House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 May 1991

Mr. MacGregor : I will finish my point first. The money will come from extra taxation, not from increased growth, because that is already provided for. Will the money come from more taxation? I give way to the hon. Member for The Wrekin, who can tell us the answer.

Mr. Grocott : We will not take any lectures on economic management from a Government who, in 12 years, have managed to achieve record interest rates, record mortgage rates, record balance of payments deficits, reduced industrial production and investment and a shambles of the economy. We will take lectures on many things, but not on economic management. This country has been run by Arthur Daley for the past 12 years.

Mr. MacGregor : The House will have noted that there was no answer to the question ; the Labour party does not want to answer it, because it does not want even to hint that it will increase taxation. The Opposition want to imply that they will increase spending on all sorts of things and then try to get out of the difficulty by spurious reference to economic growth. The fact is that that is impossible in the next three years because the spending plans already provide for that growth. So the money must come from increased taxes. The electorate will take note of that. The Prime Minister was right to say in Perth the other day that Labour's plans would mean another 2p in the pound on income tax each year.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West pointed out, the Opposition are always asking for more spending across the board. Their Treasury spokesman has told us that there will be increased spending only on child benefit and pensions, but the rest of the Opposition call for increased spending all the time on whatever happens to interest them. They were at it again today. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) wanted more money for charities. The hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) wanted it for unemployment--as did the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)--

Mr. Alfred Morris : Answer my questions.

Mr. MacGregor : I shall come to them if I am allowed time. The hon. Member for Ogmore wanted spending on training and enterprise councils, and the hon. Member for The Wrekin had his agenda. We have and constant calls for more public spending. That is at the heart of the argument, and I am right to concentrate on it, because it is what Opposition Members have spent all their time doing.

Opposition Members cannot add up the figures. The hon. Member for The Wrekin did not answer the point that I put to him. The Liberal Democrats are just as bad. I found what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said extraordinary. He may not have meant it, but he said that the Liberal Democrats would raise an extra £2 billion from another 1p on income tax. At least his party is fair in saying where the money will come from. But the hon. Gentleman said that the Liberal Democrats would spend it on education, which would enable them to spend less on the national health service. I do not understand that, given that the rest of his speech was about

Column 60

spending more on the national health service. Perhaps he only meant spending more on Guy's hospital--it happens to be in his constituency--and letting the rest go.

Mr. Simon Hughes : I did not say that we would spend less on the national health service. I said that we would not have to raise the money that the health service needs from additional taxation, because that money would go to education. The health service would be funded by us to the tune of an extra 2 per cent. every year over a five-year Parliament.

Mr. MacGregor : Given that we have already agreed that there are already spending plans to use the economic growth, presumably the money will not come from that. So if the Liberal Democrats are going to spend more on the national health service, presumably they will have to raise income tax by more than 1p in the pound.

There is a more serious point for the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey talked of raising £2 billion from income tax to increase spending on education. His party voted against the proposal in the Budget to increase VAT from 15 to 17.5 per cent., thereby losing £3.9 billion in revenue. Those figures do not add up, either.

The clear message from this debate is that the Opposition want to spend more across the board. They have got themselves in a muddle on tax and spending plans and they cannot get out of it now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) discussed whether we were rising for a week to go on holiday. I am sure that we are all going to do all sorts of other duties--but I shall leave that matter aside, in view of the time. He also mentioned the health service in Shropshire but did not ask me to answer his specific points, which I shall forward to the Secretary of State for Health ; but he made a general point about the ownership of cottage hospitals. As he will know--I have to put this in a very condensed form--under the National Health Service Act 1977, health authorities can take into account resources that come from property and any money arising from its sale, which must be used within the national health service to provide better care for patients. My right hon. Friend will know that that is what we have done ; the sale of assets can be and is directly devoted to the service and to patient care. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe raised a number of points, three of which I will pick up quickly. He mentioned VAT on charities. As he will know, the Government have done a great deal to increase the resources that go into charities, not only by more than doubling in real terms the grants to charities but by a wide variety of tax relief measures which encourage more voluntary giving to charities. I could go through the figures, but they are very large.

