With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition which is headed "The National Mobility Petition", which is signed by more than 1,000 residents of my constituency, Watford, where, as hon. Members may know, there is an area populated solely by disabled people.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, after "Board" insert "(a)".

With this we may take Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 15, at end insert—

"(b) in building up and maintaining stocks of coal and coke for the benefit of industrial consumers, and

(c) in building up and maintaining stocks of coal and coke to meet the requirements of the domestic market in coal and coke".

It is significant that we are debating the Report stage of this very important measure on a Friday. I think we all feel that it is a great pity that the Government found it necessary to put on this sort of programme on a Friday. There is no doubt that a great many hon. Members would have liked to take part in this debate.

There are more hon. Members here this morning than on a normal Friday.

I accept that there are more hon. Members here than on a normal Friday, but a great many hon. Members who would have liked to be here are not here. This is the second occasion on which the Government have made a mistake with this Bill. Hon. Members will remember that the first time they tried to bring the Bill forward on Report not all the documentation was available and the Government had to change the date. One would have thought that the Government would change it to a time that was for the convenience of the House and not for the inconvenience of so many hon. Members. I do not wish to make a great issue of it, merely to get this point on the record.

The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has gone to a funeral.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make an intervention of that sort, because it would not have been my hon. Friend's wish to make such a journey but he has done so nevertheless. He was going to move the first amendment.

We could have had the Bill last week.

We should have had it last week if the Government had included it in the business. It is your Government, not ours. In my opinion, if we are to make progress—

It is not Mr. Deputy Speaker's Government.

I note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you very soon let the House know that it was certainly not your Government, and I am sorry if by a slip of the tongue I made any suggestion that it might have been.

I am quite impartial.

It is very important that we do not rush through these matters merely because we all want to get away on a Friday. The business is being taken today and we must consider the amendments very carefully.

"10 million tons of stock are anyway financed by the board's customers. The purpose is to help not with any stocks but with exceptional stocks … There is no need for distributors to build up exceptional stocks."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5th April 1977; c. 174].

I support the amendment. It is important for us to have a clear explanation from the Minister why the proposed subsidy for coal stocking is to be limited to the electricity supply industry and the British Steel Corporation. My main point is that in my assessment this is a selective application of the subsidy which is contrary to the best interests of energy conservation and a more rational use of energy.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for raising a matter that is not related to the Bill. The first item of public business, the European Assembly Elections Bill, was presented on behalf of Mr. Secretary Rees, whose name is on the Order Paper. However, the Bill shows that it is presented by Mr. Secretary Ross.

I have no doubt that the hon. Member's information will have been noticed elsewhere and that any steps necessary to correct the error will be taken in due course. I am advised that it in no way invalidates the Bill itself.

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New-ham, South (Mr. Spearing). Whether we agree or disagree with him, we have to admit that he never misses a trick, even on a Friday.

I support the amendment, which stands in my name as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who so ably moved it. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) was perhaps guilty of some slight inaccuracies here and there in his observations and interpretation. Perhaps he was also guilty of a little wishful thinking in certain parts. I imagine that the Minister will be able to highlight some of his arguments when he sums up.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I have been to the Public Bill Office to see the Table copy of the Bill to ascertain whose name is engrossed on the European Assembly Elections Bill as presenting it. I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is no Table copy. There is no such copy anywhere in the precincts of the House. It has not been delivered to the Table Office.

I understand that the copy to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is in the Journal Office. I can inform the hon. Gentleman that it does not effect today's business.

I raise a specific matter involving the stocking of coal at collieries that are dependent on the Carmarthen Bay Power Station. This is a matter that the Minister knows well. He will recall meeting a deputation from the area concerned some months ago. The deputation represented the National Coal Board, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Action Committee of the Carmarthen Bay Power Station, as well as the Dyfed County Council. There was a large public meeting. I believe that the deputation impressed the Minister by being articulate and sincere in the way in which it put its case. The Minister impressed the deputation by his sincerity and the sympathy with which he listened to its case.

I do not wish to be in any way controversial in a friendly debate of this sort, but it seems that the Opposition must make up their minds somewhere along the line whether they are for or against subsidies. There is no indication in the amendment whether they are talking about additional moneys being made available for this purpose or merely a redistribution of the existing subsidy cake.

