§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what sums of money are approved for capital expenditure by the National Coal Board in the coal mines for 1975 and 1974, and how these figures compare with sums similarly approved in 1972 and 1973.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (LORD BALOGH)My Lords, capital expenditure by the National Coal Board is related to financial years. The amounts approved for expenditure on coal mining (including opencast) in the financial years 1971/72, 1972/73 and 1973/74 were £86 million, £81 million and £81 million respectively, all at 1974 prices. The amount approved for 1974/75 is £95 546 million. The Board's expenditure in 1975/76 will not be settled until the completion of the current Public Expenditure Survey.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I draw his attention to the fact that the coal industry's interim report made by the Department of Energy forecasts that with this injection of capital our target! for the production of coal can be achieved only if there is an increase in productivity of about 4 per cent? Have the Government realised that as between May last year and May this year the production per man has not increased by 4 per cent., as is essential, but has actually decreased by 6 per cent? Does this not mean that we may not be able to achieve the results which will justify such capital expenditure?
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, without trying to make debating and political points, may I remind the noble Lord that there were certain unfortunate happenings in the coal industry during the past year which he quoted? May I assure him, however, that the beginnings of the £600 million programme are included and that the trade unions and the Coal Board are in negotiation about a productivity deal. Therefore, we all hope, without any Party difference, that the revivified coal industry will meet with success.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the loss of productivity is due to two factors? The first is the deliberate confrontation by the Tory Party against the miners in creating an Election earlier this year, and the second is lack of manpower. Is my noble friend further aware that we would rather see capital put into the mining industry, where there is public accountability, than millions of pounds given to private industry where there is no public accountability?
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, I share entirely my noble friend's attitude.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, when does my noble friend think we shall be able to get over to noble Lords, who ask Questions regarding productivity in the mining industry, that it is based on two factors: first, machine mining; and, secondly, hand production? This is not like 547 working on the surface operating machinery in a factory.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, I would not venture to teach my noble friend about the coal industry, because that would be inappropriate.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is it not the case that the very large sum which was mentioned—I think it was £600 million—for capital development includes the capital cost of proceeding with the Selby development in Yorkshire?
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, perhaps my noble friend will put clown a Question on that point, but I think he is right.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, may I finally put this point? I was not seek ing to make political points, as the noble Lord did, but was trying to compare May of last year with May of this year. I had hoped that the consequences of the winter were out of the way by May. I was com paring the productivity of May, 1973, with that of May, 1974. I am sure every noble Lord in this House—
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, is it right that most noble Lords in this House would wish to see any further wage award linked to productivity? This is the outcome of the vast capital expenditure now planned, and which was also planned by the previous Government, in our coal mines for the future. Up to date our productivity does not match that of Western Germany or the U.S.A. One must hope that the production—
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, would noble Lords not agree—
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, noble Lords may not agree but I can still ask the question. Is it not desirable that production should be as high as possible in the summer months, so that no Government 548 in the autumn are confronted with no stocks in hand for power supplies, which would be disastrous for the future of our nation?
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, this is much the longest question ever addressed to me. It had certain contradictory elements in it. As I have said, everybody is very much aware of the problems which the noble Lord quoted. We are trying to do our best to come to a solution, especially in a productivity agreement, and I hope we may leave it at that.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, will my noble friend agree that many of us feel nauseated at the constant pinpricks about the productivity of the miners, when there is a lack of productivity in many big businesses which have to come to the Government, like lame ducks, to be baled out? There are serious consequences involved in their industries.
§ LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, can the noble Lord give the figures of increased productivity for the five years previous to the years mentioned in the Question?
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, my noble friend ought to put down that Question, because it goes far from the original one.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend, in order to remove any misunderstanding from what appears to me to be implied criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, about the development costs that are likely to be entailed, whether it is possible to include information in the OFFICIAL REPORT—whenever we get an OFFICIAL REPORT, which is another question to be dealt with at some other time—so that we can understand what the development costs of proceeding with this huge Selby development affair are likely to be?
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, my noble friend will understand that the Selby project will begin, perhaps, at some time after planning permission, et cetera, has been dealt with. Thus to include it in this year's programme or next year's programme in a meaningful way would be going too far.