The value of all tax reliefs on charitable giving to charities is about £800 million a year. The hon. Gentleman's point about the health service--I am not talking here about the Paterson institute--was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury on 28 March :

"I have agreed that in the special case of the health programmes, the additional costs to health authorities should be added to existing provision as a claim against the reserve. This will also apply to comparable expenditure in Scotland and Wales. The increased provision will be granted to the

Column 61

national health service in supplementary estimates for 1991-92, to be presented in due course later in the year."-- [ Official Report, 28 March 1991 ; Vol. 188, c. 519. ]

The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the rights of the child convention was signed by the United Kingdom on 19 April 1990, and it will be ratified as soon as possible. I am sorry that I do not have time to go into his point about AIDS.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling discussed the case of a constituent. As he recognises, it is fundamentally a matter for the county council, but he raised several important points and it would be quite proper for him to consider raising the matter on the Adjournment if he were not satisfied in due course.

My hon. Friend also discussed the local government Audit Commission, of which I have always been a strong supporter. It is admirably led and it has produced a number of excellent reports which, if followed through, would achieve greater cost-effectiveness and efficiency and much better value for money. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment undertook in an Adjournment debate to consider a number of my hon. Friend's points, and that he is doing. As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and bearing in mind my time at the Department of Education and Science and what the commission said then, I endorse what my hon. Friend the member for Gedling said about its importance, and I shall certainly bear in mind the possibility of a debate. As in so many other areas, the commission's activities show that the effectiveness of provision of services stems not just from the amount of money spent but from how it is spent. So I am happy to go along with what my hon. Friend said about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) raised a number of points about unemployment in the white collar industries. I noted that he said that he had no quarrel with the polices to get inflation down, and, as he will agree, they are crucial to long-term employment. He also mentioned tourism. I remind him that, in 1990-91, the Government are spending about £533 million on tourism.

I should very much like to debate Scottish devolution with my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan)

Mr. Raffan : And a Welsh Assembly.

Mr. MacGregor : Indeed. I spent a great deal of time when in Perth last week discussing that, but time will prevent me from doing so today, because I want to finish on two important issues raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin.

First, the hon. Gentleman said that the House was running out of business. That is simply not true. About 25 Bills are still to be completed in the next few months--a big programme. The reason why the House rose early last week, which I am sure was welcomed by those hon. Members who complain that the House rises too late, was that there were no members of the Opposition to scrutinise the Finance Bill and other Bills. I gave the normal amount of time to discuss the Finance Bill, and usually the House takes it all.

We have had many debates on economic issues and on unemployment, and I welcome them. The Opposition outlined a policy of implementing a social charter and strengthening it immediately, of imposing a training levy of 0.5 per cent. and then, as I think they said, increasing it

Column 62

pretty quickly, and of imposing a national minimum wage. I can think of no package of measures designed to lose more jobs than the combination of those three ideas.

We welcome the opportunity to continue to debate the alternative approaches to employment. I am happy to have that opportunity, and there will be many such occasions in the near future but, above all, the debate shows that the Labour party is the party of high spenders. It has proved that time and time again, but it does not want the electorate to know about tax concessions.

6.31 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : As there are three minutes to go, may I ask the Leader of the House, first, what will he do about rate capping in Lothian? Secondly, what will he do about Heveningham hall, which is near his constituency? In the early 1970s, the Secretary of State for the Environment offered to buy it from the Government, but he was told by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that no Minister in his Government would buy a house like that. Since then, it has been shrouded in mystery.

May I ask a direct question : are Ministers sure that the Swiss bearer bond holders are not operating for the Government of Iraq and have never done so? Was the hall at any time the property of Saddam Hussein, because many people in Suffolk believe that it was? An inquiry should be set up under the likes of Lord Charteris, with whom I have been in contact to establish the clarity of the future of Heveningham hall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned Mr. Ingham. A statement should be made, because we should know what is the position of John Mark. By implication, his private secretary has been adversely affected in the press by Mr. Ingham's memoirs. What is the position of Colette Bowe and that of Leon Brittan--

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 23rd May, do adjourn until Monday 3rd June.

