HC Deb 27 April 1993 vol 223 cc928-40

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

8.54 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

I raise the issue of Maltby colliery for the third time since the announcement last October that the British Coal Corporation had different designs on the coal mine than those that had been planned for many years.

I should like to make it clear that, in raising the question of Maltby colliery I am in no way seeking to affect the future of any other colliery that has been either a victim of the recent review or is currently working without knowing where its market will be in the not too distant future.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that in recent months the Government have treated the British coal industry with contempt. Last October, the President of the Board of Trade, under pressure from what seemed to be the majority of the British public, promised a thorough review of the British coal industry and its markets. Those deliberations and that review took many months but produced what I and many others can describe only as a shabby compromise with no increase in the market for coal.

Now the Government hide behind the cloak of the British Coal Corporation to cover their failure to do their duty and carry out the wishes of the country. Through that lack of political will, thousands of miners and their families are bitterly disappointed and deeply concerned about the future. In Maltby colliery, more than 800 miners are still unsure about their future.

The colliery has been known for many years as a British Coal showpiece. It was sunk in 1907 and has extensive reserves. It was reconstructed between 1951 and 1961, the main features being the deepening of the shafts and the construction of a new pit bottom to serve the Barnsley and Swallow Wood seam. Production from the Swallow Wood seam replaced that from the Barnsley seam in 1969.

The current major project, the Parkgate project, was finally approved in 1981 and it is designed to increase the capacity of Maltby colliery to 2·5 million tonnes a year. The project is currently scheduled for completion in December. It has involved some major development work on a scale usually seen only at new coal mines. It included the sinking and equipping of a new shaft which has the biggest capacity in Europe, the deepening and equipping of existing shafts, the construction of a new pit bottom to serve the Parkgate seam, drivage to establish two faces in the seam and the installation of all the necessary equipment, the construction of a new coal preparation plant and all the associated surface works. The estimated total cost of the project is about £180 million.

The first phase came on stream in April 1992, and the second, retreat, phase was scheduled for completion in December this year. People working at that mine and at other coal faces were looking forward to moving to the new Parkgate seam, to begin retreat mining.

The colliery currently employs 1,300 people, including contractors. The threat to jobs is obviously felt deeply by them. The colliery is situated in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area, which encompasses Maltby and has unemployment of more than 16 per cent. and male unemployment of nearly 26 per cent. There are already 42 people chasing every vacancy recorded at job centres. Many vacancies are located in Doncaster and Sheffield, which have serious economic problems of their own without a further threat of redundancies at Maltby colliery.

Since 1990, my constituency of Rother Valley, which covers one third of Rotherham metropolitan borough, has lost nearly 2,000 jobs either in coal mining or at a local coke works. One mine closed in 1991 was Thurcroft. Rotherham metropolitan borough council undertook a study last year, when Thurcroft miners were involved in an unsuccessful initiative to restart Thurcroft colliery as a mineworker-owned company. That study revealed that only one quarter of miners had found work outside the industry, and one half had not worked since becoming redundant after the colliery's closure in December 1991.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

My hon. Friend will be aware that Thurcroft is just outside my own constituency, and that many men from the eastern part of my constituency have long been employed at Maltby colliery. Many miners from the western part of my constituency and further afield moved to Maltby colliery in the past three or four years, having worked at as many as half a dozen other pits. Will my hon. Friend confirm that they moved to Maltby in the belief that it would do superbly well for a very long time? Does my hon. Friend agree also that every time that people glimpse from a great distance, as they can, the headgear of Maltby colliery, they and many others in South Yorkshire regard is as a monument to one of the most foolish and profligate decisions made by the Government for a long time?

Mr. Barron

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I visited the colliery last Friday and spoke to one young coal miner with a young family. He thought that he was moving to that investment to work there for the rest of his working days, in a trade that is exclusive in our particular region. He felt very let down and disappointed. No matter what happens to Maltby in the future, many families will feel that it is a monument to a disastrous decision.

The Minister will be familiar with the attempt to reopen Thurcroft colliery, because I corresponded with him frequently last summer on that subject. The study of ex-mineworkers from Thurcroft found that the average period of unemployment for miners was seven months—and the higher the job losses, the longer that period will become.

