asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has received from the management of the Dalgety group to his expression of concern at the social consequences of the closure of the Golden Wonder Factory at Broxburn.

The managing director of Dalgety UK Ltd has made it clear that the company is not prepared to reverse its decision. However, he has expressed a commitment to considering alternative uses for the Broxburn facility which would alleviate the unemployment consequences of the decision to cease crisp manufacture.

Will the Minister recognise that many of us find it distasteful that a new management which has owned the company for only three months should, without consultation, dismiss a work force, some of whom have served the factory for 20 years? In his discussions with Dalgety, will he make it clear to the company that if it does not intend to run the factory as a crisp-making centre, it would be wholly unacceptable for it to refuse any genuine offer to take the factory over as a going concern and thereby save 350 jobs in a travel-to-work area where unemployment is already over 20 per cent?

I shall happily relay that message to the company. Like the hon. Gentleman, I regret the lack of prior consultation which is always desirable in such circumstances. However, I am glad to be able to remind the hon. Gentleman that there has been a net increase of 3,000 jobs in the Livingston area in the past two years, and that manufacturing employment remains at the 1979 level.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although Dalgety has every right to rationalise its own manufacturing capacity, it has no right to attempt to stifle competition by refusing to entertain offers from potential competitors, particularly in an area of high unemployment? Has my hon. Friend had a satisfactory response from Sir Peter Carey, the chairman of Dalgety and a former champion of regional policy?

I have been in touch with both Sir Peter Carey and with Mr. Maurice Warren the managing director of Dalgety UK Ltd. I must say that I have not had a satisfactory reply. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is desirable that the facility should be made available to an alternative user who will maintain employment in the area.

What exactly did Sir Peter Carey say?

Sir Peter Carey passed the matter over to Mr. Maurice Warren.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Dalgety group also owns the Spillers factory in Barrhead which has an outstanding record in production, industrial relations and new investment? In his discussions with Dalgety, will he reinforce the Scottish Office commitment to the success of that factory and explore possibilities for expansion?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the successful factories also operated by the group in other parts of the country. Major companies of this kind have made notable contributions to the Scottish economy.

Is this not yet another case of a company in Scotland being closed down to facilitate company strategy elsewhere to the disadvantage of a Scottish work force? What industrial strategy do the Government have to deal with such cases?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. Golden Wonder—Dalgety—also closed a factory at Long Buckby in the south.

Does the Minister not agree that it would be shameful if Golden Wonder was to block any offer for the factory as a going concern? Will he take it from the Opposition that it is not good enough simply to say that he will relay the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? That is all right as far as it goes, but we want that same message to come very forcefully from Ministers. It is quite unsatisfactory that the fate of 350 employees at the plant should be passed around like a paper parcel between executives in the way that the Minister has described. Can he assure us that he is making the point strongly to the company that the Government will deeply resent any attempt to block any purchaser who wishes to maintain the factory in its present industry?

I am sure that the company is in no doubt about the Government's view of the matter. My officials and the local authorities remain anxious to consult the company on the best alternative use of the facility.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to bring more employment to Springburn.

The full range of the Government's employment, enterprise and training measures, which have recently been extended, are already available in Springburn. In addition, good progress is being made with discussions on a local economic intiative, involving the Scottish Development Agency, based principally on measures intended to create new employment in the area.

By the end of the month, the work force in the main industry—railway workshops—will be reduced to 300. That contrasts with the community of 10,000 people who used to work in that industry. Last year, the Minister promised an initiative for Springburn, but not one job has come to my community. In Springburn and the surrounding areas, there are young people who have never had decent jobs. If the Minister will not deliver jobs, he should resign.

We are anxious to get the initiative off the ground and have been trying to do so. Broad agreement has now been reached on the component parts of the initiative, but as the hon. Gentleman knows it involves not only the Scottish Development Agency and British Rail Engineering Ltd, but the local authorities, the Manpower Services Commission and the Glasgow Opportunities Enterprise Trust. It has been difficult to get the scheme off the ground, but I hope that progress can now be made.

In view of the long and historic association between Springburn and the railway system, does my hon. Friend believe that employment there would be greatly improved if British Rail would run an efficient, reliable, and clean service that met the needs of the people of Scotland?

My hon. Friend is right. It is also fair to say that the running of the engineering workshops must be a matter for BREL, and it is right for that company to try to provide a competitive and efficient service. It is the intention that part of British Rail's light maintenance of rolling stock should be carried out at BREL after 1 April.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the up-to-date position regarding the proposed closure of the Caterpillar Tractor Co, Tannochside; and if he will make a statement.

I regret to say that the company's decision to close the plant remains unchanged. Work is in hand aimed at exploring all possibilities for retaining manufacturing operation and employment facility. In this connection, officials of the Industry Department for Scotland and the Scottish Development Agency are discussing with Caterpillar the preparation of a detailed profile of the facility with a view to marketing it, if this proves necessary, to potential users within the United Kingdom and abroad.

Is the Secretary of State aware of reports that a circular letter has been sent to all the employees in the factory saying that if they do not stop their illegal sit-in they will receive notice to quit their jobs without redundancy payments? When will he have the meeting which he promised the workers he would have outside the factory? As it is in my constituency, I want to be at that meeting. Lastly, it is reported that two companies are interested in the factory. What is the truth of the matter and what are the prospects?

I do not recall agreeing to a meeting outside the factory. I told the workers whom I met last week and who invited me to visit the factory that I have no objection to visiting the factory but cannot do so while the unlawful occupation continues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the relevance of that consideration.

I am aware of the circular that has been distributed by the company. Obviously, the work force will wish to consider that factor. We must also consider the extent to which the attraction of alternative users of the plant, should that prove necessary, is being helped or hindered by the continuing occupation of the plant.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Caterpillar management's treatment of the work force, the Government and him especially, is disgraceful? Does he further agree, with regard to the comments that he made when he was subjected to that disgraceful treatment, that if there is any possibility of an offer being made from the work force or any other source, he will consider sympathetically giving Government aid towards getting the project off the ground and saving those 1,200 jobs?

The company's attitude to the work force is the cause of greatest concern because it was informed by the company that the plant had a future. I can happily confirm that if there were alternative proposals for the continued use of the plant, which would give it a prospect of viability, obviously the Government would be willing, in the normal way, to see whether some financial contribution through regional policy was able to assist the fulfilment of that objective.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there was some surprise at the reported remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) that the workers should give up their occupation so that officials could visit the plant? Is he aware that when he spoke of the determined efforts of the work force when he met it last week, he was reflecting the aspirations of all Scottish people? Will he assure the House that he stands by what he said to the work force last week and will continue to support the whole of Scotland in its support for the work force's stand?

I stand by everything that I said to the work force last week. Indeed, there was nothing inconsistent between that and what my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has also said. We have emphasised that if it should prove necessary to seek to find an alternative user of the plant, the presentation of a profile of the plant becomes extremely difficult if it is not possible to visit the plant because its lawful owners are denied access to it. I know that the work force is having to consider the implications of those considerations. We are all anxious to make progress in this matter and one has to consider a sensible judgment as to whether continuing occupation of the plant is in the interest of the work force itself with a view to alternative users being identified and attracted to Uddingston to provide long-term employment.

I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the whole of Scotland admires the vigorous way in which he has stood up to the Caterpillar management. However, if the United States management of Caterpillar does not change its mind about the closure, can he remind the House yet again that the Government will spare no effort in making resources available to find alternative employers to come to Uddingston? Does he agree that in those circumstances a prolonged occupation of the factory could deter an alternative employer?

I thank my hon. Friend for his opening comments and would add only that Mr. Gavin Laird and Mr. Jimmy Airlie expressed similar, if not identical, observations after my meeting with them. I certainly confirm the additional points made by my hon. Friend.

May I press the Secretary of State on the question of assistance to alternatives? If, for example, no alternative buyer was found and a workers' takeover was demonstrated to be a commercial proposition, would the Secretary of State, in those circumstances, be prepared to produce money? Will he say to Caterpillar that it would be a clement act, considering the genuine criticism to which it has been subjected, if it released the tractor over which it is playing silly legal games?

The ownership of the tractor is a legal matter and it is not for me to comment on it. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments, we are interested in a long-term commercially viable proposition for the continuation of the plant and we would be interested in assisting any proposal that was likely to prove commercially viable so far as it was within our power to do so.

In his initial reply, the Secretary of State said that the position of the employer, the Caterpillar Tractor company, remained unchanged and put considerable emphasis on the work being done to prepare a profile of the plant. Does that mean that he is still pressing the company for a change of mind? As a static position is of little help in that respect, is he taking any positive initiative to try to bring it about? As the time scale is important, given the genuine and general anxiety and, indeed, anger at the way in which the company has acted, will he undertake to come back to the House and, in the form of a statement, report progress so that we may know how negotiations with the company, if any, are progressing and, if the reply is disappointing, so that he will have a chance to outline the alternative proposals he has for the plant?

I have not accepted, and still do not accept, the inevitability of Caterpillar's withdrawal from the plant and I shall continue to use every opportunity to try to persuade Caterpillar to reconsider its decision. However, clearly, it would be foolish to suggest that it is likely to do so in the absence of any new information or new consideration. Nevertheless, one will seek to use any opportunity to persuade it to reconsider the decision it has reached.

It is also in the interest of the work force and suppliers to that plant to explore simultaneously other possible uses of the plant, because we must accept at least the strong possibility that there will not be a reversal of the decision by the ownership of the company. To put all our eggs in that particular basket might be an unwise proposition, most of all from the point of view of the work force itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much unemployment in North Lanarkshire has risen since May 1979.

Between May 1979 and January 1987 unemployement rose from 15,531 in the former North Lanarkshire travel-to-work area to 35,089 in the new Lanarkshire travel-to-work area. As a result of changes in the travel-to-work area boundaries and in the method of the count, those figures are not comparable.

While the outrage of Caterpillar dominates the dismal picture that the Minister has highlighted, is he aware that there are other examples in that area of conglomerates pulling out and abandoning ship, for example, Reyrolle Belmos in my constituency, where Northern Engineering Industries is simply abandoning the area, and 40 years of local history, and taking with it all the tools, machinery, drawings and brand names, as well as 300 jobs? It is also blocking any possibility of anybody else taking over the factory. For how long will the Minister and the Government allow our industrial life-blood to drain away before taking any action to stop it?