Mr. Ray Powell : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Only you can deal with this issue, perhaps through Mr. Speaker. Today, I tabled a question to the Minister for the Arts, and it was referred to the Welsh Office. I have now received a reply from the Welsh Office to say that the Welsh Arts Council, which was the subject of the question, is not responsible for museums in Wales. My question was about the funding of museums :

"To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, whether he has met the Chair of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss funding for museums in Wales."

The Ministry referred my question to the Welsh Office, and the Minister there in turn replied :

"The Welsh Arts Council has no responsibility for museums in Wales."

With your knowledge of the House, of Committees and of everything else, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you tell me where I should submit my question--to Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means or someone else?

Column 63

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : I confess that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I can say only that I have no responsibility for determining who shall be responsible for answering specific questions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave it with us and that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, (Mr. Moynihan), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, has taken note and will get a response for the hon. Gentleman. I have no responsibility in such matters.

Mr. Powell : I am grateful for your reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I raised the issue because it is important for those of us on the Back Benches to receive answers to our questions. We do not want Ministers to transfer our questions hither and thither and then find that we do not receive a reply from any Department.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is fair to complain. What the hon. Gentleman says should be noted to ensure that he gets a fair response.

Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend refers to a point of order for Mr. Speaker or, indeed, for the Procedure Committee. It will be within your recollection that the late John Silkin, passionately against the advice of some of us, agreed to limit the summer and other recess Adjournment debates to three hours. This was sacred private Members' time, yet once more it was being eroded. This afternoon, we have seen the Front Bench--and I must say, that it was both Front Benches--use the occasion for the usual exchange of party politics. The summer Adjournment is an opportunity for Front-Bench Members to raise matters, however controversial.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Dalyell : My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised the specific issue of unemployment. This is the occasion to raise matters relating to our constituencies, not for the normal party yah-boo. We can raise not only matters relating to our constituencies but urgent matters such as that raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the Government's reaction--or otherwise--to the behaviour of Mr. Ingham. This is the only opportunity that we shall have to do so, and it is essential to establish what Mr. Ingham and Sir Leon Brittan are doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is skilful, but I suspect that he is now trying to raise the issues that he might have raised had he had the opportunity to participate in the Adjournment debate. As to the content and way in which the debate is conducted, the yah-boo political arguments came from all sides of the House. The extent to which the debate is in order is a matter for the judgment of the Chair. Although much caused me concern, nothing this afternoon caused me to rule a speaker out of order. The duration of the debate is more properly a matter for the Procedure Committee, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will want to make representations to that Committee. Now, perhaps we might move on.

Column 64

Coal Industry (Restructuring)

6.37 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan) : I beg to move

That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved. The order, which was laid before the House on 15 April, is the fifth annual order under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987. The House may recall that section 3 was amended last year by section 2 of the Coal Industry Act 1990 which extended by one year up to March 1993 the period over which the Government may pay restructuring grant and increased the total limit on grant from £750 million to £1,250 million. The ceiling is further increasable by order up to £1,500 million.

The order has three main purposes.

Mr. Andy Stewart (Sherwood) : I am sorry to interrupt so early in the Minister's speech. I have a copy of the schedule ; can the Minister explain why heads 3 and 4 have been left out?

Mr. Moynihan : I shall attempt to explain. Head 4 was excluded last year. The House may recall that the Coal Industry Act 1990 provided for the corporation's accumulated group deficit at the end of March 1990 to be covered by a deficiency grant, if my memory serves me correctly. That included an exceptional provision for about £1,500 million for concessionary fuel supplies. That deficiency grant provision extinguished the need for the Government to pay restructuring grant for concessionary fuel liabilities. My hon. Friend also raises the question of the social welfare activities heading in the schedule. British Coal has never claimed under that heading.

