Coalfield Communities

§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

I beg to move, That this House recognises the specific problems of the coalfield areas, the high levels of unemployment, lack of job opportunities, falling investment and increasing poverty; regrets the Government's failure to respond to the plight of people as described in the Shelter report on housing, entitled Pits and Mortar; and calls on Her Majesty's Government urgently to look at ways of helping the coalfield communities as recommended by the Select Committee on Energy in its report on the Coal Industry, of Session 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 165). I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House have read the motion in great detail. It is not about the coal industry—it is about the effects of changes in the industry and, more importantly, the effects on coalfield communities and the villages that surround coal mines that are working now or that have closed in the recent past. Not only Opposition Members represent people in coalfield communities. At the moment, 105 hon. Members represent constituencies that have coal mines, or have had them in the past five years.

The motion is critical of the Government's lack of action and of an economic policy that is adequate to sustain the coalfield communities after the rapid changes of the past five years. In 1981, 6.5 million people lived in coalfield areas of the United Kingdom. In each area, there are substantial local concentrations. The heaviest concentration is to be found in Yorkshire, where more than 1.3 million people live in coalfield areas.

The coalfields are unique in many senses. Mining has been highly localised in areas that have become almost exclusively dependent on this single form of employment. Close-knit communities have grown up alongside it, and the environment of our communities has been determined by the nature and history of the coal industry. The communities of the coalfield have relied on work in that 1310 industry being passed on from generation to generation, because there is not always diversity of industry in the coalfields.

Anything that affects the industry affects the whole community. In the areas in which the coal industry has declined irrevocably, new opportunities for work must emerge, but that will not happen as long as the environment is not conducive to the growth of new enterprises. There must be suitable sites, adequate services, good access to motorways and good living conditions— for homes, schools and leisure. There must be people with appropriate skills, and positive support for new industries.

In most of the older coalfields, these conditions do not exist. In 1981, about 250,000 people were directly employed by the industry. In addition, there were 70,000 to 100,000 jobs in related service industries. The severity of job losses in recent years has been unparalleled in the history of the coalfields. In recent years there has been a rapid acceleration in colliery closures. Between 1982 and 1987, 23 collieries have closed in the Yorkshire coalfield alone and in the six years from 1981 to 1987, 50 per cent. of total jobs nationally have disappeared.

Obviously, different regions have suffered different levels of job loss. In those few years Scotland has lost 72 per cent. of all its mining jobs, Kent has lost 70 per cent. and Wales has lost 55 per cent. That has left many areas with substantial unemployment problems. In my Rotherham area, more than one out of two coal mining jobs have been lost since March 1978. There are currently about 5,600 mining jobs in the Rotherham area. The threatened closure of the Manvers complex and the rundown of the Treeton colliery in my constituency will push employment in the industry down to below 4,600.

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

My hon. Friend will be aware that originally British Coal wished to close the Kilnhurst part and reduce the Manvers part to single-face working, with a substantial job loss. Is he aware of the recent suspicion that British Coal now wishes to close the whole of the Manvers complex?

Does he feel that that is perhaps due to British Coal's displeasure at having to have an inquiry? Will he ask the Minister to respond to the proposition that the devastated Dearne valley area should not have to bear further cruel and bitter loss, further destruction of hope and the corrosion of the very lives of our communities?

§ Mr. Barron

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for that intervention. I concur with everything that he says. The Dearn valley area is one of the worst unemployment black spots away from inner cities — if not the worst. The Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area that I shall mention later in my speech has been devastated by the rundown of basic industries. Obviously any closure of the Manvers complex on that scale, in addition to the closure in the last 10 years of the five coking plants in the Manvers complex, would devastate that area.

In my constituency, unemployment increased by 12.8 per cent. in the two years from February 1985 to February 1987. Nearly all of that can be attributed to cuts in the mining industry. Not only are unemployment levels rising, but, because of the nature of coalfield communities, there is a high and rising level of long-term unemployment. Over 45 per cent. of those out of work in my constituency have been jobless for more than one year.

1311 The figures of youth unemployment paint a very grim picture. There are seven electoral wards in the Rother valley constituency and they all have an excess of one third of people between the ages of 18 and 25 unemployed. A total of 2,149 young people in my constituency are registered as being out of work, and that figure does not include the many hundreds of people who are on youth training schemes or community programmes.

It is not surprising that youth unemployment is so high. In the past, many young people were recruited and trained by the coal mining industry, just as I was trained in the 1960s. That no longer happens. In 1986–87, British Coal recruited only 33 workers in the whole of the south Yorkshire coalfield, and recruited only 2,000 in the country as a whole. In 1978–79, over 20,000 were recruited to the industry. Not only do young people not get jobs with British Coal, but they no longer receive any training.

§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

Does my hon. Friend accept that nationalised industries such as the Coal Board in areas such as Yorkshire and south Wales were the main trainers of young people? By way of electrical, mining and fitting apprenticeships, young people were able to develop skills. The privatised industries, such as British Gas and in future the electricity industry and in recent years British Coal, are not training young people. That means that unemployed young people have no skills, no options and no opportunities to go into developing employment.

§ Mr. Barron

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) raises an important point. I was trained as an electrician in the coal mines in the 1960s and the idea of craft apprenticeships being offered in my constituency has been unheard of for well over four years. I highlighted this major problem in the industry during a debate that I had in the House in May on youth unemployment.

Young people were not trained as electricians and fitters and for other skilled trades merely for the coal industry. It is a major point that these people were trained and entered private industry in south Yorkshire. What remains of the training programme is now threatened because young people are not being taken on. Nothing has changed since I had that debate on youth unemployment in the Rother valley. Between April and September last year, only 38.4 per cent. of YTS leavers in the Rotherham area found full-time jobs, and over 36 per cent. of YTS leavers last year in Rotherham became immediately unemployed.