A study by Rotherham training and enterprise council was also made. After last October's statement, local TECs were asked to play a major part in finding employment for those likely to be made redundant from the coal industry.

A study commissioned from Sheffield Hallam university business school of total job losses resulting from pit closures, which was updated after the publication of the White Paper, estimates that in addition to 950 job losses in mining at Maltby, there will be 600 supplier jobs losses and more than 400 redundancies resulting from reduced local and national consumer spending—making a total of 1,950 local job losses.

That estimate does not take into account a possible further 1,000 job losses if the work force at Kiveton colliery, which is also in my constituency, do not secure markets for their coal and the colliery closes within the next couple of months.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce (Rotherham)

Is my hon. Friend aware that on top of these particular job losses, which narrow the field of employment for people in the whole of the metropolitan borough of Rotherham, the figure that he mentioned of 2,000 in his own constituency is probably multiplied by more than 300 per cent. when the whole of the metropolitan borough is taken into account? Is he further aware that this narrowing of employment opportunities in the borough means that there are people who have never had a proper job and who now have teenage children who have no opportunity of ever having a proper job as a result of the loss of jobs not only in mining but in the associated industries of steel and mining engineering—skills that have almost disappeared for ever as a result of the profligate policy of this Government?

Mr. Barron

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. In the past decade the job losses, not just in mining but in steel and engineering, in South Yorkshire as a whole and in our borough have been colossal. The major point that my hon. Friend rightly made is the loss of skills. We had exchanges at Question Time today about apprenticeships. They have disappeared from an area that was known to have some of the finest industrial apprenticeships in the country. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that such job losses always go a lot wider.

Last October, in announcing the Government's coal review, the President of the Board of Trade said in a written answer: This review will consider views and evidence on the future of each of the pits in question". He appointed consultants to report to him on the viability of the pits, including any alternative markets that may exist for coal". —[Official Report, 26 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 522.] The consultants were J. T. Boyd, a firm of independent consultants. They ranked Maltby colliery as one of the top five mines in the country, with the potential to achieve consistent profits of over £12.5 million each year. That is not just the top five of the 31 collieries under review but the top five including the 19 which were not in the review and which were to remain open.

That is not surprising. The coal that they have now opened up the roadways to get is, in the J. T. Boyd report, some of the best coal in Britain. the consultants ranked Maltby coal 14th for low sulphur content which, in an age of debate on the environment, is very important. It was eighth in low ash content. If Members want to know the value of that, they should talk to the electricity generators or anyone who burns coal in bulk. It was sixth in low chlorine content. It was second in high calorific value out of the 51 collieries studied. In other words, some of the best coal in Britain is being left under the ground, at least in the short term.

In its two tables of economic ranking, Boyd listed Maltby as first in both case 1 and case 2. These were of the 21 pits under review. Case 1 showed that 25 collieries had higher estimated costs—these included the 19 that stayed open—and 25 had lower projected profits. Case 2, if we put the 20 along with those under review, showed 31 collieries with higher costs and 36 with lower profits. Boyd reported that the colliery was primarily a producer of power station coal but also produced a minor amount for domestic use.

They are debating at the moment in the Department of Trade and Industry, I am sure, the question of energy in Northern Ireland. Maltby colliery supplies house coal there. West Burton, Thorpe Marsh, Drax and Cottam power stations all receive Maltby coal. There are never any problems in selling this coal. It is used as a sweetener for Selby coal. Everyone says that the great complex at Selby represents the future of the British coal industry. On occasion, it uses Maltby coal so that it can sell coal of the required quality to the available market.

Recent tests in relation to the coking market have proved positive. According to those tests, in March this year production costs in the coal faces in the Swallow Wood and Parkgate seams amounted to £1.20 per gigajoule. The Minister must have examined the markets to which Maltby sells its coal; he must know that no coal sold on the world market can be brought to the point of use more cheaply than the coal that is currently being produced at Maltby, given the transport costs involved.

Maltby also has a new, state-of-the-art coal preparation plan. It was the first in the United Kingdom to gain the British Standard 5750 quality assurance accreditation, which increased its potential for steelworks and other premium-price non-power station sales. The report prepared by the Government's own advisers gave Maltby a glowing reference, but that testimony to its future seems to have been ignored—certainly, in the short term.