The hon. Gentleman cannot really talk in terms of a 10-year projection of the cost cycle. Furthermore, the whole question of the funding of the annual coal stocks is an annual revenue item not a capital item. The hon. Gentleman talks about four months, but Alcan or Courtaulds have hundreds of thousands of pounds tied up in stocks, which could present serious problems.

I was not talking of 10-year predictions in this situation, but in general it is known months ahead what the level will be. It is predictable in that sense, so I do not think that the problem is very great.

I support the amendment for three main reasons. First, we must recognise that within the coal industry there has been a quite serious fall-off in morale as a result of the undistributed stocks being visible to the miners, who are at the same time being asked to dig more and more coal. Therefore, it has been the policy of the Government, which I support entirely, to ensure that as much of this coal is distributed as possible. The Government have chosen to make this distribution very largely to two major customers of the industry, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the iron and steel industry. I believe that to be unfair and unreasonable.

"We believe, therefore, that it is in the national interest that larger General Industry coal users should be included in the provisions of the Bill for assisted coal stocking."

I have listened with great interest to the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) commented on the timing of these proceedings. He will remember the story of the parishioner in Scotland who was congratulated by his kirk minister on the fact that he had a new house with a bath for the first time. He told the Minister "I am looking forward to the weekend coming, when I shall be able to have a bath." He did not realise the time was now, that he could have a bath whenever he liked. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the time is now when the House should get ahead with putting this progressive measure on the statute book.

But does the Minister accept that that applies only if he accepts the amendment?

I certainly do not accept that. What I am saying is that the Bill is such a tremendous vote of confidence in the industry that the industry will respond and we shall get the markets.

I think, generally speaking, that this amendment would be received sympathetically by hon. Members on both sides of the House, were it possible. But what would be the impact on coal-burning centres under this clause if the amendment were carried extending the scheme but without any increase in the amount of subsidy available? Would not that have a deleterious effect on any agreement which was reached, for instance, with the South of Scotland Electricity Board?

It could alter the sums. I should not like to say off the cuff how serious the effect would be, but obviously more money would be involved. I am not in a position to give a direct reply to the hon. Gentleman. I always try to be accurate. My instinct is probably to agree with the hon. Gentleman. But, in the interests of accuracy, I should prefer to write to him about it because it is a matter deserving some clarification.

The Minister is justifying his opposition to our amendment on the ground that if the subsidy were available to industrial consumers in addition to the limited availability to the electricity industry it might contravene ECSC regulations. Can he explain why, apparently, the British Steel Corporation is included? It is, after all, part of industry. Why is that to be allowable when it is not allowable to industry at large, such as ICI, for example?

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East has long experience of these matters. He should know that different rules apply to the steel industry, where one is talking primarily about coke. The hon. Member raised the same matter in Committee, and I gave my reply to him on that occasion.

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for the past four or five minutes, and I imagine that he is bringing his remarks to a conclusion. I have been baffled by what he said so far. Many of our arguments have not been discussed in any detail. May I ask him especially to reply to one matter which I raised? There are some 20 or 25 large industrial private users who have the better part of 10 million tons of coal outstanding at the end of the summer period. If, for economic reasons, those organisation? decided to run down their stocks seriously and drastically in order to improve their cash flow positions, what action would the Government and the National Coal Board take to try to offset a potentially serious problem?

It is not the job of a Minister to answer hypothetical questions. The hon. Member is implying that this could not be done, for whatever reason it might be. To an extent, this Bill is a vote of confidence in the industry. I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerates. It may be my inadequacy in not being able to explain the position. But I am replying to the debate on the amendment and to matters arising from the amendment. The hon. Gentleman may be unable to comprehend what I have said, or it may be due to my inability to communicate with him. But I felt that I had answered the debate. The hon. Gentleman may be dissatisfied with what I am saying. In that case, we shall have to disagree.

I comprehend what the Minister has said. My only dissatisfaction is that he has not applied his argument to our amendment.

Of course, we could have this kind of exchange all the time. I thought that I had replied to all the arguments put forward in the debate, though possibly to the dissatisfaction of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. But, as he anticipated, my remarks are really coming to an end.

There is no question of our withdrawing the amendment. It was interesting to hear the Minister describe the meeting that he had with the Chamber of Coal Traders. He told us that it was friendly, each side thought that the other was very nice, everyone thought the world of the National Coal Board, everyone thought the world of the help being given—but still there is a demand for our amendment. It is as simple as that.