It is clear that permanent jobs for young people in that area have disappeared and the training schemes that are available are not proving to be a solution to that major problem. In March this year the number of unfilled vacancies in the Rotherham-Mexborough travel-to-work area was 364. That is one vacancy per 63 persons registered as unemployed, compared with the national figure of one per 15. Training and retraining is not just a problem for school leavers, but also for miners coming out of the coal industry in my area.

The jobs and career change scheme, which is a joint enterprise between British Coal Enterprise and the Manpower Services Commission, is an inadequate response to the urgent and pressing needs of our area. Very few people have taken up the retraining scheme and even fewer have completed the course. In September last year, only 447 people had commenced retraining and only 296 1312 completed it. It is no wonder that a report on the scheme Commissioned by the Coalfield Communities Campaign and carried out by the department of land economy at Cambridge university concluded: the British coal scheme is not adequate to meet the scale of the problem and that training opportunities in coalfield areas are fairly limited.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Does my hon. Friend recall that, as a result of the confidence trick pulled by the Government in setting up British Coal Enterprise, the chairman of that organisation, Merrik Spanton, appeared before a group of MPs at a meeting that I chaired here just before the Recess? We asked Merrik Spanton to tell us precisely where the new jobs were in every constituency throughout the coalfields of Britain. We asked where the £30 million had gone. He would not give us a list, or place one in the Library. That scheme was set up in a flurry of excitement by the Prime Minister and the Government during the coal strike. It is a big confidence trick and no jobs have ensued. The Government ought to be surcharged for the use——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. Clearly, a large number of hon. Members are waiting to take part in the debate. Interventions must be brief and hon. Members who make them will be borne in mind when they seek to catch my eye.

§ Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not think that a point of order arises. Mr. Barron.

§ Mr. Barron

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I intend to go into the details of British Coal Enterprise. [Interruption.] He raises a good point about British Coal Enterprise Ltd. In reality, its setting up is the only way the Government have responded to the problems in any sort of direct fashion. When it was set up I think that I described it in the House as a knee-jerk reaction to the basic problems that had caused the 1984–85 miners' strike. It was set up in the summer of 1984 as an afterthought to respond to the plight of miners involved in colliery closures and the problems that that created in coalfield communities.

The major plank of the Government's success, or non-success, story has been British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and they place great store by its claim to success. The Government say that to date it has created just over 16,000 job opportunities. British Coal Enterprise Ltd. offers three main forms of help. Two of them have provided some aid to local authorities. It has contributed to the provision of managed workshops for small businesses and has supported the enterprise agencies. They are both limited but worthwhile areas of support for local authority initiatives.

The third form of help has been loans to companies, which has assisted in the creation of about 16,000 job opportunities in the coalfields since it began. However, it is impossible to check the accuracy of the figures that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has produced, because it will not name the companies that it assists and it will not even provide a detailed regional breakdown. Loans average about only 15 per cent. of project costs and are never above 25 per cent. British Coal Enterprise Ltd. never initiates business development through its loan scheme. It tends to just marginally cut the cost of investment that would take place anyway.

1313 On current trends, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. will reach the stage where it has outstanding loans of about £50 million, which will stabilise as repayments are made and bad debts start to be written off. The cost to the Government to provide that amount on cheap terms at the most is about £3 million a year, or about 6 per cent. In addition, it spends about another £3 million a year on salaries, managed workshops and enterprise agencies.

Recent coal job losses have been in the region of 100,000 to 150,000, depending on definition. British Coal Enterprise Ltd. aims to offset those jobs at £6 million a year, over a period of eight years, at a total cost of £48 million. Even on the most generous assumption, it envisages spending £480 per job, or an average figure of about £300 per job, to relieve those jobs that have been lost in the industry. If it could achieve that miracle in job creation, it would be in demand all over the Western world. It is just not feasible that it can do it in that fashion.

Earlier this year, the House of Commons Energy Committee report, "The Coal Industry," reported positively about some of the industry's problems. It recommended that the resources allocated to British Coal Enterprise should more nearly match the size of the problems encountered in coal mining areas. The Committee concluded in paragraph 131: If the macro-economic and social disbenefits of the polices of the management of a strategic industry like coal outweigh the benefits to society of those policies, then it is the job of the government to right the balance by fiscal or other means. In the Government's response to the report, published in May just before the general election campaign, they dodged any direct response to that recommendation.

In paragraph 133, the Committee stated: The worst sort of indifference to the community is displayed when no proper opportunity is given to prepare for a closure. That obviously referred to colliery closures. It continued: 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 to the community. There should be no further antagonising incident of this type. BC should give more warning when closures are imminent — their attitude at present appears somewhat secretive, even complacent, and we were distressed by the CCC's evidence that BC do not enter into a proper dialogue with local authorities on these matters, a criticism echoed by the Local Authorities Associations. This was the burden of a large part of the report of the independent review body which recommended a delay in the proposal to close Cadeby colliery. BC claimed in response that 'the arrangements under which the Board close collieries are more extensive in timescale and consultation with the workforce and their representatives than those of any other major employer in the country'. However, the Board must recognise the special vulnerability of mining communities which we outlined in the introduction to this report, and must take local authorities, responsible Government departments and statutory agencies into its confidence as soon as it begins to suspect that a colliery might need to be closed. Only by so doing will BC justify its claim to be 'like any good employer … extremely concerned about the impact of their operational decisions on both their employees and local mining communities'. The Government's reply in paragraph 5.2 of their response referred to a timetable of four to five months if those concerned decide to challenge a closure. However, if that challenge is not made, the closure will go ahead. That affects not just those who work in the industry but the whole community. It affects small businesses, local transport, pensioners, schoolchildren and women. A number of coal mines have been closed in the last two

1314 years by the dangling of carrots with massive redundancy payments. Even this financial year, if miners do not accept closures 13 weeks from the end of the financial year, people who were considering redundancy will lose the £5,000 carrot on top of current redundancy payments.

