| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 446
The second point that the President of the Board of Trade must take on board is that the regional electricity companies have shares in most of the gas power stations being built. It does not matter to them if they pay more, because they cream off the profits as owners of those power stations. The only reason they are doing that is that they see it as a way of undercutting PowerGen and National Power. What will we be left with?Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : What about the regulator?
Mr. Cook : The hon. Gentleman has asked about an official appointed by his own Government--an official chosen by his Government after, we are told, an earnest process of head hunting. And lo, that earnest process of head hunting came up with the choice of the man who had advised them on the privatisation of the electricity industry a man who is plainly under judicial review at the present time for being in default of his powers under the Electricity Act 1989.
To sum up, we are now left with an energy strategy that makes no sense to the consumer because it results in higher prices, no sense to the economy because it results in higher unemployment and deeper recession, and no sense to national security because it writes off access to our coal reserves. It does make commercial sense to those electricity companies. Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to let Britain's energy strategy be decided by what is in the commercial interests of those electricity companies, even if it is against the national interest?
It is no good the President of the Board of Trade spreading his hands in innocence and saying that all the gas stations were the decision of the electricity industry and not his decision. Every one of the gas-fired generating stations coming on stream was given a licence to do so by Ministers. As late as August, the President of the Board of Trade himself approved two further licences--that at a time when, as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe, he was agonising over the number of pits that he would have to close. If the right hon. Gentleman really was agonising about the effect on the coalfields, why did he approve two more licences for two more stations that will take out two more pits?
On Monday, the President of the Board of Trade said that the electricity companies would not sign a coal contract, even though he had spoken to them nicely. He may even have spoken to them rudely, but he said that they would not sign up, and asked what he could do. The remedy is in the right hon. Gentleman's own hands. Condition V of the licence makes it explicit that the electricity supply industry must buy electricity from the cheapest source. It is not doing so, but is closing pits to buy from a more expensive source--and the right hon. Gentleman should not let it get away with that. The President of the Board of Trade should no more let the electricity supply industry break the law in its purchasing than he should have connived with British Coal in breaking the law over its redundancy package. The pits that are being abandoned contain some of the richest coalfields in Europe--seams that are about to be flooded. No wonder the rest of Europe thinks that we have gone mad. The President of the Board of Trade says that he must not let his heart rule his head. I will not quarrel
Column 447
with that--I do not want the right hon. Gentleman's heart to rule his head--but I ask him to use his head in providing an energy strategy that is in Britain's interests.I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the plight of Britain's mining communities has touched the heart of the nation, which has been moved by reaction to the statement that the right hon. Gentleman is destroying not just jobs but the virtues of close-knit, loyal communities based on a work force that understands that solidarity is important not just to the output of the shift but to the lives and safety of its members.
Another characteristic of mining communities is the courage that they have shown in mining coal from the earth, and in rescuing workmates trapped under that earth. But there is another kind of courage than physical courage--the courage to admit that one was wrong. It does not carry the same risks of danger, but it demands some humility.
The President of the Board of Trade owes it to miners to show that courage and humility. He should admit that he got it wrong and promise a real review of energy strategy, that no pit will cease production until it has been proved that the nation does not need its coal, and that he will intervene to challenge the electricity industry's short-sighted priorities.
If the right hon. Gentleman will do those things, I will applaud his courage. If he will not, I warn him that we will harry him at every turn. We will press the miners' case before breakfast, before lunch, and before dinner--and we will get up and do that again the next day. We will mobilise the public anger that the President of the Board of Trade has aroused until he admits that he was wrong, agrees that the British economy needs the British coal industry, and removes the axe that he has poised over 31 pits.
4.18 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine) : I beg to move, to leaveout from "House" to the end of the Question and to insert instead thereof :
"recognises the difficult economic judgments the Government had to make in accepting British Coal's proposals to close 31 collieries ; endorses the Government's conclusion that British Coal should introduce a moratorium on the closure of 21 of these pits unless the workforce agree otherwise ; welcomes the speedy action of the Government in introducing special assistance measures for coal mining areas ; and notes that the moratorium will enable the Government to take views and evidence on the future of the pits in question and to consider these in the context of the Government's energy policy, including the consequences of that policy for British Coal and the employment prospects for the industry, and allow the Trade and Industry Select Committee to consider the issues as it thinks fit, and the House to debate the issues that will be presented to it in the New Year before decisions are reached about future closures.". I think that the whole House will have listened to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) rehearsing broadly the same approach to nationalised industry that caused such devastation to so many industries under the Labour regimes. Regardless of the advice of management, difficult decisions were put off, costs were subsidised and change was prevented, at considerable cost to the rest of our economy, and cost to the consumer as a consequence.