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 28, at end insert:

'and opencast workings of coal'.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect to the Chair, may J say that this amendment rather puzzles me because I understand that the definition of "coal activities" under the Bill includes opencast workings of coal. Since that is so, I can see no validity in the amendment.

In the circumstances, I think that it would be convenient if the Minister were to explain the amendment.

It is precisely because the wording in the Bill does not make that clear that I am moving the amendment. The Bill refers to "colliery activities". Does that include opencast activities? That is my point.

I shall be brief. My constituency contains five deep mines which produce most of the coal that goes to the great Port Talbot steelworks. In addition, because we are in the coastal belt, opencast mining, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows from the inquiries that have taken place, is a very important issue. It is a very important issue in areas where there were previously deep mines. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure the House that the wording in the Bill includes opencast mining. I rest my case there.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) for moving the amendment and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley). Mr. Deputy Speaker has more or less clearly defined how I should reply. The hon. Member for Carmarthen expressed doubts about definition. I wish to clarify that the amendment would not achieve anything. The definition of "colliery activities" under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act includes

"winning, working or getting coal".

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 16, leave out 'refining' and insert 'treatment'.

It is encouraging that the Minister and I can see eye to eye in view of the fact that I moved this amendment in Committee. One is entitled to pose a rhetorical question about the drafting procedures throughout the Bill being a little questionable because the earlier Act adequately defines "petroleum" and the Bill does not seem to do it for the first time. However, I do not want to be grudging and churlish to the Minister because at least he has granted us a minor and modest concession.

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 25, at end insert—

'and that the revenues of the Board from those activities shall not be less than sufficient for meeting all their outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account in connection with those activities on an average of good and bad years'.

With this we may take Amendment No. 6, in Clause 10, page 8, line 12, at end insert—

'Provided that the revenues of the Board from the activities under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall not be less than sufficient for meeting all their outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account in connection with those activities on an average of good and bad years'.

In considering the provisions of the Coal Industry Bill we have taken a realistic view of the probable future of the industry. We accept, for example, that oil and gas are finite resources and must be treated as such. Nuclear energy must be considered carefully before positive decisions are taken, although we have expressed reservations about the delays that appear inevitable in reaching these decisions. Solar, wind and wave energy all require much research and development, and the lead-in time with all these sources is long.

"In all these operations the National Coal Board will act, and will be expected by the Government to act, on a commercial basis, as it does in its existing chemical activities".

"All these activities would be undertaken jointly by the NCB and BSC partnership, seeking co-operation with established companies". —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26th April 1977; c. 253.]

It always amazes me that on Report we cover so much of what we have already worked our way through in Committee. In contrast with what was said by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), I believe that these amendments are very restrictive. They are contrary to the whole philosophy of the Bill, which is to provide expanded opportunities for development by the National Coal Board.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is more natural for those who have reservations to make them to Opposition Members rather than to Government supporters, who would be expected to agree with the legislation in any case?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not always agree with Government legislation. I am sure that extractors know that Labour Members would look with an open mind at anything that was put to them. However, it has not been our experience to have the large numbers of representations which apparently Opposition Members have had. I do not believe that there is any real threat to the commercial viability of any private undertakings. We are as interested as the Opposition in maintaining jobs.

The hon. Member for Can-nock (Mr. Roberts) may know a great deal about the coal industry, but he has displayed an abysmal ignorance of the problems involved in the quarrying, road-stone, sand and gravel industries. That may be because there is less of the quarrying and road material extraction industry in Cannock than there is in South-East Derbyshire.

"It is our strong contention that such minerals should be worked and marketed by companies already established in the aggregates business, so that the capital already invested and skilled personnel employed are not wasted."

I am not sure that, even if one assumes that what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has just said is correct, the amendment would give all that much safeguard. As I read it, it puts a minor restriction on the activities of the Coal Board.

The Opposition said in Committee that they would return to some of these subjects, and they are keeping their promise. I believe that I understand their motives in putting down their amendments, particularly this one. They stressed in Committee their reluctance to see the National Coal Board have access to public funds for commercial purposes under the clause and said that all the operations should be commercially viable. I admit that the hon. Member for Ross and Cro-marty (Mr. Gray) had no complaints today about the general philosophy.

"This is not to say that the Board will squander money and resources on anything that seems to offer a possibility of securing outlets for coal and its products".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28th April 1977; c. 304–5.]