In his statement on 25 March, the President of the Board of Trade announced that Maltby would be given "development status". He spoke as though a new plant would be involved. The investment programme was begun as a result of the Labour Government's plan for coal; as I said earlier, it is scheduled for completion in December this year. It is not a new invention of the current Government's review.

I am not sure how much the investment programme will cost. Last week, the Minister said that £29 million would be invested in the development phase of Maltby; the President of the Board of Trade mentioned £30 million, and, according to British Coal's Coal News, £40 million is to be spent on completing the programme. That, however, is not new money; it is money committed a long time ago to development of the reserves for retreat mining of the Parkgate seam.

The Minister shakes his head. Let me tell him that I spent 20 years working in that coal mine. I left it in 1983 to enter the House of Commons, but I had a vested interest in its future, and I know exactly how much was invested. I know that, in 1981, it was agreed that the Parkgate seam should be developed for retreat mining by the end of this year. I emphasise that no new money was involved in that agreement.

The most interesting feature is that, over the past two years, the colliery has been paying back from its profits some of the capital investment. It made more than £10 million in 1991–92, and more than £7 million in 1992–93. Now that production is to end, no revenue will be available for the colliery to continue paying back that investment. It does not make sense to throw away such profit margins and continue to favour capital investment on such a scale.

At the beginning of this month, I went with the leader of Rotherham council, Sir Jack Layden, to meet the chairman of British Coal. He failed to justify the plans for Maltby colliery then, and the Government have similarly failed to do so since. Surely savings to taxpayers would be secured by keeping Maltby in production, making profits and paying back some of its capital investment. That would also save public expenditure on state benefits: whatever redundancy arrangements are reached, if job losses on the proposed scale go ahead the people concerned will be eligible for unemployment benefit.

There remains only one justification for this decision —privatisation. That was flagged up in last month's statement. The Government had been sent away to find wider markets for the British coal industry; they returned to the Floor of the House with none, but, at the mention of the word "privatisation", all their Back Benchers' eyes lit up. They all started to cheer. That is what it is about; it must be. That is not just my view. The same view was expressed by the Dinnington and district branch of the Rother Valley Conservative association in its letter to the Prime Minister last October, in which it said—little has been done to disprove it: In view of the fact that during the last few years the near-by Maltby colliery has had a multi-million pound modernisation packet … we are finding difficulty in arguing against the accusations that this money has been spent only with a view to privatisation. The Minister's own political party said that last October, when the balloon first went up and the Government said that they were going to mothball the colliery. It is possible that privatisation has already taken place, since the bulk of the jobs that are to remain at the colliery during the development phase are likely to be done by private contractors.

The Government have told us over the years that privatisation is good for the work force. I had a go at the Minister last Wednesday at Trade and Industry Question Time. After I had sat down, he asked me to point to the advantages that lie ahead for my constituents because of this so-called development phase that Maltby is going through. I invite the Minister to come to my constituency, see the people at Maltby colliery and explain to the men —more than 800 of them—who face redundancy exactly what the advantages of privatisation are, when it looks as though they are faced with the dole.

Last week I wrote to the Minister about the prospect of redundancy payments for mineworkers at Maltby. The Minister responded that it was a matter for British Coal. However, on 21 October of last year the President of the Board of Trade told the House of Commons, from the Dispatch Box, that no miner should be disadvantaged by the consultation on closures. British Coal has suggested that 500 jobs could be retained to carry out the development work, but it will not specify the make-up of the reduced work force.

The only correspondence that the work force has had relating to these plans is a letter that was sent to the Yorkshire NUM on 9 April by the group director. Talking about the likely levels of redundancy, the group director said: At present, it is proposed that up to the total number of employees presently employed at the collieries if and when Rossington is placed on care and maintenance and Maltby on a development only basis. That will, of course, be subject to any employees being transferred to other collieries where there may be vacancies,". The one thing that this area director has done is keep his sense of humour over the past six months, unlike most people who work in the British coal industry, since he referred to employees being transferred to other coal mines. Does the Minister think that mine workers who do not want to leave the industry will be able to transfer to other coal mines? He went on: or being required for a limited period for any salvage, maintenance or development work. Such employees will be selected on the basis of their skills and experience. There was a meeting last week at local level, at which the work force at Maltby asked for the pit to go into the modified colliery review procedure. Since that request was made, it has been impossible for the work force to get any information about the pit's future.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)

rose—

Mr. Barron

I know that my hon. Friend has a coal mine in his constituency that is in a not dissimilar situation. I shall certainly give way to him.

