§ 3. Mr. EadieTo ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal about future contraction of manpower in the coal industry.
§ Mr. ParkinsonI meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all matters affecting the industry.
§ Mr. EadieThe Secretary of State must be aware that productivity in the coal industry has increased by 75 per cent., that operating costs have decreased by 30 per cent. and that in the first quarter of this year British Coal made an operating profit of £190 million. Why must there be pit closures and redundancies for miners as a consequence of these figures?
§ Mr. ParkinsonI confirm that the improvements in productivity and so on are as the hon. Gentleman has set out, and I compliment those who work in the industry on them. Moreover, that operating profit is made up substantially from surface mining, and large losses are still being made by some deep-mine pits. Until those losses can be eliminated, there will, I am afraid, continue to be pit closures.
§ Mr. ThurnhamWould not the prospects for employment in the industry be much improved if there were an acceptance of six-day working? Is this not the way forward for the industry?
§ Mr. ParkinsonIf we can add modern working practices to the £6 billion worth of investment the Government have made in equipment in the industry in the past 10 years, the prospects of the industry will be brighter.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe Secretary of State made it clear earlier that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money is to be used to bail out the nuclear power industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I are asking why it is, if the Secretary of State can find the money to bolster nuclear power in the way that he has just announced, that he cannot do the same to stop contraction in the pits. There is 300 years-worth of coal beneath the ground and the Secretary of State should be maximising production of coal, using more manpower than is employed in the coal-fields with the result that we are less dependent on nuclear power which, in the Secretary of State's own words, is costing the taxpayer a fortune.
§ Mr. ParkinsonNuclear power is being paid for entirely by the customers of the electricity supply industry. We are talking about the possibility of grants if there is a change in public policy. As the hon. Gentleman pressed the point, I can tell him that there is a precedent for subsidising losses in an industry—the coal industry, which we have subsidised to the tune of £1 billion per year for every year since we have been in power. What is more, the CEGB estimates that is is paying about £500 million more than it needs to pay for its coal. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that there is a subsidy, it is being paid for by the taxpayer and the customer, it amounts to £1.5 billion and it is being paid to the coal industry.
§ Mr. BarronIn the matters that he discusses with the chairman of British Coal, has the Secretary of State discussed whether there are likely to be compulsory redundancies in the next round of redundancies to be 630 announced next August? Can the Minister give us an assurance that compulsory redundancies will not be within any agreement?
§ Mr. ParkinsonThe question of compulsory redundancies has never been raised with me and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that under this Government redundancies have been paid on a far more generous scale to those in the industry than ever before. We have no reason to wish to depart from that.