I am surprised at that reply. I refer back to the Committee stage proceedings on 26th April, when the Minister said, in reference to the Board:

"In all these operations (under Clause 9) the National Coal Board will act, and will be expected by the Government to act on a commercial basis, as it does in its existing chemical activities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 26th April 1977; c. 253.]

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 40, leave out from '"petroleum "' to end of line 44 and insert—

'means any of the following (other than coal) namely—

(a) mineral oil, natural gas and bituminous shales;

(b)deposits not mentioned in the preceding paragraph from which oil can be extracted by destructive distillation; and

(c)hydrocarbons which are related to mineral oil and are not mentioned in the pre ceding paragraphs.'.

We thank the Government for responding to the representations that we made in Committee. The Minister acknowledged again today that Opposition raised these matters in Committee. The amendment clarifies considerably the import of the Bill.

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 8, line 12, at end insert—

'Provided that the power to work and get minerals under this subsection shall not be exercised by means of opencast operations otherwise than in association with working and getting coal.'

With this we are taking Amendment No. 9, in page 8, line 21, at end insert:

'and the Opencast Coal Act 1958'.

These amendments seek to make a very small but important adjustment to Clause 10. It is intended to ensure that the bulk mineral extractive industry-which, as we pointed out in Committee, facing severe over-capacity difficulties-will not be further threatened by an extension of the powers of a State monopoly coal industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) illustrated these difficulties in the previous debate.

"Within the private sector, capacity is more than adequate to deal with all foreseeable demand and no question of the national interest can arise. However, we accept that there may be a case for powers to exploit rarer and more valuable minerals accessible by mining, as was mentioned by you, in Committee. We also believe it is reasonable that the Board should be able to exploit any minerals which can be worked in association with the winning of coal.

We are aware of the Board's existing powers to exploit other minerals in certain land already vested in the Board and also of the wish to develop resources that might otherwise not be worked. In this regard we understand from our conversations that the Board's concern arose not in connection with the bulk minerals but with anhydride and copper. Set against this background we were surprised and disappointed to find a general unwillingness to consider any compromise."

"The entry of the NCB into this industry, adding product into an already over-supplied situation, could cause commercial chaos, particularly as the NCB would be operating without the financial constraints and requirements of private enterprise and the efficiency and skills that have been created over the post-war years in surface extraction as opposed to underground extraction."

The amendment is prompted by the fears which have been expressed by the bulk mineral industry. At its request I met representatives of the Sand and Gravel Association and the British Quarrying and Slag Federation. That meeting gave me at first hand the reasons for their concern.

I am grateful to the Minister for taking the initiative and arranging the meeting. It is a step towards satisfying the fears of the extractive mineral industries. In view of his statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 44, at end insert—

'(5) The Secretary of State's authority to give consents under subsection (4) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament after being made'.

I rise briefly to explain my remarks in Committee, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has suggested that their implications are that I am in favour of the amendment. I must make it clear that my views on the subject are somewhat different, as well he knows.

If the hon. Gentleman is correct in his assumption that the NCB will not do anything adverse to the United Kingdom miner, surely there is no objection to accepting the amendment, because any Statutory Instrument under it would be simply a formality and be approved automatically.

There is a safeguard which I think is more attractive than a Statutory Instrument. If the Board tried to engage in activities of a kind that would result in the benefits or security of our miners being put at stake, the appropriate action would be taken without the long process of a Statutory Instrument. I have already made my position clear to the National Union of Mine workers today- one of the reasons for my absence earlier was that I was in touch with the people concerned in the union. There is no doubt that if the Board, in exploiting coal overseas, put at risk the jobs of our miners, the unions would take the appropriate action.

It seems that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that Parliament does not need any control, because the miners can, in their own interests, take the situation into their own hands and decide what the NCB should be granted and what it should not be granted. Is he suggesting that there is now no purpose or functions for Parliament?

I was making the rather conservative point that we should not be over-burdened with legislation. I mean that seriously. I take the same view about the direct elections Bill. That represents another way in which we are going to become overburdened. There are large areas of life which should be dealt with by those in the middle of the argument. Too often we bring matters before Parliament which have no need to be brought before it. There are further amendments for discussion which are really matters for negotiation between the unions and the NCB. I do not think that we should enter into this aspect. I am certain that most conservative voters -whether with a small "c" or a large "C"-would take the view that we should not immediately move into legislation when it can be avoided.

