Coal Industry Bill (Hansard, 5 March 1992)

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I hope that your Lordships will not agree to the passing of the Bill. This Bill, and indeed the totality of the Government's policies on coal, do not recognise a matter of fundamental importance; namely, the security of supply. The latest figure that I have seen on reserves in this country shows that there are 4.2 billion tonnes of marketable coal, and yet we continue to increase imports of coal. Some of those imports come from South Africa and Colombia, which dump coal—that is, dump in the economic sense—to gain foreign exchange, but an increasing amount comes from Germany, which, against all EC regulations, subsidised its coal industry to the tune of £3.5 billion last year.
Are the Government saying that those sources of supply will last forever and that, if they do not, we can always reopen our closed pits? Surely they know that that cannot be done. Are they also saying that the new buying spree on gas fired power stations will meet any problems which arise? They know that the same arguments I have just used will arise again on such a proposition. There are many countries which envy our coal reserves and which would not think twice about ensuring a continuous supply from indigenous sources.
In their economic thinking on the coal industry, the Government have not looked at the wider implications in relation to manpower. Thousands of miners have lost their jobs and the social implications of that are enormous—as I know only too well, having represented a mining constituency in another place. But let us consider also the economics of the situation. Every unemployed worker who does not find another job costs the taxpayer £8,000 a year in social benefits and lost tax revenues. I remind your Lordships that in the coal industry the figure will be higher because of the special redundancy scheme that operates in the industry.
It is certain that at some time in the future people will look with incredulity at the burning of coal in its present form. The chemical content of coal and the liquefaction of coal, will be the basis of future action with coal. We could be in the position of sitting on millions of tonnes of raw material and not be able to do anything about it.
There are other matters concerning coal which ought to be exercising the Government's mind rather than the largely irrelevant issues contained in the Bill. However, I have to admit that this is not an 988 appropriate time to deal with them. Fortunately, this Government are in their death throes. A Labour government will ensure that the important issues—that is, not simply the ones that I have mentioned, but others too—will be dealt with properly and successfully.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, it comes as a tiny bit of a surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, should speak on the Bill. One must ask oneself where the noble Lord was when we had the Second Reading debate.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, I can reply specifically. I was on a parliamentary delegation to Moscow and Kiev. I thought that that was a good reason for not being able to be here to speak in the debate.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I am not sure that the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, are relevant. However, I shall read carefully in Hansard what he said and reply. It is a shame—and, indeed, it is not the way that the House should work—that such issues should be brought forward. The Bill is relevant. It is extremely important, as many of his noble friends agreed when we discussed the Bill in the House.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I would not have risen to speak but for the remarks just made by the Minister. He seemed to imply that my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington had no right to raise such matters at this stage of the Bill's proceedings. I should like some assurance—that is, if it can be given by anyone—that any Member of this House has the right to raise any matter on any Bill or topic at any stage during its passage through the House. That is what I have understood to be the case until now. If the noble Lord has anything different to tell me, I am quite sure that I, and other Members of the House, will be interested to hear it.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is perfectly right. His noble friend was absolutely within his rights to raise such matters. I merely said that I was surprised. As I have to speak, I should like to take the opportunity to thank those noble Lords who consistently took part in the debates on this important Bill throughout all its stages. I have in mind my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Cockfield, and my noble friend Lord Haslam, with his great experience. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also contributed considerably to the Bill. Other contributors were the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick, Lord Jay, Lord Rochester and Lord Desai. I am grateful to all of them for taking part during the various stages of the Bill.
989 I should also like to say that the Bill was concisely worded and well drafted. I should like to thank the Department of Energy and also the officials who supported me during the progress of the Bill.

Noble Lords
Lord Donoughue!

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I am sorry; of course, I had the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on my list. Although he was not present consistently throughout the Bill's stages, he played a very important part. I should also like to congratulate him on his contribution because I believe that it was the first time that he has taken a Bill through the House. I also thank him for his consistent courtesy throughout the proceedings. I commend the Bill to the House.