The company has taken a commercial decision based on its perception of the demand for its products in power stations, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our attempts to help the area are reflected in the substantial Motherwell and Coatbridge projects, with a budget of around £57 million in the Motherwell project, which has been extended to 1990. That has attracted £80 million of private sector finance and helped to create or safeguard more than 4,000 jobs.

Did the chairman of the British Steel Corporation volunteer the closure of hot-rolled coil capacity at Ravenscraig in the present Eurofer round? Has that offer now been withdrawn as contrary to the Government's commitments at Ravenscraig arid elsewhere?

I am not privy to the deliberations of Eurofer, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the commitment given again recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that we remain committed to a five-integrated-plant plan for BSC, and that nothing can be done to prejudice the subsequent decision before 1988.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the financial effect on crofters arising from the introduction of community charge.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has received representations on that matter from the Western Isles islands council, the Crofters Commission, the National Farmers Union of Scotland the Scottish Crofters Union and the Harris Council of Social Service, as well as from a number of individuals in the crofting areas.

Is the Minister aware of the concern and resentment felt throughout the crofting community at the imminent disappearance of the rating control concession under the poll tax legislation? Is he further aware that the factors that gave rise to that in the first place still exist to the same extent, and were accepted by a previous Conservative Administration and, indeed, have been by all Governments since? Are we to believe that the present occupants of the Scottish Office are more hard-nosed and uncaring than the Conservatives in 1956?

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his mischief in raising the issue, which he knows from the Standing Committee on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill splits the Labour party in three ways. The present relief attaches to property rather than to the individual. The new charge that is being introduced is a personal charge, and the rebate system that we intend to introduce will make sure that those on low incomes are sufficiently protected.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when it comes to being hard-nosed towards crofters, the policy of a local income tax that is espoused by the Scottish nationalists and the Liberals would be far more damaging than the community charge because of the narrowness of the tax base? Is it not double standards on their part to complain about something that will be to the benefit of their constituencies?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I would go further and say that the type of relief that is being sought by the right hon. Gentleman and by other hon. Members would be given to people in a specific category. Some of them might benefit from it and some of them would not need it. I call in evidence the words of Mr. Brian Wilson, who I believe is a Labour candidate. Writing in the West Highland Free Press on Friday 27 February, he said:

"It simply is not on to introduce, in 1987 a new scheme which gives the well-paid schoolteacher with crofting status a 25 per cent. tax rebate, while the pensioner next door in a non-croft house is hit for the full whack."

That is a sensible approach.

Does not the example that the Minister has given underline the indiscriminate way in which the poll tax will affect people? A local income tax is by far the fairest way by relating liability to one's ability to pay.

I should be interested to hear what figures the Liberal party can produce about how a local income tax would work. On the figures that we have produced, the impression is that anybody earning over £112 a week as a single earner would end up paying more in local income tax than he would in community charge.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion public expenditure represents of the Scottish gross domestic product.

Identifiable public expenditure in Scotland in the financial year 1985–86 was 48 per cent. of Scottish gross domestic product at factor cost in the calendar year 1985.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that for every £4 of public expenditure south of the borders about £5 is spent north of the border? [Interruption.]

The hon. Gentleman should get his hands out of his pockets.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right as a Scottish Member to raise this matter.

To what does my right hon. and learned Friend attribute this extraordinary difference? Is it the automatic element in the block formula, or is it his own formidable lobbying skill at the Treasury?

I know that my hon. Friend visits Scotland quite frequently. He will know that although the population of Scotland is a relatively small fraction of that of the United Kingdom, the land mass of Scotland is a far higher proportion than the population would imply, and therefore requires somewhat disproportionate expenditure on, for example, roads and transport, and because of the special circumstances of the islands of Scotland, which have specific requirements. Therefore, rather crude comparisons of the kind that my hon. Friend makes are not entirely appropriate.

As it is the Government's desire to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product, and as the Government regard public expenditure as an albatross around the neck of private industry, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard the public expenditure level in Scotland as an achievement or as a failure?

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the proportion that I mentioned has actually gone down over the last few years. Therefore, I consider the level an achievement.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that one reason for the excellent level of public expenditure in Scotland compared to that in England is that the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) lives in my constituency, and it is spent on her? I do not understand his complaint. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make sure that the message is spread that the quality of life in Scotland is infinitely better, thanks to him and his fellow Ministers, and that more people could live there and commute to the south than the other way round?

My hon. and learned Friend is correct. The definition of public expenditure that I used in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is of identifiable public expenditure as a whole and not merely that of the Scottish Office, and does include transfer payments of the kind to which my hon. and learned Friend refers.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that we are talking about public authority current expenditure on goods and services and, of course, about gross domestic capital formation, and part of that is public expenditure?

That is big talk.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) says that that is big talk, but he ought to remember that, like me, he is only a wee fellow.

If the Secretary of State wants to go further, will he tell us about the jobs related to that public expenditure and the essential services and about the infrastructure that is created by it and which is essential to Scotland's economic progress?

Throughout the United Kingdom, public expenditure supports a certain level of employment. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a previous Labour Government came to the conclusion that one could not expect public expenditure to answer the questions of unemployment. The country as a whole now fully appreciates that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency since its inception.

On the assumption that provision for 1986–87 is fully spent, the Scottish Development Agency will have spent at the end of March a total of £1·03 billion in the period since it was formed.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how much the agency has spent on average, each year, since the Government came to office and how that expenditure compares with the amount spent on average, each year, under the Labour Government?

I cannot immediately give an average figure, but what I can say is that, in constant prices, the gross expenditure of the Scottish Development Agency has gone up both in cash terms and in constant prices. I believe that that is a measure of the great significance that the Government attach to the role of the agency in dealing with the economic and infrastructure problems of Scotland. That important role was recognised in a recent review of the agency carried out some months ago.

It is reported that, following the deal with Trafalgar House over unused land, the Scottish Development Agency will spend several million pounds on the redevelopment of unused land for new industrial sites. I take it that that money is in addition to the financing of the Inverclyde initiative. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now sanction an increase in the staff of the Inverclyde initiative? Will he now respond to my request for consultancy support for the Inverclyde initiative?

The hon. Gentleman's latter point concerns detailed matters that are currently under consideration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins me in expressing pleasure that the discussions, which the Government authorised the agency to have with Trafalgar House, have led to such a great success. I am aware that when the Inverclyde council came to see me it correctly pointed out that the availability of land for potential investors was the single most important consideration in achieving the regeneration of Inverclyde. Now that over 40 acres of land have been released as a result of the arrangements with Trafalgar House, it will enable the SDA, which in agreement with the Government, attaches great priority to the regeneration of the area, to prepare the land for potential investors from other parts of the country and from overseas.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the SDA has an important, positive role in rural coastal seats, such as my constituency, and in the central belt? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, at present, the SDA has undertaken to help to try to regenerate the somewhat parlous economy of Buckie, which is facing problems? Will he ensure that the agency is given adequate resources to do what it deems to be necessary?

I happily confirm what my hon. Friend said. The SDA has a role to play throughout the whole of Scotland. Indeed, it is estimated that some 25 per cent. of its expenditure is within the rural as opposed to the industrial areas of Scotland.

What proportion of SDA expenditure has been spent on environmental, tourist, hotel and prestige projects, such as the garden festival, and how much has been spent on genuine public investment in industry? Such investment was one of the key roles for the SDA when it was set up by the Labour Government.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in' trying to draw a distinction between what he chooses to call the genuine role of the SDA and that which he presumably believes to be of no great significance. He should be aware that, to many parts of Scotland, the tourist industry is of great economic significance. He will also appreciate that people are interested in finding jobs and his rather superficial arid spurious distinction is of little relevance to the needs of Scotland.

In view of the answer that the Minister gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) can the Minister explain how it is that at 1986–87 prices SDA expenditure was £133·2 million, for the coming year it will be £131 million, while in 1979–80, the last year of the Labour Government, expenditure was £134 million? How does the present figure represent an improvement?

I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the last full year of the Labour Government was 1978–79 and the figure then was £124 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noted the remarks made by a large number of American companies which have studied the role of the SDA and identified the SDA, as reformed by the present Government, as the most successful agency of its kind anywhere in western Europe. Those companies went on to say that the prospects for further investment in Scotland were splendid and could only be marred by the return of a Labour Government. That was not the view of politicians, that was the view of overseas business men whom we are seeking to persuade to invest in Scotland.

In the absence of any properly co-ordinated rural development agency north of the border—as the Secretary of State will know, such an agency is available to places such as Northumberland south of the border— will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving the Scottish Development Agency a modest increase in funds so that it can begin to play a part in the current debate in Scotland about new development and alternative uses of land in rural areas? With modest funds, a rural development agency in Scotland could provide significant help.

The Scottish Development Agency already carries out such a role. The hon. Gentleman should be aware of two proposals, development of rural area workshops— DRAW— and programme for rural initiatives and developments—PRIDE— which have already involved significant investment in various rural areas in Scotland, including, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on yesterday's announcement about the Inverclyde initiative. I add my warm congratulations in respect of the part played by the SDA in breaking the logjam in Inverclyde, which will enable the initiative to take off at a great rate.

I thank my hon. Friend. She is absolutely correct. All those who know Inverclyde know that non-availability of land was proving to be one of the most serious obstacles to progress. That obstacle has now been removed.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the present prison population is made up of fine defaulters; and if he will make a statement.

The latest available figures are for December 1986 when approximately 4·5 per cent. of the average daily population in Scottish penal establishments were fine defaulters.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does it not show that there is a continuing crisis in the Scottish prison system? What steps is he taking to ensure that this problem is met, so that the offenders are dealt with under the original sentence that they receive and not under this secondary imposition? Surely, this displays a very unhealthy situation in the prison system.