The order specifies the restructuring expenditure for which grant may be paid in respect of costs incurred in the present financial year 1991-92. After the explanation that I have just given about the types of expenditure set out in the schedule, I must point out that they are the same as those of last year.

The order establishes the proportion of this year's restructuring costs which will be met by grant. The corporation's financial results are sensitive to the rate of grant contribution towards restructuring costs. Although it remains our policy to transfer the costs of restructuring to the corporation at a rate that reflects its ability to bear them, the market conditions faced by British Coal continue to be difficult and to affect the rate at which the corporation can move towards full commercial viability.

I trust that hon. Members will agree that it is desirable for the corporation to be able to continue its policy of carrying out the necessary restructuring of the industry through a process of voluntary redundancy. That is possible only by offering generous redundancy terms. To safeguard the industry's longer-term financial prospects and not to jeopardise the financial position in the short term, we propose to continue the rate of restructuring grant of 90 per cent., which applied in 1990-91, for the current financial year. The third main provision, which I touched on earlier, is that paragraph 6 seeks to increase the limit on the aggregate amount of grant that may be paid from £1,250 million to £1.5 billion, as empowered by the 1990 Act. The total restructuring grant payments made by the

Column 65

Government between April 1987 and March 1991 have been £1,045 million. The Department's estimated provision for 1991-92 is £300 million. If the full provision is drawn down this year, the total payments will be over £1.3 billion and the ceiling needs to be raised to allow payments above £1,250 million to take place.

6.41 pm

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) : I welcome the opportunity to raise a number of issues of great importance to the British coal industry and its communities. The Minister made claims about the difficult market that British Coal now faces. In our debate last July on the 1990 restructuring grants order, I expressed our concern at the lack of progress on the start of negotiations between the generators and British Coal on the post-1993 contract. I said that the negotiations were vital for planning the future of the coal and electricity industries, and for boosting the morale of everyone in the coal industry.

We are still waiting for progress to be made. In March this year, the new chairman of British Coal said :

"Everybody is aware that the power contracts--their length, tonnage and price involved--are the key to the future of British Coal. Indeed, they will determine whether there is to be a future for coalmining in Britain at all."

Once again this weekend, we have seen negotiation by press release. The Financial Times says that PowerGen will cut its order from British Coal by half to between 10 million tonnes and 15 million tonnes, and that National Power will follow suit.

Real negotiations, not informal talks or threatening rumbles through the media, must begin now. If they do not, we shall have not only a coal industry unprepared for the demands that it will face, but an electricity industry that will rush to fuel its power stations with no thought for the long-term needs of its customers or the nation. In such circumstances, the Government cannot continue to stand aside and allow the continued contraction of the industry, the loss of national resources and the effects of increasing coal imports on our balance of payments. The Government would be better off spending their time bringing about negotiations rather than holding competitions to appoint a financial adviser on the privatisation on the coal industry.

As in previous years, the order contains an element for expected redundancies in the industry this year. Over recent years, the industry has had to react to the shock waves of threatened and real pit closures and job losses. Every miner who picks up his newspapers to read headlines such as "British Coal strategy--a further 16,000 jobs at risk" must wonder how long his job will last. The industry has recently forecast that another 5,600 jobs will be lost in the coming year with the closure of another seven collieries. Those are not ideal circumstances for urging British miners, as the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Energy did last week, to increase productivity, which he acknowledged to have increased already by more than 90 per cent. over the past six years. It is vital for miners and their families and for the country that a new era of stability should be heralded in the industry as soon as possible.

The order also makes provision for the money for British Coal Enterprise Ltd., for opportunities for retraining and resettlement and for attracting a diversity of

Column 66

industries and employment chances. Those are of major importance to the coalfield areas. We have registered our concern- -

Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet) : The hon. Gentleman referred to the work of British Coal Enterprise Ltd., in helping to retrain people and to mitigate the consequences of the closure of collieries. In the past, the Opposition have been less than complimentary about the work of British Coal Enterprise. Will the hon. Gentleman now take the opportunity to confirm his and his party's full support for its work?

