Pit Closures: Policy (Hansard, 19 October 1993)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, the Government's policy was set out in the Coal Review White Paper.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, does the Minister recall that the massive opposition expressed by people throughout the country to the pit closure
501 programme about one year ago caused the Government to re-think their pit closure programme? Does the Minister recall that the Government made a number of promises? Is it not the case that a number of those promises have been broken? For example, is it not correct that at least one of the reprieved pits has been closed? Why is it that not one penny of the £500 million subsidy promised by the Government has been spent?
Of equal importance, why have negotiations not taken place on coal stocks? I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a crucial aspect. Finally, and perhaps most important of all, why has not the expert advisory panel been set up to consider the whole question of the rigged market against coal?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asks a number of questions, some of them very complicated when answering directly from the Dispatch Box. His charge that the Government have broken promises is not true. The White Paper provided opportunities. The Government explicitly did not offer guarantees. Furthermore, the subsidy which the noble Lord mentioned is still on offer, subject to Community clearance. My department, the DTI, is currently considering a number of applications.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is it not a mistake to talk about, a rigged market against coal when the essence of the problem is that British coal is more expensive than any other coal?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct in saying that it is entirely false to talk about the market being rigged against coal. Since 1979 the taxpayer has provided over £18 billion of support for the coal industry. British Coal has benefited from very large contracts at higher than market prices. That suggests that the market has been tilted in favour of coal for many years.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, would not a more accurate answer to the specific question as to what additional action the Government have in mind be "nothing"?

§ Lord Strathclyde
Not at all, my Lords. I made the position plain at the beginning. The answer to the question is to be found in the pages of the Government White Paper.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that in any extractive industry the raw material is bound to become dearer as time goes on?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that may sometimes be the case. I am not sure that it is entirely so in this particular industry. The point is that we recognise that there may be alternative new markets for coal. That is why we have offered the subsidy.

§ Lord Mason of Barnsley
My Lords, this is really a question about the future of our indigenous coal industry. If Her Majesty's Government's policies continue, that industry is likely to be decimated. Can the Minister explain why we continue to import 12 million tonnes of coal with a consequent closing of 12 pits, and why we import French electricity, so keeping their 502 nuclear power stations open but closing five more pits? Why do we not curb those imports? Why is there to be a continuation of the dash for gas? Why can we not curb the expansion of opencast coal mining which is the most environmentally damaging industry in the country'? If the Government acted in that way there would be a level playing field for coal and the industry would have a chance of survival.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there is no question of this Government decimating the British coal industry. The Government believe that the best future for the coal industry lies firmly in the private sector. Already we have seen a reduction in coal imports. As for the question of electricity from France, it is against Community law to cut off that electricity.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the party to which he belongs owes a special debt of gratitude to the Nottingham miners who broke the Scargill strike, which was called without a proper vote of union members, and who are now in particular difficulties? What do the Government propose to do to reward people who stood by them? They are not standing by the miners of Nottingham.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I salute all those who stood out against Arthur Scargill and his particular brand of socialism. That is why, when it comes to privatisation, we shall be offering special financial support to management and employee buy-out teams.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, perhaps. I may ask the Minister a question of fact. How many miners have been made redundant since the great coal rescue scheme was announced in March? I should like also to ask for his opinion. Does he not agree that now that the chairman of British Coal has announced that in all probability all of the 12 so-called reprieved pits will have to be closed shortly and not a penny of the money for the rescue scheme has been spent the great rescue was just a public relations con?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I can inform the House that since the publication of the White Paper some 11,500 miners have volunteered for redundancy. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, perhaps I can reply by using the words of the President of the Board of Trade on 25th March, when he said: We have done all that we reasonably could consistent with the economic realities and legal constraints to increase the opportunities for British coal".

§ Lord Jay
My Lords, as the Government are subsidising nuclear power at a cost to the British exchequer of £1 billion a year, and since they are subsidising the production of nuclear power in France which is then sold to this country, and since German coal is heavily subsidised, is it not obvious that the market is rigged heavily against British coal?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I explained in answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that £18 billion has already been spent on British coal since 1979. That is a measure of the commitment of this Government to coal.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, can the Minister confirm reports that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, has been in contact with the Government asking that a number of condemned pits be saved? If so, can he say what reply has been given?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that is entirely a matter for my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I have no knowledge of contacts which she may have had with the Government, either formally or informally.

§ Lord Murray of Epping Forest
My Lords, the Minister referred to the large number of miners who are losing their jobs. Can he inform the House what steps the Government have taken to provide, or to encourage the provision of, jobs for those people?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, will know that a number of schemes are available in coalfield areas offering terms for the regeneration of those areas and so provide the kind of jobs which will sustain those communities in the long term.