The hon. Gentleman may know that about 78 per cent. of sentences passed in 1985 involved fines. The vast majority of those fines are paid. But it is necessary to preserve some sanction of imprisonment to sustain the credibility and effectiveness of fines. We have introduced fine enforcement officers in sheriff courts, and it is hoped that this will relieve the problem arising from fine defaulters.

Does my hon. Friend agree that fine defaulters are customarily given every tolerance by the courts, so he can safely say that those who are in prison are those who are defiant or even contemptuous of their liabilities?

My hon. Friend has underlined the point that I made. We need the sanction of imprisonment to support the effectiveness of fines. Only about 7·5 per cent. of those who are fined end up in prison and they are there for only short terms.

Given the recent serious disturbances in the Scottish prisons, would the hon. Gentleman agree to some kind of inquiry— public or otherwise— to investigate the possibilities of reducing the number of fine defaulters in prison and of imposing more non-custodial sentences?

That point certainly justifies further exploration. As I have said, we have introduced fine enforcement officers. So far, there are 12 in place and there are to be three more. The success of this arrangement will be evaluated by the Scottish Office central research unit. During the past three years, community service orders have been used increasingly, and they should also help to relieve the problem.

Will my hon. Friend look urgently at the possibility of having a much simpler regime for fine defaulters so that they do not have to go through the rigidity of admission and release, which is absurd for people who are merely being detained until they pay a fine?

Yesterday, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland explained in some detail how the Debtors (Scotland) Bill, which is before the House, will provide for more efficient methods of arresting the earnings of a debtor in the hands of his employer. I hope that this, too, will help to relieve the problem.

Has the Minister considered the important report on this matter by the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland, which takes into account the fact that nearly half of those admitted to prison come from this category? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the alternatives proposed by the association?

I have just received that report, which is being closely studied. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was published only a couple of weeks or so ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the costs incurred by voluntary organisations in Scotland on the administration, distribution and handling of free food for the needy from European Economic Community intervention stocks.

Costs incurred for the delivery of foodstuffs to the charities' distribution points are, within limits reimbursable. I have no estimate of the other costs incurred by the voluntary organisations.

Is the Minister aware that we welcome the admission by the Government that there are a lot of needy people in Scotland? We also welcome the principle of distributing the surplus food. Obviously we are all grateful to the voluntary organisations for the splendid job that they have done. However, will he accept that there have been significant problems in the distribution? In view of the substantial cost and the workload involved in the exercise for voluntary organisations in Scotland, will he make contingency plans for public agencies to fund and co-ordinate any future distribution?

Perhaps I may first join the hon. Member in congratulating and thanking the voluntary bodies which have done such a splendid job in distributing the food. I have to remind him that it was a decision of the Commission that the best, quickest and most effective way of distributing the food would be through voluntary bodies and that FEOGA, for example, will reimburse the charities at a rate of £159 per tonne for the repacking into small packs and the transport of butter. There will also be reimbursement for the transport of boneless beef. The charities knew when they took over the job that they would be involved in costs. I believe that they have seen it as a worthwhile job and I do not think they will complain too much about the success of the venture.

I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that the voluntary organisations, while they undertook willingly to carry out the work, have not got a bottomless purse. Will he try to ensure that the costs are reimbursed to the Salvation Army, Age Concern and similar organisations, because they do not have funds other than the voluntary contributions of many people? FEOGA and the Commission have plenty of money to reimburse these organisations.

I repeat the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that there will be reimbursement for the cost of distribution to the main distribution points. That is probably the major part of the cost. The Commission has made it clear that the limited costs thereafter will have to fall on the charities themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in the House the other day, we will be prepared to talk to any charities that have trouble.

The Government believe in market forces. If we believe the various statements by individuals who allege that the EEC is wonderful, surely these foodstuffs should be made available in village shops. It is a question of cost. Surely prices should come down. Would it not be better if we withdrew completely from the EEC?

I am not sure whether I have fully understood the hon. Member's question. The Government have long argued for a reduction in support prices under the common agricultural policy, but other member states have not been prepared to agree. Even if we got that, the elasticity of demand for foodstuffs in the European Community would still mean that we had a major surplus problem.

Will not the Minister acknowledge that the problem is not simply one of cost but of physical human resources and that in many areas distribution has been patchy or non-existent because the charities did not have people on the ground? Will he recognise that in future it would be better if such distribution was co-ordinated by local authorities? Further, what will he do for those areas that missed out altogether, and for those individuals who were denied participation?

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member representing the Liberal party has so little confidence in the voluntary organisations. While I accept that distribution started off rather patchily my information is that it is now in full swing and that many people are giving a lot of time to getting the butter and so on to elderly people. I am sorry to see the hon. Member dissenting because in his constituency, as in others, many volunteers in, for example, the WRVS are doing an excellent job. I am prepared to pay tribute to them, if he is not.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the five travel-to-work areas in Scotland currently with the highest levels of unemployment; and what special initiatives his Department or the appropriate Government agency has set up in each of the five areas concerned.

The five areas are Cumnock and Sanquhar, Forres, Girvan, Irvine and Skye, and Wester Ross. A special initiative for the Cumnock and Doon area is now well under way. All the other areas are assisted areas under the Government's regional policy.

That is certainly a list that one does not wish to be on. I regret to say that two areas in my constituency are in the top five. Does the Minister appreciate that 400 jobs in the mining industry in Cumnock and Sanquhar have been lost over the past seven years? Although we welcome what is being done following the Coopers and Lybrand report, it is in no way enough to tackle the enormity of the unemployment problem in the Cumnock area. Will the Minister ask the Scottish Development Agency to adopt one of the special initiatives that have been instituted in other areas in Scotland? Girvan, which is No. 3 on the list, does not even have development status. Will the Minister give serious consideration to Girvan's problems, make sure that it is awarded development area status as a matter of urgency, and find some special initiative scheme for the area?

I must tell the lion. Gentleman that we have no plans to reconsider the map in the immediate future. The maps were drawn up only two years ago. There is a necessity for stability to enable the situation to be properly assessed. The Cumnock and Sanquhar travel-to-work area straddles the boundary between the hon. Gentleman's constituency and my constituency. I know that he is appreciative of the speed with which the SDA has responded in the case of UK Opticals in Mauchline. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the successful takeover of Brocks Fireworks in Sanquhar, which has secured a number of jobs, and the establishment of Fisher and Holden in Kirkconnel in my constituency, which has brought 100 new manufacturing jobs to the area.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that unemployment in each area would be much higher if we were to follow the advice of the Labour party and close down nuclear power stations, thereby putting up electricity prices by 25 per cent., and to allow rates to rip?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, almost all the policies of the Labour party seem to be designed to raise unemployment and cause problems for the economy. I have not yet been able to see details of its policy for jobs, announced today. As far as I understand it, the Labour party relies largely on artificial, unproductive public sector jobs, which may be best characterised as postmen going around in pairs.

As the urban travel-to-work area in my constituency is also on the list read out by the Minister, will he see that his officials in the Scottish Office and officials in the Scottish Development Agency realise that something is still needed for the Cunninghame area? Is the Minister aware that the Irvine area received a further blow to unemployment during the week, and one at the weekend, when Marlow Textiles went into receivership, causing the loss of another 100 jobs? Today I heard a rumour that Dawson International, in carrying out the process of rationalisation, is considering closing McKinnon's Textiles in Irvine, which will involve the loss of another 100 jobs. That cannot go on. I do not want the area to top the unemployment list. In spite of all the initiatives coming into the Cunninghame area. the Minister must ensure that officials do something, go to Irvine and try to get more jobs.

As the hon. Gentleman may know, I recently had the pleasure of visiting Irvine new town. I spent a considerable time in the area. The hon. Gentleman may welcome the fact that, last month, Scottish-based companies announced project; promising almost 2,000 new manufacturing jobs as a result of orders received. One major inward investment that was recently announced was the establishment of the Finnish paper mill at Irvine, which will create up to 1,000 direct and indirect jobs in his constituency and a further 1,000 or more jobs in the construction period.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the figure that he gave for Forres is artificially high because of the distortion caused by the presence of RAF Kinloss in the travel-to-work area? Apart from the assisted area status to which he referred, does he recall that, in Elgin last year, our right hon. Friend announced the extension of the Highlands and Islands Development Board boundaries to embrace the Forres travel-to-work area? That was a clear sign of the positive steps that the Government are taking to battle with the problem.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to our response in extending the Highlands and Islands Development Board area. It will enable the Forres area to have access to all the resources of the board. I hope that it will assist the unemployment problem in that part of his constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to maintain investment and employment in Dundee following termination of the Dundee project.

Development area status, supported by access to the full range of the Government's employment, enterprise and training measures, will help Dundee to attract new investment and jobs. Enterprise zone benefits remain in force until 1994 and major investment by the Scottish Development Agency in projects such as the technology park and the waterfront development guarantee substantial agency resources well beyond the end of the project.

Is the Minister aware that the Dundee project, which is a major investor, comes to a close at the end of this year and that there is considerable worry in the city about what will happen after that event, in terms of the level of cash and the degree of attention that the Scottish Development Agency will give to the city? Does he not realise that unemployment is still at about the 15·5 per cent. level, which is extremely high, and that there is no sign of it abating?

The Dundee project has helped to create over 2,000 new jobs and bring over £40 million of private investment into the city. It has undoubtedly been a successful venture. The hon. Gentleman knows that the agency has already stated its intention to maintain an office in Dundee for the foreseeable future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give consideration to the Scottish Nationalist party standing down its candidate in Dundee, East as a contribution to its realistic approach to Dundee's problems.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what responsibility he has for the professional conduct of Scottish solicitors working in the public service.

Criminal conduct apart, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I are responsible only for the professional conduct of solicitors employed in our own Departments.

Although I accept that the conduct of solicitors in the Solicitor-General's Department is impeccable, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will share with me the concern about disciplining solicitors in private practice. He will be aware that many complaints have been made for over a year against Mr. Graeme Adam, a solicitor, but that despite all these complaints Mr. Adam has consistently refused to turn up at auditors' hearings to deal with them. The Law Society has been totally powerless to act. In the meanwhile, Mr. Adam is practising as a solicitor. Is it not about time that the complaints procedure against solicitors was taken out of the hands of the Law Society and dealt with by a proper, independent complaints procedure?