That is how British Coal is closing coal mines at present, with no respect to the problems caused in the communities. It is a disgrace that the Government have not responded positively to what the Select Committee, which has a majority of Conservative Members, felt that they ought to do.

The Select Committee also recommended that a special ministerial Cabinet Committee should be set up. The Government, in their response, said that there was no role for a Cabinet Committee, yet they have recognised the needs of inner cities and have set up a Cabinet Committee to co-ordinate the work of seven Government Departments to set priorities and oversee results. If the inner cities need that response to their problems caused by the Government—I do not deny that they need that real commitment — so do the coalfields, as they have similarly suffered, although they need different solutions to their problems.

§ Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Convey)

Does the hon. Member accept that coalfield communities in the valleys of south Wales and the other areas that he has mentioned suffer similar deprivation to many of our inner city communities? Does he agree, therefore, that it is essential not only for there to be a special programme for those communities but also that regional policies should be more effective to ensure that resources are distributed effectively?

§ Mr. Barron

I was about to mention that point. If one took six of the villages in my constituency and put them together, they would have similar housing problems to those of any inner city that the Government are assisting. While many coalfield areas benefit from United Kingdom assisted areas status, substantial areas are excluded, which also excludes them from any existing European aid that may be available.

In paragraph 144 of the report, the Committee stated: it is far from clear that the present distribution of regional aid properly reflects the needs of the mining communities or the advantages of Community membership. We believe Government should have pressed harder to obtain a larger share of EEC aid and we urge a firmer determination to make more persuasive representations for additional assistance. The Government did not accept that recommendation, and in paragraph 5.10 of their response they describe the objectives of their regional policy, which are: to reduce employment imbalances between regions rather than dealing with particular sections of industry in decline. If that is correct, it begs the question: when unemployment in Yorkshire is increasing, particularly in areas that have traditionally relied on coal and steel, why have the Government cut regional development grants, at 1986 prices, from £58 million in 1978–79 to £21 million in 1986–87? At the same time, they have carried through a policy of deliberately running down the steel and coal industries that south Yorkshire has been built on for generations. While the Government may argue that regional development grants are not the only avenue of assistance, other forms of help have not succeeded. Rotherham, a borough that I represent, has an enterprise 1315 zone and also gets selected financial assistance from the Government. However, that has not stopped unemployment increasing.

The Government have rejected the idea of tax incentives as a means of attracting the private sector into areas of high unemployment, although there are some who claim that this policy has been successful in achieving urban renewal in the United States. During September, I visited West Virginia in the United States, which is a coal mining area with problems similar to those that are faced in my constituency. In West Virginia there is a partnership scheme between local authorities and the private sector, but the British Government are less disposed to recognise the role that local authorities can play. They often ignore local authorities, presumably for party political reasons, and in so doing display a lack of common sense. Partnership schemes could help areas that have suffered from the rundown of the coal and steel industries. Unfortunately, the Government seem to be prepared to allow these areas to become wastelands.

There is evidence of that attitude in the Government's neglect of the environment within coalfield areas. Last year, at the invitation of the Coalfield Communities Campaign, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), who was then an Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, visited coalfield communities in Yorkshire and north Derbyshire, including the one which I represent. He was quoted in the press as saying that he was deeply depressed by the experience and understood why people in the coalfield areas thought that current spending on restoring the coalfield environment was not enough to solve the problems of unemployment and increasing poverty in such areas. It was an honest appraisal from the then Minister. The fact that the hon. Gentleman now sits on the Government Back Benches — in other words, he does not hold a ministerial position — perhaps says much for the Government's attitude to the Coalfield Communities Campaign.

§ Mr. Michael Welsh (Doncaster, North)

The Coalfield Communities Campaign is directed to improving the quality of life in mining communities, and the Government show no desire to help. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government are not prepared to help, they should allow local authorities to spend the moneys that they have in bank deposits as a result of selling council houses so that they can help to improve the quality of life and revitalise coalfield areas? Local authorities could use these moneys to buy old pit houses. Some of the miners who live in these properties do not know who owns them. The spending of local authority money would improve the quality of life and encourage new industry and commerce to come into the areas that we are discussing.

§ Mr. Barron

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I can do no more than agree with him. Central Government ignore the plight of coalfield communities and prevent initiatives being taken locally by those who are concerned about the problems in their neighbourhood. It is difficult to understand the Government's approach.

Paragraph 142 of the Select Committee's report states: it is indefensible for British Coal to delay the return of derelict sites to economic productivity. We maintain that it is 1316 the responsibility of British Coal to liaise closely with local authorities to ensure the most rapid possible return of mining sites to productive use. It is well known that, in 1982, when the Department of the Environment's last national survey was undertaken, spoil heaps, excavations and tips — coalfield dereliction — accounted for 48 per cent. of Britain's derelict land that justified reclamation. If the associated dereliction as a result of railway closures is also taken into account, the coalfields' share of dereliction becomes even greater. The amount of dereliction has increased markedly as a result of the closures within the coal industry since 1982.