This has been a strange week in Parliament. Some useful things have been placed on record. Earlier in the week we considered the Price Commission Bill, and after a long discussion of Amendment No. 1 it seemed likely that the Government would give a concession to the Conservatives. But then we heard that Mr. Len Murray did not like the idea of a concession, so we did not get it.

Give me a fortnight. That is all I want.

Was the hon. Gentleman consulted about the proposals for the Lib-Lab pact? Is the pact between the Government, the Liberals, the hon. Gentleman and the Tribune Group? Or is the Tribune Group excluded from the pact? It seems strange that the hon. Gentleman is prepared, despite his strong convictions, to accept the ruling of the Liberal Party rather than the ruling of the Tribune Group. It is an amazing situation. It is highlighted on this Bill by the fact that the hon. Gentleman believes that there are sources outside this House which are more able to take care of any situation that may arise.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to me in the context of the so-called Lib-Lab pact and of the Liberals generally. The Liberals are absent from the House today, as on so many occasions. They never turn up to do a job of work. Today is just another example of their indolence and of the way in which they operate successfully the absentee system in the House. The hon. Gentleman asked about my relationship with them. They have about as much backbone as a box of jellied eels.

Order. The House has listened to a very interesting exchange of views on varied subjects, but I recommend that it should now come back to the amendment.

I shall not be tempted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover along the line.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that in fact the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) was not following my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but that, in leading for the Opposition today, he started the argument which digresses from the Bill?

I was not castigating any particular hon. Member. That was not my intention. I simply wish the House to come to order on the amendment.

In any event, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that we have some very interesting reading on the record.

I sympathise with the motive of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). I should say that the National Union of Mine-workers is perfectly happy with the clause, so we can remove immediately the fiction about any threat to the miners.

The Minister's only argument for resisting the amendment appeared to be commercial confidence- that it would be dangerous for the NCB to disclose to Parliament any proposals for extending its operations or investments overseas. I regard that as an inadequate and unsatisfactory excuse. It is another example of the Government's double standards. They quote commercial confidentiality when it suits them, yet in other legislation they force oil companies and other firms, through the planning agreements of the National Enterprise Board, to contravene what they regard as their safeguards of commercial confidentiality. There seems to be one law for what the Government want and another for what they do not want. It is unsatisfactory to reject a simple parliamentary safeguard on this false pretext.

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 9, line 16, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

With this we may take the following amendments:

Amendment No. 10 is designed to trigger off the other three amendments which we are considering with it. As the House will realise, all these matters are under discussion elsewhere, but I thought that it would be a good idea to take advantage of the Bill to have a discussion of them on the Floor of the House.

While I welcome the amendments, I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) will withdraw them. I welcome the nationalist parties' help for Wales and, I hope, also for Scotland, although I do not see any evidence of Scottish National Members here today. I welcome—and no doubt every mine worker will welcome—the belated assistance that the Scottish and Welsh national parties are prepared to give to the miners of this country. However, I would be churlish if I did not agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's submissions.

I shall not detain the House very long, but it is important to make several other points in relation to the amendments. First, it ill becomes the Welsh nationalists—who tell me that they have a proud political record—to start engaging in activities very much akin to the way in which the Liberals operate. I refer to the operation of what is loosely known as "community politics". The idea is to discover something which is about to happen, and which will reach fruition at an early date, and introduce the theme either in the House of Commons or outside. That roughly applies to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) said that he felt there was a humanitarian need for the amendments. No one would argue that they do not have humanitarian objectives, but, as my hon. Friends have said, steps have been taken on early retirement and action is on the way. Concessionary coal is a matter for the NUM conference and negotiations between the NUM, associated unions and the NCB. There could be dangers if the House were to intervene unnecessarily in some of these areas.

At the risk of upsetting the Minister and the Assistant Whip, I wish to say to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) that if any other hon. Member opposite had introduced these amendments we might have doubted his motives. It is because of the respect that the House has for the hon. Gentleman that we have been kinder to him.