I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I think that he readily appreciates that that is not a matter that comes within my area of responsibility. If there are problems over Mr. Adam's attendance before the auditor, I think that there are steps that can be taken. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the Law Society is not anxious to pursue the matter. I understand that it is looking at the complaints that the hon. Gentleman and others have made about this particular solicitor. It is for the Law Society to deal with the matter rather than me, unless of course there are indications of fraud by him or any other solicitor.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make it his practice, when the Crown Office or procurators fiscal are applying for search warrants in relation to offences under the Official Secrets Act, that all applications be made to a justice of the peace.

No, Sir.

May I ask the Solicitor-General a question of which I gave the Crown Office notice on Monday, to which I hope that there will be a considered reply? By what statutory provision or principle of the common law does he assert that the sheriff has legal authority to grant a warrant that Parliament specifically stated should be granted by someone else? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, I am reading, because I had the courtesy to give the Crown Office notice.

As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate indicated in another place last week, the sheriff possesses magisterial powers under the common law and statute in relation to the issue of warrants. He also said that he was satisfied that the proper procedures for obtaining a search warrant were followed in this case and that the involvement of the procurator fiscal and the sheriff was in accordance with the established law of Scotland. It is true that the hon. Gentleman gave something of advance and public notice of his supplementary question—

And to the Solicitor-General's Office.

Yes, and to my Office, but he went on to say that it was improper or wrong to go to sheriffs because they were beholden to Law Officers and that it would he more appropriate to go to a justice of the peace. On proper reflection, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that that was a wholly unwarranted slur on the sheriffs in Scotland.

Will my hon. and learned Friend advise the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that if all warrants were granted by justices of the peace rather than by sheriffs they would be very much easier to obtain than they are now?

I do not know whether that is so, and I do not think that I can comment on my hon. and learned Friend's point. However, I have already said that I find it extraordinary that the general view seems to be that there is something improper about going to a sheriff to obtain a warrant. That is wholly in accordance with our law. What surprises me is that south of the border, when Opposition Members were contemplating the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in relation to journalistic material, they sought to ensure that warrants were obtained from more senior judicial office holders rather than from lower ones.

As the Solicitor-General said something rather sharp about the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) concerning sheriffs, will he take just a second to disassociate himself from the remarks made about justices of the peace by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn)? With hindsight, does the Solicitor-General not accept that there are lessons to be learned from the raid on the BBC premises? Was that not heavy-handed, coloured by political considerations and seen by many people as intimidatory in character? Does he agree that, in terms of the independence of the BBC, it is important that "The Secret Society" series of programmes should be screened as soon as possible?

The screening of the BBC's programmes "The Secret Society" is entirely a matter for the BBC. As my noble and learned Friend and I have already stated, all the material that the BBC requires for the screening of those programmes has been returned to it. The BBC accepts that fact. If, for some reason or other, the BBC chooses not to screen one or more of those programmes, that is its business. I do not accept that it was intimidatory. The hon. Gentleman first made those remarks when he had not even looked to see what the terms of the petition and the crave were.

On the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised, in relation to the granting of a warrant by justices of the peace, I accept that under particular statutes and, more generally, on occasions it is appropriate to go to justices of the peace. However, I dissent from the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there is something improper or wrong about going to a sheriff. Where a procurator fiscal is involved, that would be the most appropriate course to take.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory non-reply to that question, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the Crown Agents' working party on forensic science services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

It is expected that the report will be submitted to Ministers by late summer. Given the ever-increasing importance of forensic science in the successful detection and prosecution of crime, I await with interest the conclusions and recommendations of the Crown Agent's working party.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. Can he say anything more about the focus of the working party's report? Will it concentrate on forensic science services in relation to drug offences or will it cover more general matters?

The working party will look at the arrangements for providing forensic science services in Scotland more generally. Clearly, with the increase in drug cases of which my hon. Friend is aware and concerned about, there has been some anxiety that there may be some delay. That matter is being examined as part of the working party's remit. However, I should like to emphasise that it is not a question of the standard! or quality of the forensic scientists in Scotland. Rather it seeks to ensure that the provision is as adequately and satisfactorily provided as possible.

What part do the police surgeons play in the forensic science services? Is it not time that more women doctors were trained as police surgeons?

The specific matter of police surgeons is not part of the working party's considerations. However, I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) has given a parliamentary answer to the effect that although there are only a limited number of women police surgeons in Strathclyde, the Strathclyde police have taken steps to ensure that an additional number are acquired to assist in those sensitive cases in which it would be more appropriate for a woman doctor to undertake the examination.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have been mounted in the last 10 years against councillors who sit on licensing courts despite their spouses being licence holders and who fail to declare an interest when speaking against approval of a licence from another establishment in the same town.

There have been no such prosecutions under section 2 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. Such councillors are not disqualified by virtue of that section from acting as members of licensing boards or from taking part in proceedings before them.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. However, does not that suggest that the position of licensing courts may be slightly different from other activities in local government? Will he bear this in mind when future legislation is considered to bring them into line, including cases in which a councillor may live with someone who is not their spouse, in another town?

Certainly the position under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 is different from that which obtains under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, where, in the case of married persons living together, the interests of one spouse, if known to the other, shall be deemed for the purposes of the section also to be an interest of the other. However, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, any change in local government legislation or in licensing legislation would be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has any plans to review the role of sheriff courts in hearing charges of reckless driving resulting in a fatality; and if he will make a statement.

Crown counsel carefully consider every case and decide, not only whether proceedings should be taken, but whether the case should be indicted in the High Court or the sheriff court.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that last year 601 people were killed on Scottish roads but that only two cases resulting in fatality were brought before the High Court? Will he acknowledge the widespread feeling in Scotland that this offence is not being treated with sufficient gravity by the Scottish courts? Will he take this opportunity to remind the courts that any legal proceedings arising from a fatality should be handled with dignity and respect for the feelings of the relatives of the victim?

I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that sentencing is not a matter for me. Following a recent meeting with him and a representative of the organisation SCID, I am aware of the concern that proper allocation of cases should take place, making sure where it is appropriate that they are heard in the High Court or before a sheriff and a jury. As I said then, that matter will be considered carefully by Crown counsel. I also said previously that steps will be taken to see what we can do to ensure that the parents and families of victims are dealt with sympathetically when cases come before the courts.

rose—

Order. I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to raise matters which have already been covered with regard to private conversations in the Tea Room. However, a point of order was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). The point is that the Father of the House was attacked in public, in Truro, by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who described the Father of the House—whom I regard with the same respect as you do, Mr. Speaker—as "an old man". Surely the right hon. Gentleman should come to the House and apologise to the Father of the House?

I do not think that that is unparliamentary. I consider myself to be an old man.

I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), whose every word reaches its intended destination, should have risked referring to the analogy of caving. So fragile is the geological and political underground structure that I would have thought that he would have preferred not to do that today. However, without wishing to disparage the serious points of his speech, some of which are likely to be referred to during this debate, I wish him well with his Bill.

I should perhaps ask the House to retune from Radio 2 to Radio 3. We are about to consider a series of Supplementary Estimates which occupy a fairly thick volume. That, as we all know, has for long been a rather impractical obligation, so we are obliged to pick and choose the items of expenditure that we subject to close scrutiny. Today it is the item of some £166 million of further assistance to the British coal industry. That not inconsiderable sum is in itself noteworthy, for the coal industry has had and continues to have a gargantuan appetite for public funds.

Technically, it is usual to move a nominal reduction in the amount, and it would have given me greater pleasure to do that, for our ultimate objective must be the elimination of all public support for an industry which, in due course, and sooner or later, has to become completely self-sustaining. Alas, that would have been inconsistent with the general thrust of the report that my Committee, the Select Committee on Energy, has just made to the House on the coal industry. In it we argued that if financial provision is to be consistent with the consequences of policy, that provision should be increased from its already formidably high level. As that was the case, it seemed to my Committee that we were justified in seeking this opportunity to explain to the House precisely why we had reached what, at least for some of us, was an unpalatable conclusion. The coal industry will continue to demand and justify such consideration and analysis while it continues to make such a large claim on the nation's resources.

Before coming to my main points, I wish to make two general observations. First, I should like to thank all the members of my Committee, its Clerks and advisers, who laboured so diligently, travelled so far and argued with such conviction to produce the report. Whatever our knowledge of coal mining may have been—some members of the Committee had spent half a lifetime at least in the industry—our perspectives were widened. Those of us who saw a coal face or a longwall system in operation for the first time acquired a real respect for those who undertake that arduous, dirty, demanding and dangerous work. All of us were dismayed by the visible evidence of industrial dereliction and an almost tangible sense of despair in abandoned or declining coal mining areas. All were heartened by the sense of purpose and opportunity that new technology provided in mines both old and new.

Secondly, I should like to stress the general sense of disappointment over the highly selective and misleading way in which our conclusions were reported in some of the press, which seemed concerned only with those phrases or paragraphs in which the evidence that we received compelled us to reach conclusions critical of British Coal, the Government or the Secretary of State. It is not that we are unwilling to justify such conclusions, which came mostly from direct evidence rather than from our analysis or unchecked political prejudices. That is not the point. Such emphasis, however, detracts from the main analysis and conclusions of our report, which is but the tip of a very large iceberg of evidence.

I shall give the House but one example. The Daily Telegraph, referring to the Committee criticising the Coal Board for starting the 1985 pit strike, said:

"The … committee … united in a scathing attack on the handling of pit closures which led to the bitter year-long dispute."

Not so. Our emphasis was on all parties learning lessons and avoiding mistakes. There was no scathing attack. Our words, in paragraph 133, were:

"The 1985 strike was precipitated by the decision to bring forward the closure of Cortonwood colliery where the NCB was regarded by miners as having broken an earlier promise".

We say, in effect, "Avoid that in future if you can." We suggest attaching to that problem a notice saying, "Explosives: handle with care".

The press was also excited by the fact that the Committee was unable to agree all the analysis or conclusions. That, too, was incidental, for what we agreed was both substantial and significant, and provides a context in which the whole matter of current and future financial support for the coal industry can be judged. If the press seeks constantly to sensationalise Select Committee reports, it will trivialise them in the eyes of the public and Government. Governments of all parties, understandably, will react to the hostility of unfavourable press comments rather than the constructive analysis that such reports generally contain.