All the local authorities in coalfield areas have been running reclamation and environment improvement programmes in an effort to overcome the problems of dereliction and to make their areas more attractive to investors. Major improvements have been achieved, but the rapid rundown of collieries and industrial closures over the past seven years have overstretched these programmes. To the legacy of dereliction that stemmed from about 100 years of uncontrolled industrial activity has been added the new dereliction that has come from the recent wave of colliery closures. In addition, the rundown of the steel and shipbuilding industries has resulted in serious industrial dereliction.

§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Doon Valley)

Is my hon. Friend aware that British Coal has adopted a vicious attitude towards welfare schemes that our forefathers saw fit to introduce to improve the quality of life in mining villages? The board is seeking to sell off playing fields. Will my hon. Friend join me—I ask Conservative Members to do likewise—in condemning British Coal's approach to the welfare schemes?

§ Mr. Barron

I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in condemning what is happening in many mining areas. In the area which I represent, the local authority bought into welfare schemes during the late 1970s. These facilities are now under even greater threat because the Local Government Bill will oblige local authorities to put out their services to tender. In areas where the local authority did not buy in, miners in work had to pay a subscription to support welfare schemes. With manpower being run down, it is obvious that the schemes are in jeopardy. In many instances, they provide the only source of recreation. They must not be left to the vagaries of the market. Someone must step in and ensure that the recreation that the schemes provide stays within the Community. I hope that this issue will be taken up during the debate.

The Government's response to the problem of derelict land has been to ignore it or to leave it to others. Some successes have been achieved with the Scottish Development Association and the Welsh Development Association, but many areas of England leave much to be desired. Many in coalfield areas feel — I believe with some justification—that their communities are being left to decay. These are communities in which people must live, bring up their children, care for the elderly and work, if employment is available to them. These local people are part of the social fabric. The tasks that face them are becoming even more difficult, and one of the reasons is the Government's attitude, and that of British Coal, towards the sale of British Coal housing. The motion refers specifically to Shelter's report entitled "Pits and Mortar". It provides an excellent description of what is happening in many communities throughout Britain.

1317 Paragraph 132 of the Select Commiittee's report states that British Coal manage their housing in a responsible manner. This it has not done, despite representations that have been made to it by the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment and right hon. and hon. Members. Nothing has been done. I have talked on many occasions to tenants and the representatives of housing associations and local authorities. I have spoken and written to Ministers to try to bring help to my constituents. Unfortunately, the Government have closed their ears. Against that background it is not surprising that their response to "Pits and Mortar" has been a deafening silence. The report provides a vivid description of the difficulties that tenants of ex-British Coal houses are facing in having to live with new landlords. There are dozens of reasons why there should be no further sale of this housing.

I shall give the House some examples from my constituency. In Kiveton Park there are homes that are classified under the Housing Defects Act 1984, which in itself has created many problems. It has effectively put a stigma on these houses, even though they are now described as providing an ideal opportunity for DIY enthusiasts. This description is applied in an attempt to re-sell houses that were bought in October 1986 by private landlords for £3,250. They are now being offered at prices between £7,000 and £9,050. As I have said, they are described as providing an ideal opportunity for DIY enthusiasts, and they are the people who are living in those properties.

No mention is made of the problems faced by Mrs. Richardson, for example, who describes her dealings with her new landlords as follows: We get drowned at the back due to faulty guttering and the garage doors are coming off. They were never fixed. So I stopped the rent. He came back"— this is the new landlord— and said, 'It's against the law to withhold rent.' I told him, 'It's against the law not to do repairs!' I agreed to pay the rent for six weeks during which he would do the repairs. It's now eleven weeks and no one has come. The secretary of the tenants' association of Kiveton Park, Mrs. Whaley, describes the overall position as follows: There's a lot of problems along with water coming in and panel joints, dangerous electricity and generally no repairs. No one knows how to get their repairs done and writing letters just doesn't seem to work. When repairs are done, they are often done badly. It is not only tenants in so-called defective houses who are suffering from the policy of British Coal and that of the Government. In the Dinnington area—it is a village in my constituency— brick-built houses have been sold off. The home of one of my constituents, Mrs. Turner, was taken over in December 1986. She states: In January"— that is, January 1987— I had my cold water tank burst. I rang London—nothing happened. They said they couldn't do anything while the cold weather was on. Mrs. Turner did not get her tank fixed until the following May; during all that time she was unable to use her bath, hot water or washing facilities.

§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)

The hon. Gentleman says that he has problems with private landlords who are not doing repairs in his constituency. He is obviously aware that they are obliged by law to make repairs. If he has constituents who have problems in that 1318 respect, surely they should go to see their Member of Parliament who should put pressure on the landlord, possibly legal pressure, to ensure that he does the repairs. My right hon. and hon. Friends have experience of that and we have very few problems with landlords.

§ Mr. Barron

Mrs. Turner is one of 16 residents in Dinnington village who are currently taking their landlord to court.

§ Mr. Skinner

The landlord is probably a member of the Conservative party.

§ Mr. Barron

Yes, he probably is. The landlord is being taken to court by a solicitor in my constituency, a man to whom I have spoken on many occasions.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) purports to represent a coal mining area. How is a 70-yearold retired miner and perhaps his wife, although he could be a widower, who knows little about the law or landlord and tenant legislation and has no money to go to a solicitor in order to talk about the problem going to cope? Such people are thrown into confusion by the selling and reselling of their homes above their heads by money speculators. They are unable to comprehend what is happening. The hon. Gentleman is speaking nonsense and he well knows it.

