was sad that the official Opposition should have chosen to remain silent on clauses that are vital for the industry's future and for democracy in the trade union movement.