I do not ask the press to sugar the pill. What I ask is that it does not always coat it in cyanide when no cyanide is present. The system has strong critics, and some would gladly hasten its demise. It is my personal judgment that that would deprive the House, Government and the country of a valuable source of knowledge and objective policy appraisal.

So what did the Committee agree, as it is relevant to the Supplementary Estimate? I shall endeavour to summarise our main conclusions. First, after examining the market for coal—we realised that it is an immensely difficult task for all those who undertake it professionally—we agreed that the reduction of costs was critical and that it depended on three things: the continuing availability of large sums of capital; an adaptive and co-operative work force, which both sides of the Committee regarded as crucial; and the abandonment of those faces, seams arid mines where, for one reason or another, the new management rules cannot be met. That was unanimous.

Secondly, we pointed out that major unresolved uncertainties dominated the industry's future and that the major uncertainty was

"the extent to which, and the speed at which, it will be able to grasp the further economies that are undoubtedly available to it."

That was also unanimous.

Thirdly, we agreed that the price of coal must respond to market realities in a market that included not only competitive coal but competitive energy, which is perhaps even more significant.

Fourthly, we concluded that British Coal's cost level target of not more than £1 per gigajoule for new capacity will, in all probability, have to be moved downwards. That has the consequence that more collieries will be at risk and that there will be greater social risk of closure.

Fifthly, we concluded that the present plans will produce a net increase in deep-mined capacity of 8 million tonnes by the early 1990s and that there was no convincing evidence of increasing demand. We looked at that very carefully. That led inevitably to our main conclusion that capacity reduction would exceed 2 million tonnes per annum. From that followed our next conclusion that the industry would have to manage a controlled reduction in its work force, with predictably large effects on both British Coal's corporate finances and the Treasury's liabilities. I shall return to that subject.

We concluded that British Coal's capital would have to be restructured and that, in he light of that analysis, a deficit grant in the range of £100 million to £200 million per annum would not be adequate; nor would a provision of £300 million to £750 million for the continuation of the redundant mineworkers payment scheme, because, if our analysis is correct—I believe that we were justified in it—we expect a higher level of redundancies. That lengthy analysis culminated in our conclusion that the Government's policy was "not fully credible". It is important to emphasise that the difference between "credible" and "fully credible.' is small but important.

A further unanimous conclusion of the utmost significance was that British Coal should not be asked to evaluate pit closure economics from a social standpoint, which, we argued, must be the responsibility of central Government. We made further suggestions about the organisation of that assistance and its scale, but pointed out that, whatever the present mismatch between resources and problems might be, a resolution of the problem would require in addition a commitment of energy, imagination and purpose. Those three qualities are not financial, but they are in equally short, if not shorter, supply.

All that was the unanimous view of the Committee. Where did we disagree? We disagreed on what were in my judgment—hon. Members may have a different scale of values—two minor issues and one major issue. The first minor issue was whether the French power supply by the cross-Channel link should be terminated to help bring demand and supply into balance. The second was whether the adoption of new mining techniques, which we all witnessed in the United States, would prejudice safety. On both, we understand but do not share our colleagues' reservations. Doubltless they will say something about that if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The major disagreement was on a largely theoretical assertion of principle. The majority favoured the principle of opening the industry in due course, and in a marginal sense, to private mining. For the minority, that ran counter to deeply held political convictions. Nevertheless, the Committee's unanimous recommendation was:

"For the immediate future … BC should remain in the public sector."

One would not necessarily have judged that from some of the press reports. Obviously, there is no realistic prospect of a substantial supply of privately mined coal in the United Kingdom this century.

I shall now return to finance. Despite all the encouraging progress in the industry—and it is indeed encouraging—we are staring at an alarming slough of despond. If capital investment is included, the net cost to the taxpayer of coal mining in the United Kingdom was over £1·6 billion in 1984–85; well over £2·1 billion 1985–86, the strike year; still over £2 billion in 1986–87, and likely to remain there this year if the estimate is passed.

Inflation and all sorts of other things have produced an age in which large figures followed by noughts have almost ceased to have meaning. The net cost to the taxpayer of coal mining in the United Kingdom represents about £40 per head per annum for every man, woman and child in the country, or about £160 per annum per family. The total loans to the coal mining industry amount to £77 per head of population, or £308 per family. That helps to put the figures into perspective.

The achievement of true viability will require a turnaround of some £1·8 billion on a turnover of £5 billion. Despite truly remarkable progress since the strike, that remains a formidable challenge. It will not be met unless two things happen. The first is that the present rate of progress must be sustained and, if possible, accelerated. Secondly, there must be confidence within the industry and the coal mining communities that the social costs will be fairly assessed and generously provided. In saying that, I do not for one moment wish it to be inferred that I do not believe that the scale of provision has been very generous.

However defined, this is a colossal burden, but if, as has been argued, the yoke of support can be lifted, if the cost of that relief is a small further increase in a very large sum and if that will supply both the confidence and the resources required to achieve a final and permanent turnaround of this very expensive industry, then we must find the resources to do the job. I believe that that is the unanimous view of the Committee. Failure will leave the British people with this massive subsidy burden in perpetuity.

The acceptance of that burden would imply that British Coal should become a permanent section, not of the Department of Energy but of the Department of Health and Social Security. That would be the reality. It would be as painful as it is unnecessary. It would establish an alarming and most dangerous and controversial precedent. Today coal: tomorrow, who knows what? On what grounds would a Government be able to discriminate if they once accepted the principle that one industry, because of its economic position, its political clout or the social consequences of its decline, should become a perpetual pensioner of the state? There is no answer to that question, and that should be our warning.

I am pleased to speak in this debate, which will be short. I should like hon. Members to reflect on the fact that the Select Committee on Energy has had time away from the miners' strike to consider the arguments that were made at the time of the strike. It was with some disappointment that I left the Select Committee just as it was about to turn to that subject and to draw up the report that we are debating. I read with great interest one or two sections of the report that relate directly to that 12 months from March 1984 to March 1985 that will be remembered, perhaps for ever, or while there is a British mining industry.

I should like to examine the conclusions of the report about things that happened during that strike. The first matter is the colliery review procedure. I am sure that many people will know that trade unions in the mining industry argued that that procedure should have been introduced before the strike. The strike was sparked off at a colliery in south Yorkshire in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). Hon. Members will be aware that if the review procedure had been in place the strike might never have happened.

During the strike, a colliery review procedure was introduced and the trade unions said that they did not believe it went all the way towards settling the problems in mining communities that were threatened by closure. This report says little different from what the unions said then. If the case that British Coal put throughout the strike was as good as the Coal Board said it was, then by now, away from the emotion of that strike and what was happening in the British coalfields, we should be able to say that one side was right and the other side was wrong.

The report says that due weight should be given to decisions. Two colliery group procedural reports on two working collieries, Bates colliery in Northumberland and Cadeby colliery in south Yorkshire, have found that those coal mines should have remained open. However, the colliery review procedure did not give that due weight before and during the strike.

The other interesting sector of this report is in relation to what should happen about closures. The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) mentioned two things that had struck him when his Committee was taking evidence. One of them was about what happens at the coal face. He said that many members of the Committee saw for the first time working conditions underground. I should like to pull the memories of hon. Members back to the phrase that the hon. Gentleman used. He spoke of the despair in the British coalfields about the decline in the industry and the scars created by that decline. That is certainly not new and has not happened just since 1984. Perhaps one of the major causes of the miners' strike was that nothing was put in the place of coal mines that were closed.

Government Members have spoken many times since the strike about the decline in the coalfields, but the Government have done little to bring jobs to those areas. British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is expanding and I am pleased about that, but a very small number of jobs are being created to replace the ones that have been lost, even in the last two years. One of the most interesting parts of the report is its references to the economic decisions that British Coal has to take before closing a coal mine.

Social cost is the nub of what the miners' strike was about. Mining communities have been arguing about this not just for one or two years, or since the strike, but for decades. They argue about the economic consequences of colliery closures and about how decisions are reached. I am pleased that the Select Committee decided to look into this in some detail. The Committee concluded that social costs should be part and parcel of colliery closures in the colliery review procedure, and should be a major part of the economic equation when deciding whether mines should be closed. I would have liked to see the Committee go further than that, but even that is welcome. However, at least the Committee looked into the matter.

In paragraph 131, the report says:

"although BC should be allowed to continue making decisions on pit closures on commercial grounds after a thorough and comprehensive review of the decision with other interested bodies, this should be done in the closest consultation with Government departments. If the macroeconomic and social disbenefits of the policies of the management of a strategic industry like coal outweigh the benefits to society of those policies, then it is the job of government to right the balance by fiscal or other means."

It is my contention that that has never been the practice. That is why we had the miners' strike, which was all about the gap that is left when coal mines are closed. It was a lot easier in the 1960s, when employment prospects were so much better. At that time, people were not worried about redundancy or lack of job prospects. However, in the 1980s—especially the past eight years under this Government—there has been a massive increase in unemployment and obviously a decrease in job opportunities, especially for young people. Under those circumstances, it is part and parcel that any decisions on closures should be taken in consultation with Government Departments. I am afraid that the Committee's recommendation is not as strong as I had hoped.

Paragraph 133 of the report states:

"the board must recognise the special vulnerability of mining communities which we outlined in the introduction of this report, and must take local authorities"

into account. British Coal was a massive ratepayer to my local authority. It put tens of thousands of pounds into the local authority each year. The rundown of the coal mining industry in south Yorkshire, together with the accumulated cut in rate support grant, has meant that the local authority had to cut services in many areas. Thus the rundown of the coal mines has had an effect not just on coal mining families but on everyone throughout the community. That should be taken into account.

The Select Committee recommends

"that a special ministerial Cabinet Committee be set up and charged with this task-cabinet committees have been set up for many less urgent tasks in the past".