Mr. Redmond

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Rossington is one of the pits to be mothballed. I wrote to the Minister asking what mothballing meant. I do not know what it means but perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me. In any event, the Minister should be in a position to tell me although he did not do so in his one-paragraph letter in which he said that it was an operational matter for British Coal's chairman. Perhaps the Minister will now tell us what mothballing means, because the lads and lasses at Rossington colliery would like to know.

It is because the term was not clarified when the Government published the White Paper that there are now problems in the industry. The economics are now those of the madhouse. The Government apparently have no concept whatsoever of the industry on which they have published a White Paper.

Pensions are another issue that affects many people who have retired from Maltby. Before the election, we received assurance after assurance from Ministers and from the Minister for Energy since the election that pensions would be safe. Pensioners are not convinced that the Minister does not intend to dip in his sticky fingers and do a Maxwell-type operation on the pension fund. It is not good enough for a Minister deliberately to put such fears into the minds of retired members who have contributed over the years.

Mr. Barron

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall hazard a guess about what mothballing means. Under the original review in October last year, Maltby was to be mothballed. I asked the mining engineers there what it meant but they did not know. They had been told that the colliery was to be mothballed along with three others but they did not know what it meant.

For what it is worth, I think it means taking eight pits out of the closure programme to satisfy a few Conservative Back Benchers that everything possible is being done to keep the pits open. Rossington is to be mothballed, but the Government would have us believe that someone else could come along and run it if British Coal did not want to run it. Last week, the director of the south Yorkshire area issued a press release telling us that some people would be kept on at that pit to salvage equipment. How that is to be done is beyond me, but perhaps the Minister will tell us.

On my hon. Friend's second point, the Minister will know that the House has made it clear many times that we want any coal privatisation programme to include protection for people who pay into various schemes, such as those for pensions and staff superannuation. It is crucial that regulation is not so lax that people are able to buy into a business and, at the same time, into its pension scheme and use the money for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended.

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) intervened, I was talking about trying to find out what the plans meant for Maltby colliery. At a meeting this morning with local senior management, representatives of the work force were told that, if they went ahead with their request to go into the modified colliery review procedure, they would not be informed of the plans for the future and that only if they withdrew their request, with no prior knowledge of the plans, there might be enhanced redundancy terms for the men to leave the industry. It is clear that they are being bribed to accept the proposition that the Swallow Wood seam should cease production at the end of this week and the Parkgate seam at the end of next month. Clearly, that will create severe personal difficulties for the miners who are trying to decide what is best for themselves and their families.

I believe that it is for the Government to ensure that miners are fairly treated and that, if their jobs finally have to go, they get the best possible terms available. I have no dispute with that. The enhancement of redundancy terms for people who have to lose their jobs in the present unemployment situation in my area has my support, but it should be done without the duress that is now being brought to bear on people.

This morning I faxed the Minister two specific questions. The first was: given that all coal mines both develop and produce simultaneously, why is Maltby to be given development-only status? I am fascinated by that concept. Of all the coal mines that were under review, and of all those that have a future at some stage, only Maltby will have development-only status. My second question was: given that up to 500 men are likely to work on the development, why can the work force not be told who will remain at the pit if production ceases? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions, and respond to the other points that I have raised tonight.

There is a compelling case for continuing production at Maltby colliery. The onus is on the Government to produce equally compelling counter-arguments. There is still an opportunity to reverse their decision to stop production at that profitable, productive and modern pit, and to keep a highly skilled and motivated work force together. I hope that the Minister, and the British Coal Corporation, will seize that opportunity before it is too late. That would be in the interests not only of our constituents who work at that most modern of coal mines but of the nation as well. We should not squander the millions of pounds in revenue that could be earned from production at the colliery for the sake of a future prospect the main effect of which will be to line the pockets of people in the City and others who want to buy into the industry in two years' time, when we as taxpayers will have put more millions of pounds into development of the coal mine.