Mr. Barron : If the hon. Gentleman will contain his excitement a little longer, he will find out what I have to say about British Coal Enterprise.

We have in these debates in the past registered our concern that the opportunities offered by BCE are inadequate to meet the needs of the areas in which it operates. The shortcomings of BCE's job and career change scheme, or JACCS, are of particular concern. The main shortcomings are that the training period that can be funded is often insufficient to enable people to get recognised industrial qualifications, that before training is made available they have to show that there is a job to go to at the end of the training period and that the time limit within which funding must be secured is only six months from the date of accepting redundancy. Anyone who has studied long-term unemployment in the coal mining industry before the scale of redundancies of the past five years will know why the JACCS scheme is not meeting the needs in mining areas.

Other problems are the slow and cumbersome process of determining applications, and the fact that anyone who takes short-term work soon after the closure of a colliery can easily find himself ineligible for assistance. The JACCS scheme is out of step with most other organisations in training and economic development which emphasise the enhancement of the individual's skills irrespective of the immediate availability of appropriate employment.

BCE's operations, despite the shortcomings, have been allocated approximately £5 million and British Coal itself another £1 million or so from the European Coal and Steel Community funding under RECHAR. All the evidence points to the funds being used to replace British Government funds instead of supplementing them.

About £3 million is earmarked for JACCS. To demonstrate additionality- -a word that crops up regularly when discussing European Community money for mining areas--some or all of the training places funded, the length of training and the unit costs of training should be increased. BCE has yet to explain how it intends to use the new RECHAR money.

Nearly £1 million is allocated to BCE's job shops--the advice centres set up at pits that are closing to counsel redundant mineworkers about job vacancies in their area. Once again, BCE has not been able to show any increase in the scale of job shop services. Is this another case of non- additionality for the Government?

Mr. Batiste : The hon. Gentleman referred to the RECHAR programme. He will be aware of my concern last year, when the map for it was being determined by Commissioner Bruce Millan of the European Community. Parts of my constituency that were facing pit closures were not included in the map. I understand that the Coalfield Communities Campaign and the Labour party have made

Column 67

representations to Commissioner Millan. Will the hon. Gentleman support representations made by the Government to include my constituency in the RECHAR map?

Mr. Barron : I shall obviously do that. I shall deal with recent developments relating to the RECHAR programme and say what we expect of the Government. At this stage, I am more concerned about the money that comes through the RECHAR programme directly to the Department of Energy, and about what the Department does with it. Notwithstanding the money that I have just mentioned, nearly £1 million is allocated for subsidising BCEs operating losses.

The subsidy is to be calculated in proportion to the ratio of former mineworkers to all jobs in BCE-supported businesses and managed workshops. As BCE is supporting these jobs anyway, it is hard to see that the subsidy is anything other than a straight substitution of EC funds for United Kingdom Government funds. British Coal is destined to receive some RECHAR funds, partly for its early retirement scheme for non-industrial employees and partly for its skill scope scheme, which gives employees an opportunity to take up specific training packages to enhance their skills. Unless British Coal can demonstrate that the £300,000 that it is to receive from RECHAR will represent additional training for its employees, we can only assume that it is another example of the substitution of the source of the funds.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : My latest information on RECHAR is that Commissioner Millan will not let the money come into this country unless the Government give assurances that it will be additional money and will not go into the Treasury by the back door.

Mr. Barron : That is right. Bruce Millan knows exactly what has been going on for a long time regarding European Commission grants for coal- mining areas. On this occasion, he will not let the Treasury get away with it. He has my full support on that, and the support of the Coalfield Communities Campaign and many local authorities. We need to ensure that assistance is getting to the places where it is most needed, and questions need to be answered. The Government have totally mismanaged the RECHAR programme. First, they have refused to pass on in full the EC aid to coalfield local authorities in Britain--over £100 million. I agree with the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) that any areas in his constituency that are losing coal-mining jobs should be covered by the RECHAR programme. We should ensure that the Treasury does not hold that money once it has been allotted.