The task in question is the rundown of the British coal mining industry and its effect on regions and communities. I believe that that is one of the major conclusions from the report. The rundown of the industry affects the lives of thousands of people who work in the coal mines or who live in coal mining areas but are not directly employed in the mines. I hope that the Minister will spend a few minutes discussing that recommendation.

I do not intend to discuss the work practices in America. Those practices have been the subject of ample discussion in the House and in the Standing Committee on the Coal Industry Act of which I was a member. One of the most urgent matters for consideration relates to the new grant for coal conversion schemes. That grant is supposed to finish in April this year. The scheme represented a lifeline to the coal industry because it created new markets for coal, especially in industry.

The sad part about the ending of the scheme is that the grant has never been made available to the public sector. Paragraph 44 of the report contains an important recommendation:

"not only … that the Government reconsider its policy of discontinuing the coal firing grant, but that the scheme should be extended to the public sector so that hospitals, schools, swimming pools and other potential coal users can he aided in converting their old boiler stock to burning British coal."

A great deal of research has been carried out at Stoke Orchard by British Coal, as well as by the manufacturers of boiler equipment to ensure that coal is clean burn and easily usable and also to improve storage facilities. As a result, less work is involved in keeping the boilers going. The Government's failure to extend the scheme to the public sector is a sad judgment on the Coal Board and those in the industry who have been working to perfect the use of coal in boilers. I hope that the Minister will tell us what will happen in April.

Many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, believe that it is wrong to discontinue the grant on the basis of the recent drop in oil prices. Such a position may alter. Although I accept that the take-up of coal has reduced because of the oil price drop, to discontinue the coal-firing grant to all sectors is a disservice to the community. I hope that the Minister will consider the recommendations in the report.

I do not wish to go into great detail on the Select Committee report as I believe that other hon. Members will have the opportunity to discuss the different aspects of it. It is a wide-ranging report—indeed, we could talk all day about it.

The most important thing that we must do is to look after the well-being of the coal communities. That care has not been given for many years. It behoves us all to take cognisance of the paragraphs that I have mentioned—they are not as strongly worded as I would have liked—and to ensure that a Cabinet Committee or something similar is set up. I hope that such a Committee offers not merely words to the communities but action and grants to create job opportunities. Those opportunities are badly needed throughout British coalfields.

I could not miss the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work in the coal industry for achieving present productivity records that would have been considered unobtainable only 12 months ago.

The productivity increase of 23 per cent. in the past year is unmatched by any other industry, giving us unprecedented national levels of production, at over 3·68 tonnes per man shift. In my constituency of Sherwood, a productivity level of 5 tonnes per man shift has been reached. Those levels meet the objectives of the Select Committee report. The results ensure that the operating costs for this year will be 20 per cent. lower, in real terms, than they were before the damaging industrial dispute. They give us a guarantee of long-term success in the future.

Only last week, the chairman of British Coal announced that we are now the lowest cost producers in Western Europe, and that West Germany is our nearest rival with 75 per cent. higher costs. The Coal Board has now recognised the need for competitive prices in relation to other energy suppliers. Therefore, it has reduced the cost of coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board by £4 per tonne. That has cut its sales realisation by £400 million, but it has meant that industrial manufacturers have found that their energy unit costs will be frozen once again. That will give manufacturers the opportunity to be successful against their international competitors.

British Coal hopes to contain its loss this year to £300 million. That shows that, without the dramatic cuts in oil prices, British Coal would actually have shown an operational profit of £100 million this year. There is no doubt in my mind that oil prices will rise rather than remain at their current level for any considerable time. That ensures and endorses my optimism in the future of the coal industry.

Nine major industrial companies share my confidence, since in the space of eight months they will confirm their proposal to convert to coal. In the light of that, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the continuation of the 25 per cent. grant for conversions of coal boilers for industrial use. Perhaps he would be persuaded if he knew that the recent proposals by the nine industrial manufacturers will result in the security of 1,200 jobs in the coal industry and many more in other industries as the conversion to coal will result in £90 million investment in British-made boilers and plant technology.

In addition, British Coal has recently placed orders with British manufacturers for contracts to the value of £50 million, including £1·5 million for safety boots and shoes. On my recent visit to Bilston Glen in the constituency of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) I discovered that Scottish boots are better than those issued in Nottinghamshire. If we had better boots, I wonder whether our productivity would rise even further.

We must not forget that industry is not the only sector to benefit from lower costs. In the weeks of severe weather during the winter, much concern was voiced for our elderly citizens, and it is important to note that frozen electricity prices will give much benefit to them as well as to other private consumers.

The National Health Service will also find the current prices advantageous, since British Coal is to continue to supply some 200 NHS hospitals. Energy requirements are high and it is vital that there is economy of use and strict cost control.

Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the use of imported coal by the NHS in hospitals in Yorkshire rather than British coal, to which the hon. Gentleman has been referring?

I cannot comment on what is happening in Yorkshire. I have a big enough job commenting on matters relating to my constituency, which is the largest coal producer in Britain. There are 200 hospitals in Britain using British coal. This will save the NHS well over £2 million, which will be used for other patient care. If Yorkshire hospitals are using foreign coal, it is for the hon. Members who represent those areas to raise the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister.

I have illustrated the benefits that we all enjoy as a result of a successful coal industry, not only for consumers but for those who work in British Coal. Their financial rewards are complemented by the knowledge that they are enhancing job opportunities for others in the community. I am convinced that, if at the end of the coal dispute a certain political persuasion had prevailed over the miners in this country, electricity prices today would be at least 30 per cent. higher, with all the serious repercussions to the economy that that involves. Today's Estimates would not only be higher but would be totally unacceptable to the House.

The miners have demonstrated the way forward for the industry into the next century via the actions of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and recently by the actions of the Welsh miners, accepting in principle 18 coaling shifts a week. They recognise that the £5 billion of capital investment in the mines must be utilised effectively. However, there is concern that localised stoppages lost British Coal 700,000 tonnes of coal last year. Surely the example set by the UDM and the Welsh miners is the way forward.

I strongly repudiate the Select Committee's view that there is uncertain long-term demand and its belief that structural change towards higher productivity and lower costs have some way further to run. I recognise that much of the report was written before this new era of prosperity for the coal industry had arrived. Nevertheless, the Select Committee introduced an element of doubt, quite unnecessarily. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to show his confidence to those who have brought such benefits to this country by ensuring that the CEGB places its new coal-fired boilers in position as soon as possible. We have a site in Nottinghamshire; the planning permission needs only to he resurrected; the coal is there; the infrastructure is ready; and the UDM will make it work. We need positive action now.

Those who work in the coal indusry have so far recognised the personal commitment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has given to the industry's future by his positive actions. The industry's excellent condition is a sign of his success. The future for coal is guaranteed not by wishful thinking but by the positive action of those who work in the industry. Scientific knowledge shows that coal will replace other finite fuels in years to come. We must ensure that the industry is ready to meet that demand. Today's Estimates show that British Coal is heading in the right direction.

I think that hon. Members agree that, despite the difficulties facing the British coal industry, it is more robust than many people would have thought even a year ago. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that, although the alliance was rightly critical of the way in which the strike was conducted, it agrees that elements within the coalmining industry which were destructive to its future had to be defeated. They have been defeated and, therefore, the climate is much more favourable. We look to the Government to give British Coal the maximum following wind.

The Select Committee did a good job and, although there clearly were divisions, it managed to reflect in its report the genuine difficulties and dichotomy in the industry and the choices that must be made. Coal is a major resource for the United Kingdom and will be for generations to come. It is a strategic resource and therefore requires strategic forward planning. As the Select Committee acknowledged, it cannot simply be left to the whim of market forces. The Committee said that to differentiate between simple planning and simple market forces is, by definition, to take a simplistic view of the coal industry. The Committee did a good job in identifying that.

The Government face choices with serious implications which must be taken fully into account. The most immediate one is obviously the future of generating capacity in the United Kingdom. Recently, the House debated the possibility of building Sizewell B. It would be foolish in the context of this debate to suggest that the building of Sizewell B and of a range of PWRs, which is clearly what the CEGB wants, will not have significant effects on the coal industry, just as any commitment to pull back nuclear capacity would have significant implications, in the other direction, for the coal industry. As the Committee rightly pointed out, this action cannot be taken in the short term because the industry cannot respond in the short term to such changes.

The circumstances and competitiveness of coal have changed substantially in recent months. Of course, this is only a short-term change—we do not know the longterm implications. Simple economics suggest that coal as a source of generating capacity looks very much more competitive than it did six or 12 months ago. The coal versus nuclear debate is not entirely realistic. I think that most hon. Members recognise that, even if the emphasis shifts, there will be a significant nuclear capacity and a coal-burn capacity for a long time to come. It is not clear what the real costs will be. The nuclear industry must take on board many significant changes concerning safety, which could seriously affect its costs. By contrast, the coal industry must take on board environmental protection from flue pollution, and costs are associated with that.

Reference has been made to the world market for coal, but the House should treat that with a little caution. The concept of a world market for coal is misleading. I understand that only 4 per cent. of world steam coal is traded and that, in polite parlance, this is known as overflow coal. Many of us would regard it as dumped coal. That is not a realistic point. But the comparative costs of producing the coal, most of which is traded domestically rather than internationally, are realistic.

I tried to find out from British Coal the extent to which it thought that it was faced with unfair competition. Although it was aware that certain countries such as South Africa and South America were said to be unfair—I have strong reservations for political reasons about whether we should trade in coal with South Africa—British Coal believed that there was insufficient evidence to be satisfied that competition was fair in regard to Polish coal. Poland is desperate for foreign currency and we cannot be confident that the price of Polish coal reflects the cost of its production. British Coal believes that in that context it is subject to unfair competition. The Government should investigate that to the extent that it is possible.

The other problem that affects coal and other energy commodities is the exchange rate. It was pointed out to me that the change in the value of the pound in recent months has affected adversely—by £3 a tonne—the competitiveness of British Coal. Given that coal is priced in dollars, the coal industry regards an exchange rate of about $1·40 as more congenial than the rate for the last few months.

As an aside—but an important aside because Ministers know that my colleagues and I have made the point frequently—I suggest that the argument that we cannot build a significant number of power stations based on too great a dependence on one fuel should be countered by moving much more rapidly into alternative energy sources.