9.26 pm
The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar)

May I first say how especially appropriate it is that you should be in the Chair for the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you organised the preceding debates to fit in with your personal timetable. Of course it is appropriate that the hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), and for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) are also present. I am acutely conscious of the interest of their constituents in the issue and in other issues relating to the mining industry and of the close personal interest that each of the hon. Members here—including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—take in the mining industry and its future.

As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) reminded me, we had a considerable amount to discuss last summer; the hon. Gentleman was so concerned, especially about Thurcroft, that I spoke to him several times when he was flat on his back in hospital. I am delighted to see that he has now fully recovered and can put forward a case on behalf of his constituents.

It might help if I begin by setting the debate in context. It is important to remember that we have to take a view on Maltby in the context of the overall energy situation in which British Coal finds itself. We should not forget that last year British Coal produced about 77 million tonnes of coal, of which just under 63 million tonnes went to the generators in England and Wales. British Coal thought that it was unlikely to be able to sell more than about 40 million tonnes of coal to the generators from this April, and of course there were already massive stocks of coal both at the generators and at the pithead.

That led to the announcement in October last year that 10 of the deep mines with no prospect of viability, and 21 pits with no prospect of a market, should close. As the House will remember, the Government accepted the proposals from British Coal. However, subsequently and in recognition of the concern expressed in the House and by the public more generally, we announced a review, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That review and the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry led my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement to the House late last month. That statement coincided with publication of the White Paper and with the debate on it.

Mr. Hardy

The Minister said that he intended to put the matter in a broader context. Will he consider the context that, 20 years ago, 16 collieries were mining under the metropolitan borough of Rotherham? Ten years ago, 14, if not 15, of those collieries were engaged in that activity. To plunge an area into the economic disadvantage that rapid closure would cause is unseemly and barbaric. Does the Minister understand that we and the people of our area are well aware that the reason for the difficulties which he has just identified is that, in recent years, the coal industry has been compelled to operate on a playing field that is far from level?

Mr. Eggar

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into a very much wider debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. This debate is about Maltby and is thus very narrow.

Mr. Eggar

I shall, of course, concentrate my remarks on Maltby. Immediately after the war, Maltby was one of 650 collieries. About 800 men are now employed at Maltby because about 400 have taken voluntary redundancy over the past few months. I imagine that many more were employed immediately after the war. Those men were part of a British Coal work force of 750,000 people. I make that point only to show that there has been a sharp and consistent decline both in the number of pits in this country and in the number of people employed in them.

To pay attention to the guidance that you gave me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we must set the matter in that context, and we must also recognise that the future of Maltby is bound up with the recommendations which were included in the White Paper and approved by the House. The proposal in the White Paper was that British Coal, subject to consultation, was to close two pits which were nearing exhaustion; it was to cease coaling at six pits and place those pits on care and maintenance; and it was to put one pit, Maltby, on development only. That was in addition to the 10 pits that are the subject of consultation at present.

I do not wish to risk offending or annoying the hon. Member for Rother Valley, but I must emphasise that decisions about production and development at Maltby are matters for British Coal, just as matters at the corporation's other collieries are a matter for it. Opposition Members and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends overlook the fact that neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor I have any power to tell British Coal which collieries it should close, which collieries it should keep open or which collieries it should keep to develop in one way or another.

Mr. Boyce

If British Coal proposed tomorrow to close all the pits, are the Government really telling us that they would do nothing about it and that it would be a matter for British Coal? Surely not.

Mr. Eggar

I am saying, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware because the position is laid out clearly in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, that neither I nor my right hon. Friend has the power to tell British Coal to take specific action. That action relates to specific collieries. The hon. Member for Rotherham may regret that. From time to time over the past few months, I have been tempted to regret it.

The Act was laid down under the Morrisonian approach to a nationalised industry. When introducing that legislation, it was a definite decision of the then Labour Government to keep Ministers at arm's length, so to speak, from the day-to-day management and detailed decisions relating to the then British Coal Board. That is the background against which both Ministers and British Coal operate.

Having said that—I note that the hon. Member for Rotherham smiled when I said it—I shall ensure that the attention of British Coal is drawn to this debate and its contents. The hon. Gentleman made some allegations about the pressure on miners to leave Maltby and other pits. The hon. Member for Rother Valley also hinted at that. That is an issue not just for British Coal: it is before the courts at present, so I cannot comment on that in detail.