Mr. John Brown, the chairman of the tenants and owners association in Dinnington points out what the problems are for many. He has said: There's another woman whose mind wanders a bit. She's not sure how much rent she's sent off. Sometimes she sends off £100 but because of the system of paying she cant really tell whether she is in arrears or not. The Coal Board used to collect every Wednesday. What is needed is someone to collect the rent and report the repairs to, so everyone knows where they are. That is exactly what is needed, but it is not happening in dozens of areas.

Despite mounting evidence that the sale of British Coal houses is a disaster for the tenants, British Coal still plans to sell off its remaining 14,500 houses by October 1988. Housing associations and tenants' co-operatives have offered to buy them but British Coal is demanding a higher price than many of the homes fetched at the auctions held late last year. It is asking a price higher than those bidding can afford to offer. Every remaining British Coal house could be taken over by socially responsible landlords if British Coal would drop its asking price or if the Government would assist those willing to buy. If that does not happen, thousands more will be sentenced to the fate of the tenants in my constituency and in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends.

I have lived in a coalfield community all my life. I have seen the problems worsening day by day. Those areas have never been the most prosperous areas in the country, but the depths of poverty are now at levels that have not been known in my lifetime or for decades past. A few weeks ago during the summer recess I visited the primary school that I attended as a pupil in the 1950s. The class sizes have decreased from about 45 pupils when I was there to about 35. The number of children in those classes receiving free school meals has risen. From my memory of 30 years ago, there were never more than three or four children in each class receiving free school meals. Today, over half the pupils are receiving free school meals.

That is not in a community where the coal mine has closed down. It is in the village of Maltby where I live. The 1319 colliery in that area has a massive investment programme. The programme is nearly complete and it has cost £170 million over five years. However, there is no correlation between investment in coal mines and poverty in the community. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will not try to talk about investment and productivity in the coal industry and about how good things are when, even in communities that are receiving investment, there is poverty at the levels I have mentioned.

In the Rotherham area there are still coal mining jobs, but over 8,000 children received free school meals in the year 1986–87. That is the reality of the problems and poverty in coal communities that are working and it can only be worse in communities where the collieries have closed. I hope that all hon. Members who speak today will concentrate their minds on what needs to happen to the communities before the problems get worse.

§ Mr. Michael Alison (Selby)

Those who listened carefully to the introductory words of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will have noticed a significant sentence that was almost obscured at the beginning of his speech. He said that he did not want to have a general debate about the coal industry today, but wanted to confine himself to the narrow issue of the motion on the Order Paper. Let me remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a politician is never more political than when he disarmingly says that he wants to leave out a large chunk of relevant material to do with a particular issue and concentrate on a little bit of it.

The hon. Gentleman sought to tell the House that a great economic and social hurricane had blown across many coal mining communities. Needless to say, the name of that hurricane is, in his view, Hurricane Maggie.

§ Mr. Allan Rogers

rose——

§ Mr. Alison

I shall tell hon. Members another name for that hurricane—Hurricane Arthur.

§ Mr. Allan Rogers

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Alison

I shall give way shortly, but I want to move on a little.

It is ludicrous and grotesque for the hon. Member for Rother Valley to argue that the scale of financial relief and resources being made available to the coalfield communities is inadequate, especially when we consider the cost of the coal strike to the British taxpayer. After all, it is the taxpayers' money for which the hon. Gentleman is appealing, and we are the representatives of the taxpayers. I shall remind the House of the cost to the taxpayer of King Arthur's strike.

§ Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

rose——

§ Mr. Alison

Subsidy to the power stations to burn more oil during the strike cost £1,624 million. Subsidy to the National Coal Board because of the loss of income and revenue to the coal industry cost £733 million. The income tax lost to the Treasury amounted to £319 million. The police cost was £155 million, expenditure tax loss was £51 million and supplementary benefit to strikers' families cost £64 million. The total cost to the taxpayer of Arthur Scargill's strike was close to £3,000 million.

§ Mr. Rogers

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Alison

I will give way shortly.

To ignore that and claim that the Government have not done enough to support the coal mining communities is simply ludicrous.

§ Mr. Barron

rose——

§ Mr. Alison

I did promise to give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), and shall give way to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) in due course.

§ Mr. Rogers

I remind the hon. Gentleman of two points. During the coal strike, in response to an intervention of mine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the amount of money that the Government were spending on keeping the miners out was a good investment for the country. Has the right hon. Gentleman now turned that on its head? Instead of trying to score third-form public school debating points, I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would address the real problems that are mentioned in the motion, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). The right hon. Gentleman should address these problems, not try to score cheap political points.

§ Mr. Alison

I am delighted when Opposition Members accuse me of scoring cheap political points. They are not politicians; they are general men of good will who never indulge in any dirty, sordid party politics. Never so much as a party political thought crosses their mind.

The hon. Member for Rhondda took me up on the issue of whether the money that was shelled out by the taxpayer — £3,000 million — was a good investment. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was always complaining that we were not investing enough in British Coal. He cannot have it both ways. That £3,000 million was either a jolly good investment or no investment at all. He will have to make up his mind. That £3,000 million of taxpayers' money, if it had not to be shelled out for King Arthur's coal strike, might have been available, at least in part, for some of the expenses that are mentioned in the motion.

Can anybody deny that the coal strike—quite apart from the taxpayers' money involved — inflicted serious social and domestic injuries on coal mining communities by damaging local pits? The official figures are that 73 coal faces were lost or irrecoverable as a direct effect of the coal strike. That was typified by Polkemmet colliery in Scotland, where all three faces were lost and the pit closed. That self-inflicted damage was the result of Hurricane Arthur blowing over coal mining communities.

§ Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)

rose——

§ Mr. Alison

The hon. Member for Rother Valley wanted to have a go. He does not wish to any more. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) in a moment. I shall complete this part of my speech.