I draw to the Minister's attention a report from the British Wind Energy Association. No doubt the Minister has seen it because it came out at the end of January. It claims that the experience of wind energy, which regrettably has been used more outside this country, particularly in California, than inside it, has proved that it is as cheap, if not cheaper, than other forms of power generation. The cost is as low as 2p per unit compared with 3p for most other forms of energy. As much of the technology associated with wind energy is British, we should he going further and faster in that direction.

Another sphere in which the coal industry needs to improve its competitiveness, and where the Government have a role to try to ensure that, is research into new methods of coal combustion. Clearly there is potential there. Benefits are being achieved but more resources could produce greater benefits faster. That would alter substantially the ability of the coal industry to compete. Given its constrained resources and its deficit financing, there is evidence that that area is underfunded.

The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to the phasing out of allowances for conversion to coal which the Government are suspending in June. The House should ask why this is so, what will follow and whether the Government are prepared to consicler extending the scheme or introducing an alternative scheme which would extend to the public sector the option for conversion. Paragraph 44 of the report refers specifically to that and is worthy of being put on the record. It states:

"We not only recommend that the Government reconsider its policy of discontinuing the coal firing grant, but that the scheme should be extended to the public sector".

I ask the Minister to address himself to that in his reply. It would help the coal industry significantly and would be a legitimate way of giving an invigorated coal industry more help when it most needs it. It would also benefit the users and consumers of energy.

The Select Committee recognises, and I think the Government recognise, that our coal resources should be accepted as a strategic long-term asset which will require Government involvement at least for the time being. The House may be divided about how long that involvement should continue, but Government responsibility is clear. They must ensure that long-term considerations triumph over short-term pressures and that the coal industry is adequately funded. They have a responsibility to coalfield communities which are facing such painful readjustments. Many such communities need. substantial investment to improve the environment and to be promoted as attractive areas. The dereliction of many of these areas does not make them attractive for alternative investment and they need resources to enable them to respond.

The House is pleased that there is a more positive frame of mind and a more positive attitude within the coal industry. It believes that the Government have a duty to give the coal industry proper and adequate support and to recognise that, whatever their medium to long-term objectives, right now they must give coal a realistic and positive chance to compete effectively and to provide the nation with the proper energy mix which it deserves and expects.

I enjoyed the constructive contribution by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I agree with much of what he said. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) say that our report perhaps painted too pessimistic a picture of the future market for coal. I suggest to him that he should reconsider the report because there is a great deal more in the small print than the media have picked out.

We made a detailed analysis and took a great deal of evidence about the future range of the market. My conclusion was that we drew an optimistic picture of the future of the British coal industry, provided that it accepts a more realistic market climate and provided that the enormous progress in greater efficiency continues. That more realistic assessment of the industry came through strongly in the report. We took account of the latest developments and found them most encouraging. We acknowledged the success of the industry, the fact that management was able to manage, and the more constructive support from the miners themselves.

Certainly we acknowledged in the report the long-term importance of the coal industry. Indeed, if anything, we over-emphasised it, in that we believed that our coal resources have not been fully exploited and that the coal industry has not had the opportunity to develop as some of us believe it could have developed. The industry has not made the contribution to the economy or benefited consumers or those who work in it to the full extent of its potential. That was why as part of the inquiry we examined the structure of the industry. For example, we considered whether it was time to look again at the statutory constraints of the original nationalisation legislation passed in 1946. We came to some conclusions about that.

I hold the strong view that the coal industry need not necessarily and exclusively be within the nationalised sector. I support the main recommendation of the Select Committee that for the immediate future the industry should stay within the nationalised sector, but that does not mean that we should not at the same time stimulate and encourage the evolution and development of a private sector coal industry. The majority view was that the nationalised sector would benefit from the development of a little more competition from the private sector and from the participation, on a partnership basis, of private investment.

I maintain that if the Government's policy is to promote competition, private enterprise, employee share ownership, incentives and motivation, and to improve industrial relations—which I accept has been successfully pursued by the Government in the rest of its privatisation programme—surely, if that policy applies to Jaguar, British Aerospace, British Airways, British Telecom and so on, it should apply to the coal industry. The privatised coal and gas industries are successful. The electricity industry is no longer a state monopoly. The Energy Act 1983 freed the private sector to develop in competition with the nationalised industry. Why has British Gas been privatised? It is because the Government believe that that privatised industry, as with other privatised industries, will better serve the consumer, will give a better deal to those who work in the industry and will benefit the economy. Let us at least hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will look seriously at the constructive proposals in the report about restructuring the statutory framework.

In particular, the Select Committee cannot understand why the licensing of the private sector coal industry—such as it is allowed to exist—should continue to be under the patronage of British Coal. We believe that it should be within the power of the Department of Energy to issue licences, in the same way that it issues licences to the oil and gas industries. Moreover, we cannot see how one can justify the limited private sector that is allowed to exist having to pay royalties to British Coal. If royalties are to be paid, they should be paid by all coal producers—nationalised and private—to the Treasury. The limited and restrained private sector should not, in addition to having to obtain a licence from British Coal, have to pay royalties to its main monopoly competitor. The majority recommended that the present restrictions on private operators should be lifted.

I shall give one example of my experience. I apologise to hon. Members who may have heard it before, but it does not hurt to repeat it. One or two of the Select Committee members visited a private deep mine in Stoke. The company wants to operate two or three shifts in 24 hours to make the operation more viable. It cannot operate more than one shift because it is restricted to employing only 30 people. It is not viable to operate more than one shift in that mine unless the company is allowed to employ more than 30 miners. Meanwhile, ex-British Coal miners have been made redundant. They are willing and able and want jobs in the private sector, but cannot he employed. Thirty or 60 potential jobs are going begging in that area. Extra coal production at lower cost is being frustrated. That is just one of many examples. It seems to be economic Luddism of the sort that one would perhaps expect the Labour party to continue to encourage.

I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that that is not the sort of policy that we would expect this Government, of all Governments, to continue to promote. The Government are doing nearly all that they can to encourage private enterprise, the growth of the economy and job creation. That is just one example of how, if restraints were removed, the private sector could expand—modestly but constructively—and provide some competition to British Coal. It would help the consumer because it would offer an alternative source of production and would certainly help to lower coal prices.

There is a further example. The Select Committee recommended that if the British coal industry is to remain nationalised, we must encourage private investment. Again, it seems illogical for this Government, of all Governments, to continue to support a situation in which private British mining expertise must go abroad to invest in the coal industry because our legislation prohibits it from participating in the British coal industry. However, we know that, despite the enormous resources that the Government are injecting and have injected for new capital investment in the nationalised industry, it is still not enough and more could be provided.

New coal fields could be developed more quickly and more economically if the private sector—coal mining enterprises that have expertise that, at the moment, they must use abroad to create jobs and wealth abroad—could contribute to the British coal industry. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to take that recommendation seriously.

No hon. Member—least of all myself—would argue other than that the coal industry is absolutely central to our future energy means. Indeed, we have the only major coal industry in Western Europe. We could play a bigger role in exporting coal to European countries, as we did many years ago, if we could only make our industry more competitive. We could expand production. It is shortsighted to hold back the industry by restraining it exclusively within the nationalised monopoly.

Let us remove some of the restraints, liberate the industry, let private enterprise play a partnership role, and let the private sector develop alongside the nationalised industry so that we can genuinely reap some of the advantages that this enormous resource could provide. The extra competition that it could create would help energy prices, the industry, the consumer, and, therefore, the whole economy. It would certainly benefit those who work in the industry. They would have an alternative source of employment. It would help the viability of jobs in the longer term because the industry would be given an opportunity to expand and to meet its full potential.

I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), who introduced the report of the Select Committee. He began his remarks by stating that we cannot have a coal mining industry that has to be subsidised. He used words such as gargantuan. He gave the clear impression that the coal industry, of all industries in Britain, is using taxpayers' money. It comes very ill from Tories to attack the coal mining industry for being subsidised to some degree when, only in the past few weeks, they wrote off £750 million for the Rover Group. Hon. Members must not get me wrong. I am not against the write-off of the £750 million. I know that it means jobs in the midlands and in other parts of the British Isles. I know that workers risk being thrown on the scrap heap. I know that they must call at the employment exchange and the jobcentre and that they must receive taxpayers' money from another source. It has never made sense to me to say, "Get rid of the subsidies. We want more people on the dole." Tories do not say that, but that is roughly what they are talking about. It is monetarism gone mad.

I want to dispose of the argument that we should assume in this debate that only the mining industry has had Government subsidies since the end of the second world war. When the hon. Member for Havant was supporting the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)— I do not think that he supports him now—when he was the Prime Minister of the day, many hon. Members will recall that one day the right hon. Gentleman came along to the House and said, "Oh, by the way"—I do not think he used quite these words but this is what he meant— "Rolls-Royce has gone bankrupt. I'm afraid we shall have to subsidise it, chaps." The Tories trooped through the Lobby to support the right hon. Gentleman. Some of them tried to escape. Some of the purists said, "I'm a monetarist. I'll have nowt to do with this." So some of them disappeared—but not many.

We on these Benches stayed behind that night because we thought that that was not a bad idea. A lot of jobs were affected in Derby, the midlands, Scotland and north-west Lancashire. We said that we would save those jobs, because we believed that if private enterprise could not do the job we should have to get Rolls-Royce into the public sector—and sharp. So let us have none of that nonsense about only the mining industry being subsidised.

Not so long ago the Government handed over roughly £5 million to Murdoch of the Wapping press so that he could go down into the enterprise zone. Was that a proper use of taxpayers' money? Was it right to hand over £5 million to Murdoch, who has made £50 million out of The Sun and invested it in Hollywood films? Was it right to hand over taxpayers' money to Murdoch to slag off the Government with the News of the World publication about Peter Archer and Victoria station? It is bizarre, but it was taxpayers' money. [Interruption.] I apologise; I should have said Jeffrey Archer. Let us get that straight.