British Coal has proposed a forward strategy which involves substantial capital investment to create a lower cost base for Maltby in the future. In recognition of the advantages of Maltby coal to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley referred, that pit has been chosen to be developed as a high-volume low-cost mine that is capable of producing more than 2 million tonnes of coal per annum compared to its current production of 1.2 million tonnes per annum. British Coal will invest up to £40 million in developing Maltby's extensive reserves for retreat mining over the next two years.

The hon. Gentleman rightly said that, at Question Time, I mentioned a figure of £29 million. The difference is the estimate of the proceeds of coal sold from the development phase. The £40 million is new investment which was not previously scheduled. The Government are reflecting that new investment in British Coal's external financing limit, so that comes into the negotiation.

Mr. Barron

If one is running a business, would it be wise to continue with the future investment plans and cut back on the revenue earning side of the business? That is exactly what British Coal proposes to do. If the proceeds from the development lessen by £11 million over two years, what would the figure be if it continued to produce one or two coal faces as well?

Mr. Eggar

That takes us back to where I started my remarks: British Coal must examine and take all its decisions in the context of the overall market for coal. Clearly, when it takes its decisions, it must look at all the collieries and the existing market—in other words, the market in which they have some contractual undertakings; the 40/30/30/30/30 contract—and then the possibility or probability of additional contracts.

If Maltby were run on full production—I cannot speak for British Coal, but I imagine that it is a possibility—it would effectively displace the coal being produced at another pit. The hon. Member for Rother Valley commenced his remarks fairly by saying that, although he wished to draw attention to Maltby, he did not wish in any way to do down, so to speak, the other pits in the area. I can understand that. It is very much in the character of the hon. Gentleman and the approach that hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken on the problem that British Coal faces. They do not want one pit to do well, only for another to do badly. When British Coal made the proposal to the Government as the most sensible way forward, we were prepared to make the necessary funding available and make investment approvals available.

I do not challenge the hon. Member for Rother Valley when he says that Maltby has extensive reserves. It came out well in the Boyd review in just the way that he outlined. That upside of Maltby made British Coal wish to put it into development and ensure that in the future it could be a world-class mine producing high-quality coal, as we all wish it to do and know that it is capable of doing at low cost.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)

A tremendous amount of finance—millions of pounds—is sloshing around. Will the Minister give an assurance to the Maltby pensioners and pensioners throughout the country in the various pension schemes that no funds will be used by the Government to subsidise any of the proposals in the White Paper?

Mr. Eggar

I do not think that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants me to give. He wants me to give an assurance that we will make subsidies available to help British Coal to compete. I give him an assurance, as I have given Opposition Members assurances on many previous occasions, that pensions will be safeguarded. I have said that frequently, and I give that absolute categorical assurance.

The staff superannuation fund has attracted some attention. I understand that the matter is to come before the courts for a decision. In other words, an agreement has been reached that a ruling should be given because the trustees and British Coal have received differing legal advice. The Government are absolutely content, as I am sure that British Coal is, to abide by the judgment of the court. Given the understandable attention that has been given to pensions and the references to Maxwell and others, I believe that that is the appropriate way forward.

I stress that British Coal's proposal is, of course, subject to consultation with the unions. Although the proposal does not involve closure of the colliery, it will inevitably entail some job losses during the period of development. It is right and proper that there should be full consultation with the unions on the proposal, in accordance with British Coal's legal obligations.

Both in his fax and tonight, the hon. Member for Rother Valley suggested that I should make an announcement to British Coal's work force about who would remain at the colliery if the development proposal was adopted. He gave the impression that that was a matter for me. I know that from time to time the hon. Gentleman has, shall we say, exhibited a certain amount of creative tension with the National Union of Mineworkers, at least nationally—we admire him for the stance that he has taken. I do not believe that he wishes me or anyone else to appear to circumvent or, indeed, to circumvent decisions which are a matter for consultation between British Coal and the unions.

Mr. Barron

I referred in my speech to what the President of the Board of Trade said about not disadvantaging any mineworkers while consultations went ahead. I put the facts to the Minister plainly and I put them to him now.

