BRITISH Coal should have been given more time to adapt to the new
market conditions introduced as a result of electricity privatisation,
former Energy Secretary Lord Parkinson said yesterday.
Lord Parkinson, who was responsible for electricity privatisation from
1987 to 1989, said: ''I would have preferred to see the initial
(generators') contracts (for coal) being longer than three years.
''But that was a decision that was taken in the light of all the known
facts after I had left.''
He told Channel 4's Dispatches programme, shown last night: ''I had
always had in mind myself rather longer initial contracts so that people
would get used to the idea that they had a freedom of choice.
''If you give people a freedom for the first time they are bound to
exercise it. If they have had it for a certain time they might exercise
it a little more sparingly.''
Lord Parkinson said the Government's options for privatising
electricity were limited by time available.
''The difficulty was that in the time available we had to develop a
plan, create a structure and get those companies to market -- all in
four years.''
The Government announced in October that 31 mines would shut with the
loss of 30,000 miners' jobs, blaming reduced demand for coal.
However, six days later it surrendered to public pressure by
announcing that 10 pit closures would take place after a 90-day
consultation period.
There would be a temporary reprieve until early new year to see
whether the 21 others could be saved.
British Coal chairman Neil Clarke told the Dispatches programme: ''We
would offer more coal if the market was there -- and we would take our
costs down to match it.
''The situation I faced after nine months' intensive negotiations is
that the market was not there.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article