Is it not bizarre to say that we cannot subsidise people's jobs? Fancy Members of Parliament saying that we cannot subsidise people's jobs. This place would close down tomorrow without taxpayers' money. The Prime Minister often refers to the next door neighbour as the one we collect the taxes from. Not so long ago on television she said, "Remember that the taxpayer is your next door neighbour." I wonder what would be the result of one of those clever opinion polls— or perhaps a real opinion poll— if people were asked, "Who do you think you ought to subsidise— miners or MPs?" It would be dodgy.

The hon. Gentleman would be out of a job.

The hon. Gentleman says that I would be out of a job. The reason I understand his argument is because I do not want miners. steel workers, railwaymen, social workers and the hundreds of thousands who ought to be working in local government to be sacked. So let us have no more of that nonsense. The hon. Gentleman was one of those who cheered his Front Bench when they handed over £100 million to save Johnson Matthey Bankers—a big, fat subsidy. There has been no Select Committee. No hon. Member has got up and said, "Let's have a Select Committee to see whether the £100 million that was handed over to Johnson Matthey Bankers was well spent." No, of course not. There was no Select Committee on that, or even on the tax relief that the banks get.

Why are the Tories not complaining? The National Westminster Bank will shortly produce profits amounting to more than £1 billion, to be followed by Barclays Bank. They are friends. When I was looking at the small print I wondered how they had made all that money. It says that £160 million is being written off the National Westminster Bank's accounts because it is not going to pay tax; it has been put down to bad debts. Bad debts? So the British taxpayer— the next door neighbour that the Prime Minister talks about—is ladling out £160 million to the National Westminster Bank so that it can write off bad debts in this country and abroad.

If it had not been a Scottish Bill that was discussed yesterday, I should have raised the issue on that debtors Bill. But that is enough of that. Let us have no more talk about subsidies being paid only to the coal industry, especially when the Prime Minister has caused the cost of running 10 Downing Street to rise from £1·3 million in 1979 to more than £5 million now. She can talk about subsidies! She has caused the running costs of 10 Downing street to rise by up to 300 per cent.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Only very briefly, because my hon. Friends want to speak.

The hon. Gentleman fails to point out that in respect of the accounts for No. 10 there is a new accounting practice that includes counting as the costs of No. 10 the costs of other Departments. That was not formerly the case.

The hon. Gentleman means that the Prime Minister became so wary of these other Departments that she decided to have a foreign affairs adviser and another kind of adviser in No. 10. Why? She also has Bernard Ingham and his staff there, full time. The result is that No. 10 is costing the taxpayer—the next door neighbour taxpayer—300 per cent. more under the Prime Minister's administration than it cost under Uncle Jim Callaghan's—the man who has a book coming out very shortly, they tell me, but I do not want to advertise that fact.

I see that the Select Committee has dealt with the effects of nuclear power and with the side issue of a smaller work force and less production in the mining industry. Those who believe that the way forward is nuclear power must bear in mind that the cost is met by the taxpayer via the Ministry of Defence, but that cost is never calculated. I know that my hon. Friends will take up with zeal the point that the next Select Committee on Energy should consider how much taxpayers' money is going into the nuclear power industry.

I am pleased that my hon. Friends who served on the Select Committee divided the Committee on this issue. Many hon. Members know that I am not keen on Select Committees. They tend to be very sloppy, consensus-type Committees. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) decided, along with his two colleagues, to oppose certain measures and recommendations. I applaud them for doing so. They managed to drag themselves away from the idea that they are all pals together, waltzing down the yellow brick road.

The Select Committee said that the coal mining industry cannot be privatised until the year 2000. I thought that that was rather surprising, when one considers some of the hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee. Therefore, I wondered whether it was possible that some of them had mining experience and whether they had been able to influence the Committee to a far greater degree than is usual. I agree with my hon. Friends that there should be no privatisation. That is why the Committee was divided. We have only to consider what happened in the mining industry before the war when it was privatised and to listen to the old people who are still around. They would tell us.

And so would some hon. Members.

My hon. Friend says that some hon. Members would also be able to tell that story. I went into the industry in 1949, after nationalisation. They could tell us what happened under privatisation. The safety standards were abysmal.

They were shocking.

My hon. Friend says that they were shocking. He went through it. The owners did not care about life and limb. That is what would happen in future if the mines were privatised. We want no more nonsense about privatisation being the salvation of the mining industry, because it would result in more deaths and injuries than in any other British industry.

What else would it do? Those who have worked in the pits know the answer. The owners would immediately say, "Here's a nice easy seam, only 300 yards down." But looking at a coal mine a real planner would say, "If we are to maximise the output in this coal mine, we must think about the seam that is 400 yards down, and the next one that is 800 yards down, if we are sensibly to extract from the earth what has lain there for thousands of years."

Privatisation would mean easy profit and easy killings. The attitude would be, "Let us mine what we can get hold of first and to hell with all the rest of it." There would be exploitation, but a lot of coal would be lost for ever. Safety standards would fall and easy seams would be taken on.

As my hon. Friends know, we in the mining industry have had to fight for compensation for colleagues who have been injured and for widows of colleagues who have been killed. One can just imagine how, in this new, privatised, monetarist world, attempts would be made to get rid of trade unions—those which have represented the miners over the years— altogether. Imagine what paradise that would be for the lawyers—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. My hon. Friends must have a chance to speak because they served on the Committee.

If the mining industry were privatised, there would be more casualties and longer hours—

rose—

The hon. Gentleman threatened to pack in his seat if it was decided to go ahead with the dumping of nuclear waste on his back doorstep. The threat is still hanging over his constituency, but he is still here. I would be more inclined to give way to him if he showed a bit of principle for a change but, like his hon. Friends, he does not.

There would be longer hours in the new privatised mining world. What else would ensue? More people would be on the dole, and more youngsters on tin-pot youth training and other Thatcher-devised slave labour schemes. In addition, more South African coal would pour into the country to service hospitals. Indeed, some South African coal is already going into Nottinghamshire and depriving Nottinghamshire miners of their jobs. [Interruption.] Some members of the UDM have said that that is happening, and, incredibly enough, they supported a motion that I tabled a few weeks ago. South African coal would be cheap to begin with, but once South Africa had seized the coal market it would call the price, as did the oil industry in the 1950s and 1960s. There would be no more nuclear power.

The report also recommends the allocation of an additional £166 million for the coal mining industry. The hon. Member for Havant said that that was a gargantuan amount, but I do not believe that. I would support the proposals more readily if I knew that more money was to be allocated on top of that to ensure that those who live in Coal Board houses and who are being preyed on by the speculators could live in better conditions. More money should be allocated to further the cause of those of us in this House who since 1970 have represented the pre-1968 miners who are still doing without concessionary coal. Why does not the Minister get stuck into that? There are not many left in the country; a few in Lancashire, a few in Derbyshire and a few in other coalfields. We should make sure that those people— widows and ex-miners who were made redundant—are treated the same as the rest.

There should be more money to compensate for subsidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford said earlier. In addition, there should be action on the issue of the 450 sacked miners. I should like to think that we were going to support in the Lobby today a decision that those 450 miners should get their jobs back, as they undoubtedly will under the next Labour Government.

It will be a long wait.

The hon. Gentleman comes from Scotland. I have been looking at the polls and statistics for Scotland, and I can tell him that if he does not watch his back, the speach he made today may be his last speech. My information is that Labour is riding very high indeed in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is a Liberal, and I note that his SDP colleagues have not graced us with their presence. I think that I know why. The SDP is not very keen on getting rid of nuclear power or on the hon. Gentleman's ideas about mining as expressed in his speech. In fact, they are not very keen on the Liberals. Members of the SDP are using the Liberals, and when they have used them they will dump them, just as the Tories want to dump the miners. The hon. Gentleman has plenty on his own plate, and he should deal with that before talking about the Labour party.

As my hon. Friends have said, unless some changes are made, our union representatives will have to go to court. The problem stems from the Government's sequestration policy. They say that they are at arm's length with the courts, but I do not believe that.

I want the Minister to bear in mind what the Lord Chancellor said last week about another issue. Unimar, one of the firms involved in Lloyds, cheated more than 1,000 people— nearly all of them Tories—out of their money on the insurance market. The Lord Chancellor—the top Tory in the other place— said, "We cannot really pursue this very complicated and complex financial matter." Millions of pounds were involved.

That was one of the biggest scandals in the City during the past 10 years. More than 1,000 people were swindled out of their money, but there is to be no sequestration. There is to be no hunting or hounding or rushing to Switzerland, because the Lord Chancellor believes that it would cost too much time and money to pursue the matter. This wonderful British justice of ours is to allow all those in Unimar and PCW to escape. They will not get their collars felt, or be hauled before the courts. If the Government can do that for City crooks, who represent the underbelly of the Tory party, they should stop this nonsense of dragging the NUM through the courts.

We have heard today about soaring productivity, a wonderful golden future for the mining industry and conciliation. If those words mean anything at all, the Minister and his right hon. Friends should stop their witch hunt of the NUM.

We have been entertained by a good rant from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has clearly been practising in the Tea Room.

Not with jackboots on.

The hon. Gentleman does his practice with jackboots outside the Chamber. Clearly, the Tea Room provides the Labour party with an alternative to the hustings. They cannot face the people; they can only fight one another.

It will come as interesting news to the Leader of the Opposition that the hon. Member for Bolsover has made a most compelling case that, far from deserting manufacturing industry in this country, the Conservative Government have littered taxpayers' money throughout manufacturing industry. That was the point that he made. Perhaps he had better rush round to Miss Patricia Hewitt's office, or somewhere else where they specialise in leaking letters, and have a few words. The Leader of the Opposition should be aware that it is no good berating this Government for not supporting manufacturing industry, because the hon. Gentleman has produced a veritable catalogue—

A cornucopia.

As my hon. Friend says, we have heard a cornucopia of examples illustrating the extensive support given by the Government to manufacturing industry.

The hon. Member for Bolsover was ranting, rather than delivering a speech, so let me tell him now that the figure for which he was searching was £2,900 million. That is the amount of money that has been diverted from the taxpayer to British industry in respect of the aerospace, steelmaking, shipbuilding and vehicle industries. Later this afternoon we shall no doubt debate the excellent support that Her Majesty's Government have given to the British vehicle industry.