Against that background, the hon. Member for Rother Valley did not do a fair job in commenting on the more narrow matters relating to British Coal Enterprise Ltd. He did not give sufficient credit to what has been done. Nearly £37 million in taxpayers' money is going to the National Coal Board or to British Coal to help in the creation of as many as 23,000 new jobs.

§ Mr. Skinner

It is a con trick.

§ Mr. Alison

In one of his typical interventions, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that it is a con trick. Imagine the words "con trick" falling from the mouths of those who support Arthur Scargill. What about the con trick after the March 1983 ballot, which was held throughout the coalfields to find out whether the miners wanted to strike? What about the con trick of the 1984 ballot to see whether they wanted a strike or not? In nearly every case, the large ballots in different areas resulted in massive majorities against a strike. Where was the con trick? It was King Arthur's con trick. He is the man of con tricks, in getting the coalfields out on strikes that most miners did not want.

The hon. Member for Bolsover says that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is a con trick. We shall not take the lesson from him. We can see what British Steel has been able to do by its enterprise project. It has done a massive job in creating jobs. We shall see British Coal Enterprise Ltd. do the same thing.

Hobart house has kindly supplied me with a list of specific projects, broken down into all the main regions, specifying the number of jobs that will be forthcoming, and giving the total of projects and jobs. The jobs will materialise, just as they did in the case of British Steel.

§ Mr. Hood

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the loss of three coal faces and the closure of Polkemmet colliery. Is he aware that that colliery closed because British Coal deliberately flooded it? The unions offered to go in and save it, but they were held back by British Coal. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that, in Scotland, Polkemmet, which produces coal for Ravenscraig steelworks, is now being run on imported coal from Colombia and South Africa? The hon. Gentleman referred to sabotage. It was sabotaged by the Government and British Coal in closing down a major industry.

§ Mr. Alison

The hon. Gentleman has produced the ludicrous argument that British Coal deliberately flooded Polkemmet colliery. As he made the point, I shall respond to it. He knows that many deliberate things were done during the coal strike. There was much deliberate mobilisation of coal miners to go and picket. Why, then, did the coal miners not deliberately stop the National Coal Board from flooding Polkemmet colliery? Why did they not mobilise large forces and stop the few managers from deliberately flooding it? There could not be any more ludicrous argument than the hon. Gentleman's thesis that British Coal management deliberately flooded Polkemmet colliery.

§ Mr. Hood

rose——

§ Mr. Alison

I shall not give way. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I must press on.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman clearly will not give way. Hon. Members must not persist.

§ Mr. Alison

It is not only the investment in British Coal Enterprise Ltd. that I wish to draw to the attention of the House. The hon. Member for Rother Valley——

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)

rose——

§ Mr. Alison

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

1322 The hon. Member for Rother Valley touched on British Coal investment in the rather wider technical, proper productive investment sense in the coalfields. According to my figures, it is running at about £650 million a year at present. In my own constituency, investment in the Selby project will be at least £1.25 million, and we have spent £1 million on it already. That kind of capital expenditure on new pits, new projects and new machinery is directly relevant to some of the older communities and coalfields that he talked about.

Leaving aside the rowdy exchanges that we have had the motion points out some of the difficulties that the older mining communities face. For example, in my own constituency, where we have had, in principle, an influx of 3,000 new miners to work in Selby, at least half seem to have decided not to live in the Selby constituency, but to commute. In other words, they will live in their own communities in south and west Yorkshire. Some of them travel from as far as Bradford every day by car. If they are not on strike—most of them do not want to be —face workers can take £250 a week back into the communities in which they live. They commute to and from the new coalfields.

That is the way to get resources, buying power, enterprise, new prospects and new hope to some of the older villages. It is happening in Selby precisely because coal miners are commuting in their cars from places all over south and west Yorkshire and earning good money and taking it back to their communities. Some such coalfield communities might become as prosperous as Ascot and other such places as people take money from the coalfields back to their communities. That is the way to get prosperity for pit villages.

§ Mr. Lofthouse

On the point about the British Coal Enterprise Ltd. scheme, in which the hon. Gentleman seems to put great store, the deputy chairman of the National Coal Board informed the Select Committee: I do not claim much for it", meaning the British Coal Enterprise scheme. Indeed, other senior officials informed the Committee that they expected the scheme only to scratch at the surface of the problem.

§ Mr. Alison

The chairman of the National Coal Board could not claim much for it because he was not providing the money. The Government provided the full £37 million. The Coal Board did not provide anything, so it is no wonder that the chairman said that.

Finally, I should like to make a constituency point, which I hope leaders of British Coal will take on board as it has some bearing on what is known as the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. In the public inquiry that was held in my constituency in 1975 on the development of the Selby coalfied, reference was made by Mr. J. G. C. Milligan OBE, the director-general of industrial relations at the National Coal Board, to the provision of leisure facilities in Selby. In referring to the settlement of miners and their families into new communities, Mr. Milligan stated: This has been helped in some places because the arrival of miners has led to the provision of improved recreational and other facilities assisted by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation which is financed by the Branch. That statement was incorporated into the inspector's findings at paragraph 25.10 on page 47 of the report on the Selby coalfield inquiry.

The implication is that the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation was hoping to promote the 1323 acceptance of the Selby project by holding out the prospect of some welfare provision for Selby. I am sure that, although that was said as long ago as 1975 and that in 1987 nothing has as yet materialised, the Coal Board will, in good faith, produce some extra resources to ensure that Selby gets its recreational facilities. I hope that the Coal Board will be able to expedite that as soon as possible.