Mr. Batiste : The hon. Gentleman's comment does not sit well with the comment that he made a few moments ago. He has said that he fully supports Commissioner Millan's decision to withhold money from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barron : If the hon. Gentleman wishes to represent the mineworkers in his constituency--as does my friend Colin Burgon, whose name the hon. Gentleman has heard before--he should not be a stooge for the Treasury, which

Column 68

has withheld £100 million from coal- mining areas. Labour Members will not do that, and the hon. Gentleman should think again.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) challenged my hon. Friend, who responded properly. My agent, Mr. Richard Russell, has been assisted by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. Some of us appreciate the work done on the ground, but do not necessarily relate that to the sort of people with whom the hon. Gentleman associates.

We responded to the hon. Gentleman's challenge ; now would he care to respond to that offered by my hon. Friend? Will he join us, and make it clear to the Government that people in ex-coalmining areas bitterly resent attempts by the Treasury, and other Departments, to stop Brussels sending money to help us--or to allow any money sent to us to assist the Treasury to extricate itself from the mess that it has got into?

Mr. Barron : Yes, that is what we should ensure. The Treasury's intention to sink the money into its coffers has forced the European Community to withhold the cash, delaying or stifling completely the grants and cheap loans that would be of such benefit to mining areas.

It now appears that the money designated to help redundant mineworkers acquire new skills, and consequently new employment prospects, is not going to British Coal and British Coal Enterprise as additional funds, as was intended by the Commission, but is being substituted for British Government funding. Can the Minister demonstrate the additional character of the funding provided to British Coal and British Coal Enterprise Ltd. under the RECHAR programme? If not, only one conclusion can be drawn ; not content with trying to get their hands on the money that should be going to coalfield local authorities, the Government are ripping off redundant mineworkers.

Mr. George J. Buckley (Hemsworth) : My hon. Friend makes a significant point about the Treasury creaming off money from the EC. I understand that, if a local authority receives this money, it will be taken into account when the Government decide whether the authority should be poll tax-capped. It is a double indemnity against the Government's putting money into mining communities.

Mr. Barron : My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Government do not change their attitude, the money will not come into the country to go into the Treasury's coffers. I support the Commission's stand on that. Conservative Members who say that they represent coal-mining areas should have the courage to tell Treasury Ministers that it is wrong to withhold help to coal-mining areas that have suffered job losses in the past five years under the Tory Government.

Mr. Andy Stewart : The Treasury and the Department of the Environment calculate the additionality money on the same basis as other European countries. The local authority grants have been top-sliced by an additionality of £46 million. A large slice of that will come to my constituency through my local authority, yet Opposition Members would deny my constituents some of that £46 million.

Mr. Barron : The only people who are denying the hon. Member's constituents such help are the Government he

Column 69

supports. A few months ago, I went with representatives of my local authority to the Department of the Environment to discuss funding from the European Commission and additionality. The Minister said that he fully supported our view that money should not be withheld by central Government ; that money should be provided in addition to the moneys paid from the Exchequer. The only people who will not change their minds are those at the nasty Treasury.

The hon. Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) may have to face the consequences of the Government's actions in the next few weeks or months. They now want to move the responsibility from the Treasury to Brussels.

Mr. Batiste rose--

Mr. Andy Stewart rose--

Mr. Barron : I shall not give way again.

The debate gives us an opportunity to refer to some crucial and important matters concerning the coal industry. Restructuring grants have been the order of the day since 1987--£1,500 million for restructuring the coal industry. Nothing has been said about the long-term consequences for the industry and the country.

During Question Time today, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked the Minister about a ballot within the industry on its future. The Minister said that we would have such a ballot shortly : the next general election. That may solve many of these problems. We cannot wait for that ballot to take place.

6.58 pm

Mr. Andy Stewart (Sherwood) : The order shows yet again our Government's continuing support for the coal industry. Since 1975 almost £7 billion of new investment has been committed. The significance of that--

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means-- under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

Next Section

Home Page