The matters mentioned in the amendments, namely, voluntary early retirement, concessionary coal and com- pensation for men suffering from pneumoconiosis, are traditionally subjects for negotiation between the National Coal Board and the unions in the industry, and it is right and proper that they should remain so rather than be the subject of statutory regulation. The Board already has all the powers necessary to make appropriate provisions in all these fields, as may be agreed with the unions. These arrangements have been working very well and I doubt very much whether the unions would welcome the sort of changes that the hon. Gentleman proposes. I endorse what my hon. Friends said and I see no reason why these arrangements should be changed.

Is the Minister saying that the scheme includes not only those who get concessionary coal because they were injured underground, but those whose health compelled them to leave after, say, 20 or 30 years' service?

The hon. Gentleman knows, because he is knowledgeable, that if they qualify under the scheme the answer is "Yes". The Board already has the necessary powers to make pneumoconiosis compensation schemes. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that, after long negotiations with the unions, such a scheme was established in September 1974.

The Minister has replied with his characteristic kindness and sympathy. However, I am a little disappointed about one point. One Government supporter said that these matters were not relevant to the Bill, but can that be said of any measure which is concerned with the expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds? I have pleaded that more of the enormous sums involved should be devoted to humanitarian ends. I wish that more could be done more quickly to remove the anomalies which everyone has admitted exist with regard to pneumoconiosis.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

"One does not need to have more than a superficial understanding of the energy situation to know the importance that coal is likely to play in the future energy scene and its importance as a feedstock in petroleum and chemical derivatives."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28th April 1977; c. 315–16.]

"It is reasonable that the Board should be able to exploit anything in which it becomes involved in the course of its mining."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10th May 1977; c. 392.]

The Minister has given a fair outline of the proceedings on the Bill so far. I wish to correct him on only one point. The Opposition voted against Clauses 9 and 10 standing part of the Bill, but the reason was that the hon. Gentleman did not find it possible to accept our amendments aimed at improving those clauses. We felt that we must register our dissent in that way.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), I broadly welcome the Bill. But I think that on its Third Reading it is reasonable to ask whether it passes the two esential tests of a Bill of this sort—namely, will it really be of benefit to the industry and, perhaps more important, will it play a real part in the wider aspects of the energy debate which is going on all around us?

The closing remarks of the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) would have seemed absolutely impossible coming from a Conservative 13 years ago, when I first came to this House. I would never have expected that amount of agreement. There is still a problem to be solved, but it will not be solved in any legislation. While the Conservatives vary in their enthusiasm for this Bill, the hon Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) was right to congratulate the Minister on his caring Committee. We had a most constructive Committee stage on this Bill and in the proceedings, both before and after Committee, there was also considerable good will. A great deal of knowledge has been displayed on the detailed points, even though there has been some disagreement on some of them.

Unlike the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), I regard the Bill as being applicable to the Scottish coal industry as well as to the energy resources of the world. The hon. Member was unnecessarily narrow in his consideration of the Bill.

Did the hon. Gentleman say that he, unlike me, regarded this as a Bill applicable to the Scottish coal industry? Either he was not listening or he has cloth ears. I made the very opposite point.

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—

If the hon. Gentleman does not listen to what I say or misquotes me—

Order. If we are to have apologies for misunderstandings, we shall be spending much time on those apologies for misunderstandings.

I am surprised at the hon. Member for West Derby. His temper seems to have been affected by the late nights that we have had this week. I was saying that I regard the Bill as affecting world energy resources as well as Scottish energy resources. The hon. Member would have found, if he had given me time to complete my remarks, that I place the same amount of emphasis on the United Kingdom aspect as he seemed to place, for what I suspect were purely narrow political reasons—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), who has, I suspect, come in for a debate on other European matters, will refrain from making interventions from a seated position, perhaps I can continue.

All that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) needed to say in response was that he believed, as all of us believe, that the coal industry cannot be run on a narrow nationalistic basis. The fact that the hon. Gentleman could not find it in his heart to say that graciously is a condemnation of the Scottish National Party and not of an hon. Member who made a seated interjection in his speech.

I cannot understand the hon. Lady's attitude. I had intended, before being caught up in this contretemps, to make some remarks about the Bill. I follow the remarks of the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and say that at present the coal industry is cast over with a cloud in relation to productivity. These problems will not be easily resolved at a time of wage restraint and difficulties about the introduction of bonus schemes and productivity agreements. I believe that these are intermediate problems, because the coal industry—regardless of whether it is in England, in Wales, in Scotland or in Europe—is bound to have a good future ahead of it. This is the fact that arises from the approaching energy crisis.