Everyone will have realised that, in setting out his arguments today, the hon. Gentleman gave no concept of
Column 448
the cost of the implications behind his words. He gave no indication of how he would carry his policies through, or of the consequences for the industry itself and its customers ; he gave no indication of the costs, or of the competitiveness of the industries that depend on the electricity generating industry.On Monday, I made a statement to the House in which I acknowledged the existence of widespread concern at the speed of the proposed rundown of the coal industry under the previously agreed proposals. Consequently, I announced that British Coal would be allowed to proceed with the closure of only 10 clearly uneconomic pits, after the statutory consultation period had been completed. I also announced that the remaining 21 pits originally identified for closure would be the subject of a moratorium until early in the new year, and I confirmed that there would be no compulsory redundancies during that period, although voluntary redundancies would still be allowed to proceed under the terms announced by British Coal last week.
Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine : I certainly intend to give way during my speech, but it is important for me to set out the answers to important questions for the benefit of the House. I hope that I shall be able to answer a great number of the questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it may be helpful if I am able to do that in an orderly way so that the comprehensive nature of what I intend to say is available to the House before we discuss its implications.
Finally, I announced a substantial and very wide-ranging package of new measures to assist the coalfield communities as and when they suffer job losses, or in anticipation of such losses.
The consequences of the introduction of the moratorium will be as follows. First, it will enable negotiations to continue between British Coal and the electricity generators on new coal contracts. Secondly, it will enable a widespread process of consultation to take place with all the principal providers and consumers of energy, the trade unions and other interested parties. That process of consultation will allow us to examine in detail whether the case for further closures has been made, and whether ways and means can be found to increase the use of coal and, as far as possible, to lessen the impact of any closures.
Self-evidently, those who wish to make representations or submit evidence to us are full masters of any decision about whether that should be published. I neither seek nor have the powers to prevent whatever publication they choose. I shall commission my own inquiries. I intend-- with one exception to which I shall refer immediately--to make public the findings of such inquiries.
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way.
Madam Speaker : Order. The President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that he will give way later.
Mr. Heseltine : The exclusion that I must make is that I shall not be able to publish information with which I am provided in confidence and which is commercially
Column 449
sensitive. Unless I give that assurance, it is inevitable that private sector companies could well withhold relevant facts and figures from my inquiry. I assure the HouseMr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : I appear to have a point of order. I hope that it is a point of order for me to deal with and not a matter for debate.
Mr. Hood : It is a point of order for you directly, Madam Speaker. Is the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister in order if we are now told by the President of the Board of Trade that information will be withheld from the Select Committee which is to hold the inquiry?
Madam Speaker : I must inform the hon. Member and the House that the amendment would not have been printed were it not perfectly in order.
Mr. Hood : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : Is it further to the original point of order?
Mr. Hood : Yes, it is, Madam Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade has said that some of the information presented to him will be kept from the Select Committee.
Mr. Heseltine indicated dissent.
Mr. Hood : He has. Will he now clarify that statement, and if he cannot do so--
Madam Speaker : Order. If the House were to allow the Minister to proceed, we should know exactly what he was talking about.
Mr. Heseltine : Let me make it absolutely clear that I have no powers to constrain a Select Committee in any way. It may make any inquiries of any parties. It has very powerful weapons at its disposal to compel attendance and to secure what information it requires.
Several hon. Members rose --
Dr. Reid : Will the Minister give way on that point?
Madam Speaker : Order. I understand the anxiety of hon. Members, but the Minister has barely got a word out of his mouth.
Mr. Heseltine : I think that the House appreciates that I have no power to constrain the proceedings of a Select Committee, and I would not be involved in that process.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heseltine : I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Cash : My right hon. Friend referred to the Select Committee inquiry. His own inquiry will deal with questions that would exclude the 10 pits that are to be closed. Therefore, I ask him, his having considered the letter that I wrote to him this morning, to be good enough to give me an indication of whether he would take the Trentham pit out of the 10 pits that have been listed, in the light of the evidence that I have given to him in that letter.
Column 450
Mr. Heseltine : I want to deal seriously with the point made by my hon. Friend, although I should have come to a part of the speech where it would have been easier to do so. However, my hon. Friend has put the question to me. He gave me notice yesterday lunchtime of specific information that he had available about Trentham. I received that information around lunchtime today. I have, of course, made as early an inquiry as I can from the Coal Board in what are obviously very limited circumstances. I cannot tell my hon. Friend that I can withdraw the Trentham pit from the list of 10, in the light of the reply that I will be sending him and the information that the Coal Board has made available to me, but I think that I am able to help my hon. Friend, in that--and I shall say this a little later in my speech--when a colliery is going through the consultative process it is the responsibility of the Coal Board not to prejudice the outcome of that consultative procedure. By that, as I understand it, it is the Coal Board's responsibility not to do anything that would preclude the continuation of that pit, should the consultation produce evidence so to justify. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that that is as full an answer as I can give in the circumstances and in the time.
Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Heseltine : I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : May I ask the Secretary of State to explain one point arising from his last answer? Is he saying that if evidence in the review is brought to bear that could affect the fate of the 10 pits that he has sentenced already, that, too, would change the view on the 10? It is a factual question. It is very difficult to understand the argument. Is he saying that the 10 pits could be reprieved in the review, when they have already been closed under a decision taken without proper consultation?
Mr. Heseltine : The right hon. Gentleman has raised the generalisation that flows from what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The statutory consultative process is now beginning in respect of the 10 pits. It must be a genuine consultation, and it is the responsibility of the Coal Board so to manage those pits during that consultative process that if it is persuaded that there is a case to continue the pits it will not have prejudiced that position during the consultative process.
Mr. Benn : If it is true that that is open to British Coal in the light of the consultation, which the right hon. Gentleman says is now to be resumed, why was the decision announced on Monday that, whatever happened, the pits would close ? The Secretary of State has prejudged the consultative process, which he has now used to try to win support from his own Back Benchers. What is the position of the 10 pits ? Are they able to be saved, and if so why did the right hon. Gentleman say that they would all have to close ? Mr. Heseltine : As the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House know, British Coal has advised me that these pits are uneconomic. [Interruption.] It is no use the Labour party arguing against a consultative procedure that it followed when it closed pits. British Coal is
Column 451
proceeding along that path, and I have made it absolutely clear that it must fulfil that statutory obligation. That is the position.Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen) : My right hon. Friend will be aware of my question, because I have discussed the matter with him. There is much confusion about this point. It is not understood exactly what has been said. Does he mean that there will be care and maintenance in those 10 pits for the whole of the consultative period, because in the High Court yesterday Charles Falconer QC, on behalf of British Coal, said :
"But we give an assurance that what we do will not prejudice the outcome of the consultations".
Does that mean full care and maintenance, because there is much confusion about whether it does ?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend, who has taken a vast and proper interest in these matters, is asking me to reaffirm the very point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. The Coal Board is compelled by the procedures to maintain the option of continuing with the pit. It must indulge in the appropriate care and maintenance to keep that option open. I do not believe that I could have said it more clearly. Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Heseltine : I must get on.
Early in the new year, I shall publish a White Paper setting out the results of my inquiries set in the context of the Government's energy policy and making clear the consequences of this for British Coal, the implications for individual pits and the employment prospects for the industry.
Dr. Michael Clark (Rochford) : I am most sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend as he is moving on, but I still believe that the issue of the 10 pits is of paramount importance to many Conservative Members.
If those pits are left on a care and maintenance basis, and if there is consultation, does that mean that at the end of the consultation period they can continue open, and continue to produce coal, if the consultations and the Coal Board's decision suggest that that should happen? If so, how are the 10 pits different from the other 21? Why are they not all subject to the moratorium?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend has asked the question to which I have already, in part, given the answer. The distinction, for which the House is fully entitled to ask, is that those 10 pits are actually losing money now-- [Interruption.] They are losing money now, at the prices that prevail now--and British Coal knows that from next April it will not obtain those prices. That is why those 10 pits will be subject to the procedures that will make it possible to close them. [Interruption.] I confirm to my hon. Friend--
Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Several hon. Members rose--
Madam Speaker : Order. There is another point of order.
Column 452
Mr. Robert Hughes : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would help the House considerably, and it would probably help you too, if the President of the Board of Trade would use the microphone and address the Chair, instead of turning his back on the House and addressing his Back Benchers.
Madam Speaker : That is a helpful point of order for me, because I cannot hear the President of the Board of Trade at all.
Mr. Heseltine : I am finding it difficult to hear myself, Madam Speaker, so I appreciate your difficulties.
Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Heseltine : May I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), and reiterate what I have said? The statutory procedures for closure must not prejudice the outcome of those procedures, but the advice of the Coal Board is that those pits are now losing money, and therefore the board's advice to me is that they should proceed to closure. There is no case that I can see for waiting until the end of the moratorium in order to begin the consultative procedures ; the advice from the management of those pits is clear--
Several hon. Members rose--
Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members should not persist. The Minister is making it clear to me that he is not giving way at the moment-- [Interruption.] Order. I am sure that the Minister will make it clear when he wants to give way, and I ask hon. Members to let us proceed with the debate until then. I want to hear more Members speak. I want to hear not only the Front Benchers but the Back Benchers, too.
Mr. Heseltine : Early in the new year I shall publish a White Paper setting out the results of my inquiries in the context of the Government's energy policy, and making clear the consequences of that policy for British Coal, the implications for individual pits and the employment prospects for the industry. Before then the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will have a full opportunity to consider all those issues as it thinks fit. Members of the House will also have an opportunity to debate the issues fully. I shall present the conclusions and future decisions to the House.