§ Mr. George J. Buckley (Hemsworth)

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this debate on the coalfield communities. I hope that Conservative Members will not degenerate the debate by raking over the coals of the 1984–85 strike. I am sure that it was not for that purpose that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) tabled the motion on the Order Paper. Opposition Members are trying to draw the coal communities to the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley outlined their problems extensively.

In this, my maiden speech, I want to draw to the attention of the House the social traditions of my constituency. It is a mining constituency and its communities are very much dependent on the prosperity of the mining industry. By their very nature, the communities in my constituency are isolated as compared with other parts of West Yorkshire. When the mining industry developed at the turn of the previous century, small communities developed around the mines. They were attached to the workplace of the mine, and the entire community revolved around the investment that then took place in the mine.

Hemsworth is no different from other traditional mining constituencies. The House will appreciate the complexities that that causes. The House must be aware —I am sure that Opposition Members are aware—of the difficulties that such small communities encounter when dealing with the transformation of the economy of the area. It is that transformation that should exercise our minds in this debate, not the historical upheavals of industrial struggle. My constituency is made up of small communities such as Upton, Ryhill, Havercroft and Featherstone, which, in the past, were totally dependent on collieries that no longer exist. The fact that the mines no longer exist has caused havoc in the economy of my constituency.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has stated, we are not talking about the prosperity of the coal mining industry in isolation, but about the overall economy of the community, the social aspects of that rundown of the economy and the inability of the economy to rejuvenate itself from its own resources. I feel sure that the House will appreciate that massive Government assistance is needed to finance investment in the transition from dependency on one source of employment to alternative employment in the area.

I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor who represented the Hemsworth constituency for 13 years in this honourable House. Naturally, my predecessors in the constituency are from mining stock. My immediate predecessor, Alec Woodall, represented the constituency diligently and I am sure that many hon. Members will recall the many opportunities on which he exercised that responsibility. I hope that the House will wish him well in 1324 his retirement. I should like to mention other hon. Members who represented the constituency before my immediate predecessor. They include Mr. Alan Beaney, Mr. M. E. Holmes and Mr. G. A. Griffiths, who were all from traditional mining stock.

The indigenous problems of mining areas are not new. I do not want to lead the House into believing that the problems of mining communities are new. However, such problems are now more desperate as a consequence of the present Government's policies. I found it curious that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) who, I am sure, tried to make a positive contribution to the debate, referred to the £3 billion that was expended by the Government during the 1984 strike. I shall make only one point on that — £3 billion was spent on negative expenditure, whereas only £37 million has been spent in positive expenditure on British Coal Enterprise Ltd. I ask the House and the nation to weigh up that fact. My hon. Friends and I call upon the Government and Conservative Members to give positive consideration to the problems that exist in mining communities. We want to resolve those problems, but that cannot be done without massive Government aid.

I refer now to recent mine closures. In my constituency alone—this will be duplicated throughout British coal-fields— Ackton Hall colliery was closed in 1985. That colliery was surrounded by the community of Featherstone and when it closed 1,388 jobs were lost. In 1986 Kinsley drift was closed with the loss of 460 jobs and more recently in 1987 Nostell colliery has been closed, with the loss of 600 jobs. Such closures have a massive impact on small mining communities. South Kirby colliery, which is currently under review by British Coal, employed at one time nearly 2,000 men. It currently employs 696. That is a massive reduction in employment potential. The colliery is under threat of closure and that is having a major impact on the South Kirby, South Hemsworth and Upton areas.

We must get the problem into perspective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has said, we must realise the social consequences of the rundown of the mining industry and ask the Government to give a positive response. Apart from the fact that the social structure of mining communities is being destroyed, their regeneration is causing immense difficulties. Even if new industry could be cajoled and persuaded to take root there, massive investment in the infrastructure would be needed to make such areas economically viable. Even if the Government were generous enough to provide investment in mining community areas, no industrialist, with the best will in the world, would be prepared to go down small village roads with large transport lorries to reach industrial estates.

I am disappointed and surprised that the Government have not responded to the excellent Shelter report on housing in mining communities. It is impossible to dispose of properties, whether they are rented or owned, in mining communities when the only source of employment is taken away from them.

I shall not refer to statistics in my maiden speech. I do not really care about them. The unemployment statistics for mining communities are higher than those for any other group of unemployed people in Great Britain. Unemployment statistics as high as 20 per cent. are to be found in mining communities. The people who live in those communities are devastated by the high level of unemployment. Coal mining communities, including those in my constituency, are taking advantage of the so-called 1325 community programmes and of work training experience, but Government schemes are temporary. They do not provide a long-term solution to unemployment in mining constituencies. They are only a palliative.

The task I have set myself in my maiden speech is to outline to the House the desperate plight of the communities that I represent. I repeat the call in 1959 of one of my predecessors, Alan Beaney. He said: Miners will spurn charity, the dole and National Assistance. We shall demand the right to earn our livelihood in the full dignity of our labour."—[Official Report, 30 October 1959; Vol. 612, c. 557.] I repeat that call in 1987. We do not want charity, or the dole, or unemployment. We demand the right to earn our living in order to maintain the quality of life for our families and children.

§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. He well fulfilled the tradition of maiden speakers by giving a graphic description of his constituency and by paying a formidable tribute to his predecessor, Alec Woodall, who was well respected on all sides of the House. He was a man of Hemsworth who, throughout his career as a Member of Parliament, represented that constituency. We congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his maiden speech. I know what a great relief it is to get it off one's chest. I am sure that he is looking forward to making many more contributions to our debates in the months and years to come. The hon. Gentleman chose the right debate in which to make his maiden speech.