Why have the men at Maltby, knowing that people will continue to be employed in the development work, not been told who is likely to remain working at the colliery before being forced to take a decision? It is a matter of common decency. They were asked to withdraw from the modified colliery review procedure before the plans were put before them and that has put them at a disadvantage in the consultation process. The President of the Board of Trade stood at the Dispatch Box and said that that would not happen, so he should now do something about it.

There are things that can be done by those who stand at the Dispatch Box, no matter what we have heard tonight. The Minister and the President of the Board of Trade know that. That is why we had the review in the first place. My request should be met out of common decency, if nothing else—if there is any left.

Mr. Eggar

The assurance that was given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in October referred in particular to the 10 pits. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that; he can check the record after the debate.

I am in genuine difficulty in commenting on this matter. Not only is this, in practice, a matter for British Coal, in consultation with the unions, but it was also the subject of a court hearing today. I also understand that the area around Maltby, if not that specific colliery, is also likely to be considered by the courts next week or the week after. Tempted as I might be to respond to the hon. Gentleman in detail, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to do so. I hope that the House will understand that. I assure the hon. Gentleman, once again, that his views and the report in Hansard will be seen by representatives of British Coal.

The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to recognise that the voluntary redundancy package, which has been made available to miners, is generous. I accept that he has also made it clear, however, that, given the employment circumstances in the area that he represents, he has understandable concerns about the future job prospects for those 400 individuals who have already taken the voluntary redundancy and others who will do so.

Although I recognise that, for the purposes of the debate, the hon. Gentleman wants to highlight the problems that are associated with finding jobs in the area, it is fair to point out that, between 1987 and 1991, 84 per cent. of all those individuals who registered with British Coal Enterprise for jobs found them within a year to 18 months. It is appropriate to consider the optimistic side as well and to put it in perspective.

When I visited the north-east just before Christmas, I met a number of men who had previously been employed by the Seaham and Vane Tempest pits who had taken voluntary redundancy. I was struck by the training that they had undertaken for jobs in a high-tech plant. I admit that they had to travel a considerable distance to reach their jobs, but their example suggests that it is reasonable to say that a significant number of individuals who were previously employed as miners will succeed in finding alternative work.

The fact is that coal remains the largest element in the United Kingdom's diverse range of fuels for electricity generation. Most hon. Members recognise, however, that it probably never will regain the place that it once held in our economy. That is no criticism of the management or work force of British Coal. It is a fact and it illustrates the way in which the most profitable reserves have been worked out. It is also a fact that the new modern mines in other parts of the world have geological advantages over our pits, although they are not as great as sometimes claimed. Those mines also have an advantage over British coal because of the environmental quality of their coal, a quality which the coal produced by British Coal does not and is not likely to enjoy.

Mr. Barron

What about the 1.5 per cent. sulphur content?

Mr. Eggar

The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the relatively low sulphur content of Maltby coal. I think that he mentioned a figure of 1.5 per cent. sulphur. Internationally traded coal almost always has a sulphur content of less than 1 per cent., and sometimes has a sulphur content of something more like 0.5 per cent. That is the standard against which all British coal mines have to operate. It is a difficult and competitive market, in which world production costs are falling.

In the year or so that I have held my present post, I have been grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has argued the case for his constituents. He has always advanced the arguments cogently, both publicly and privately. I have been conscious of his considerable personal experience, both as a miner at Maltby and as an hon. Member who has consistently taken a great interest in the mining industry.

Mr. Barron

The Minister will be pleased to know that this is the last time that I shall intervene. I cannot let the occasion pass without saying—doubtless the Minister will not agree with me—that the development status that has been granted to Maltby colliery is nothing more than the foil towards privatisation. He may not even agree with Rother Valley Conservative association, which agrees with my analysis. In the House, the Minister asked me: Why does not the hon. Gentleman for once point to the advantages that lie ahead for his constituents"?—[Official Report, 21 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 314.] I should like to invite him to my constituency to tell the 800-plus miners who are to be made redundant in the next few weeks the advantages of the dole.

Mr. Eggar

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finished on that note. He mentioned "the advantages of the dole". It is important to note that considerable amounts are being invested in Maltby to ensure that it is able to compete and that its good quality coal can be produced at low cost for a long time, which will enhance its prospects of long-term viability. The hon. Gentleman should stress that fact to his constituents, as it is a positive message.

We have had a good debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating in it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Ten o'clock.