I shall now set out in detail how I intend to proceed with the review. I say at once that I have--
Dr. Reid : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt now, but I have been trying to intervene and refer to the question asked by-- [Interruption.] I have been trying to raise a point of order, subsequent to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)--a point of order about the resolution itself. The question is whether the resolution is in order-- [Interruption.] I am sorry, the question is whether the Government's amendment is in order. It would be in order only if it could be shown that the information available to the review would be equal to that available to the separate inquiry that has just been announced.
If the amendment was accepted as being in order prior to the knowledge that there were to be two reviews, one by the President of the Board of Trade and another by the Select Committee, and that the information available to the President of the Board of Trade under commercial
Column 453
confidentiality could be used by him to overrule the Select Committee, surely it cannot be in order now, because that information undermines the basis of the amendment. That is what the President of the Board of Trade is trying to present to the House. He will overrule it on the basis of information that is not available to the Committee-- [Interruption.]Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has been rising to intervene on the President of the Board of Trade by saying that he wanted to refer to the White Paper. He now raises with me a point of order which has already been raised. The amendment would not be acceptable and it would not have been selected by me unless it was perfectly in order. I have already dealt with thatmatter.
Mr. Heseltine : I want now to set out in detail how I intend to proceed with the review. I must say at once that I have listened most carefully to the many points that have been put to me, particularly by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I believe that I will be able to address their concerns. I intend to look separately at every one of the 21 pits in question and decide whether the case for closure has been fully made.
I have today invited Boyds, an international mining consultancy of world repute, to report to me on the viability of those pits. I also intend to appoint consultants to report on the prospects for British Coal, including any alternative markets that may exist for this product, and to comment generally on the competitiveness of British Coal as an organisation. I shall be having discussions with the generators and the 12 regional electricity companies to satisfy myself that the market prospects for coal have been correctly assessed and that no company is abusing its position in the marketplace.
I will, of course, consult the regulator charged by Parliament with this responsibility. I will report to the House on the level of coal stocks, both at the pithead and at the power stations. I will consider whether plans to run them down are sensibly phased. I will set out for the House the consequences of the switch to gas and the whole question whether gas is cheaper.
I will produce for the House the latest estimate of the likely reserves of gas and the conclusions that we draw from that. I will report to the House on the present scale of gas-generated power stations in production, in build and in the planning process. I will review the use of the consent powers as foreshadowed by my predecessor in his statement of 9 March. I will consider whether it is sensible to mothball--
Mr. Robin Cook : Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his list, will he answer a simple question to which the House is entitled an answer? Why did he not do all those things before announcing last week's decision?
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we have considered all those things, but the House wants further and better details -- [Interruption.] It is because we are persuaded that that is the right way to go that I have promised the House that I will set out these issues and that the House will have a full opportunity to consider them. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.
Column 454
Mr. Heseltine : I will be considering whether it is sensible to mothball some of the 21 pits which were due to close. I will explore once again the opportunities for the private sector in the production of coal. Finally, I will report on the existing and anticipated level of imports and the wider economic implications of this.
Throughout that process, I will be pleased to receive the views of all interested parties, both inside and outside this House. Let me also promise the House this : the consultation process will be aimed at considering all views without restriction. It will have no pre-ordained outcome. The concerns of the House will be met fully in this respect. It will be a genuine review.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his most helpful and detailed clarification of the parameters and elements of this thorough review. The words used towards the end of the amendment are very important. They are "the Government allow the Trade and Industry Select Committee to consider the issues as it thinks fit".
Is it not therefore, in the light of what my right hon. Friend has just said most helpfully, the same thing as saying that he will accept the recommendations of the Select Committee?
Mr. Heseltine : The House knows that I have always tried to be as helpful as possible to Select Committees. However, I have to say that no Minister can give a blank cheque to a Select Committee. At the end of the three-month consultation period, I will present a White Paper to the House taking into account all the arguments that have been presented and setting out our full conclusions and their implications for the coal industry within the context of our wider energy policy.
Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) rose--
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not a tradition and courtesy of the House that when Ministers give way--which is entirely voluntary--they should do so on a basis that recognises that there are different sides and different parts of the House?
Madam Speaker : It seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade has hardly got into his swing yet. He will probably do that later.
Mr. Cormack rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade was about to give way to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).
Mr. Cormack : Those of us on the Conservative Benches, and there are many of us who have been extremely concerned over the past week, much appreciate the thoroughness of the review that my right hon. Friend has announced. It is for that reason alone that many of us will support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby this evening. If, by any chance, the review is not as thorough as he promised--although I fervently believe that it will be--we will still have the opportunity to vote against the closures.
| Next Section
| Home Page |