§ 3.20 p.m.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and, in so doing, may I draw attention to a misprint? The second time the word "published" appears in the Question, it should read "publicised".
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why, in the World Coal Study (WOCOL) recently published and widely published. Britain is not included among countries considered to have export potential.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie)My Lords, the World Coal Study was prepared by an international team which included the National Coal Board and the United Kingdom private sector coal interests. Her Majesty's Government were not involved, and I cannot therefore answer for the conclusions reached by the authors of the report. I can assure the House, however, that the National Coal Board was closely involved in the World Coal Study and is very well aware of the growing scale of the world market for coal. While the board's first priority is to supply the home market, exports of about 2 to 3 million tonnes are in fact made each year to certain customers who either want particular types of coal produced by the board, or have looked to the United Kingdom as an alternative source of supply for part 1725 of their needs. This trade seems likely to continue.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that rather evasive reply to my Question, may I ask whether he would not agree that the attitude of the Coal Board, and indeed of the Government, as represented by his reply, is of a somewhat defeatist character and quite out of line with the bold declaration of Venice to which the Prime Minister adhered only the other day?
The Earl of GOWRIEMy Lords, I cannot he evasive about a reply to a Question which is not properly addressed to me. As I have told my noble friend, Her Majesty's Government were not involved here.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is the Government's unrealistic financial policy that is leading to pit closures?
The Earl of GOWRIEMy Lords, I am stupefied by that supplementary question from the noble Lord. As the noble Lord is well aware, being a considerable expert on coal, Her Majesty's Government are engaged in very heavy financial subsidies to the coal industry in this country, and that is probably one of the reasons why we are increasing exports.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, does my noble friend not agree that in fact last year productivity was up very significantly, thanks in part to the Tory tax cuts; that output was up higher in the mining industry than in any other industry in the country; and that it is time to be bold, to pursue a bold coal export policy, instead of one which is rather apologetic and negative?
The Earl of GOWRIEMy Lords, if I may take up my noble friend's point, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, we are pursuing a bold policy, but it would be most welcome to the Government if boldness in financial terms from our point of view was met—as in many significant cases it is being met—by increased productivity within the coal industry itself.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, in 1726 order to counter some of the pessimists who have been asking questions about this matter—I am not sure whether they know all about it—may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that finance is the dominating factor here, and that without adequate finance it is not possible to proceed? Is the noble Earl aware that one of the most important finance houses in the City of London, indeed perhaps the most supreme merchant bank in the City of London, is closely associated with the organisation? Does he agree that as long as that is the case, we need have no doubt about the potential involved?
The Earl of GOWRIEMy Lords, I certainly welcome the degree of enthusiasm with which investment is being placed in the coal industry, and I agree with noble Lords that this country has a great coal potential. Like most noble Lords, I should of course wish to see us importing rather less, but that will depend upon the Coal Board modernising and being able to compete successfully with overseas coal producers; and that is what we wish to see achieved.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, will the Government consider increasing the financial limits that they have placed upon the coal industry to a more realistic level?
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, is it not a fact that we have for years been discussing massive developments of coalfields, including the one now under consideration in my native county? Does it not appear that the Government are thinking of stopping some of these tremendously important industrial developments, which are the basis of the foundation of our fuel policy, as decided in this House? Is this not a question which affects both industry at large and of course war-time industry? Is not the Statement, coming as it did from Venice, almost a clear surrender of a large part of our industrial future?
The Earl of GOWRIEMy Lords, with regard to the coal industry overall, the Government are not anxious to stop anything. That industry has a great 1727 potential, and our policy is to encourage it to go.
§ Lord DERWENTMy Lords, in my continual thirst for knowledge may I ask my noble friend what the initials WOCOL represent? They do not to me seem to represent the World Coal Study.
The Earl of GOWRIEMy Lords, share my noble friend's pessimism about the future of acronyms, which seem to be growing apace in public life. My advice is that WOCOL stands for World Coal Study, but how this acronym was arrived at is I fear another Question, which I would seek to answer if my noble friend put it down.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the Government's intention to assist the coal industry to the extent of £200 million in real terms each year for the next three years is not only a great encouragement to the industry, but should mean that its target to the end of the century could be raised to 200 million tonnes from 170 million tonnes?
The Earl of GOWRIEMy Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend, but it is very difficult to please noble Lords opposite.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, in view of what the noble Earl has said, may I ask the Government whether they are aware that if productive pits are sacrificed on the altar of short-term monetary fanaticism, they will not be easily forgiven?
The Earl of GOWRIEMy Lords, anyone who thinks that £200 million a year is short-term monetary fanaticism needs to take lessons in arithmetic.