In recent times there have been a number of changes in mining communities. However, such changes are not a recent phenomenon; they do not apply only to the 1970s or the 1980s. My father died when I was very young. One of my few memories is of my father walking over the old pit tops in the Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire coalfields. I remember the High Town colliery where he used to work in the south Staffordshire coalfield. Since 1960 there have been over 32 mine closures in the south Staffordshire coalfield—a horrendous number. In recent years only one new mine—Lea Hall—has been opened in the area. That shows how radically the area has changed. That new mine was opened in 1960 by a Conservative Government.

To say that this Government have paid no regard to the coalfield communities is a travesty of the truth. Opposition Members regard the coal industry and the coalfields as their bastion, but sometimes they suffer from selective amnesia. The then National Coal Board, now British Coal, recognised on many occasions the importance of the coal industry. The 1966–67 report of the National Coal Board says——

§ Mr. Barron

The hon. Gentleman says that Opposition Members seem to regard the coal industry as their bastion. During the last five years, coalfields could have been found in 105 constituencies that are represented by both Conservative and Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim that the Opposition regard the coal industry as their bastion. The hon. Gentleman ought to direct his remarks to the problems in the coalfield communities. He should not refer to investment in coal mining. That is not the subject of this debate.

§ Mr. McLoughlin

I understand why the hon. Gentleman is anxious that I should not refer to what is happening now in the coal mining industry. I am not turning away from the subject of the debate. The hon. Gentleman's motion calls attention to the report of the Select Committee on Energy, which deals with the present state of the British Coal. He cannot say that we should pay no regard to the Select Committee's report and to the history that backs up its conclusions.

§ Mr. Barron

rose——

§ Mr. McLoughlin

I see that the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way, but I do not intend to do so. I have given way already, and many other hon. Members want to speak in this debate.

The only way for British Coal and for the industry to have a successful future is by winning markets and selling coal. We cannot run away from that most important fact. That point has been accepted by many NCB chairmen and by many Governments.

I said earlier that I wanted to refer to the NCB's 1966–67 report. It says: The task now facing the Board is to secure the largest possible output of coal at prices that are competitive with all rival fuels. Competition from oil, natural gas and nuclear power will be a formidable and continuing challenge to coal's share of the expanding energy market.

§ Mr. Rogers

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to delay the debate, because many hon. Members want to participate in it, but the motion specifically refers to the social problems and to the high levels of unemployment, falling investment and increasing poverty in the coal industry. The motion then refers to the Select Committee's recommendations regarding the coalfield communities. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) is deliberately diverting this very important debate from the problems of the mining communities to investment in the mining industry.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is right to draw attention to the fact that the Select Committee's report is relevant to the motion only in so far as those parts of the report are relevant to the motion.

§ Mr. McLoughlin

With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is impossible to refer to the coalfield communities without referring to the investment by British Coal. There is no doubt that——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am drawing the hon. Gentleman's attention and that of the House to the fact that the appendix to the motion says that the report will be relevant to the debate only insofar as parts of the report are relevant to the motion. References to the report should be confined to that purpose.

§ Mr. McLoughlin

I am trying to set this debate in context by suggesting that this is not the first time that coalfield communities have had to go through radical changes. I am sorry that Opposition Members seem to find that so objectionable.

The future and the size of the industry and its employment opportunities depend upon the speed at which British Coal's plans for making coal more competitive can be fulfilled.

§ Mr. John Cummings (Essington)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. McLoughlin

No, I will not give way, for the simple reason that a lot of other hon. Members wish to get in and make their own speeches.

There is no doubt that the way in which we will secure a positive, good coal industry future is by becoming competitive within the market.

§ Mr. Cummings

rose——

§ Mr. Allen McKay

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. McLoughlin

I want to give other hon. Members the opportunity to make their speeches, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).

§ Mr. McKay

Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what he and British Coal mean about being competitive—competitive with what and with whom?

§ Mr. McLoughlin

The competitive nature of coal must be based upon its relationship with the gas industry, the oil industry and imported coal, although some people would say that imported coal represents an unfair area of competition. I believe that British Coal can get round that problem by offering quality. There is no doubt that, with today's modern fire-handling, coal-burning equipment, quality is of the utmost importance. It is important to ensure that the product is clean and does not have a high ash content when delivered.

I wish to spend some time discussing the coalfield community that I know in south Staffordshire, which is now partly represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). I wish to discuss the two mines that are left in that area, Lea Hall colliery and Littleton colliery. As far as I can tell, the greatest threat to the production in those areas is not from British Coal, but from the Labour-controlled county council. That county council will not allow opencast mining to take place in that area. One of the problems alluded to by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was related to those areas that had produced coal and the subsequent use of the land that had become derelict. One of the problems that is faced when local authorities continually stand in the way of opencast mining is that areas become landlocked.

§ Mr. Rogers

What about north Yorkshire?

§ Mr. McLoughlin

Such landlocked areas cannot be used.

There is no doubt that, if opencast mining is not allowed at the collieries I have mentioned, the future of those collieries is in danger. The coal mined from those colleries has a fairly high chlorine content and opencast coal is required to blend with that coal. The way in which British Coal and the Opencast Executive return such land to productive use ensures the benefit of amenities for such communities. Such efforts are commendable.

§ Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. McLoughlin

No, I will not.

The coal industry wants a future and there is no doubt that it can have a future. There have been closures and to an extent they are regretted, but such closures are not a new thing. No Government have done more to help with the changeover period than this Government.

§ Mr. Rogers

Absolute rubbish.

§ Mr. McLoughlin

This Government set up British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to try to help with that transitional period, which has been extremely difficult. However, anyone who considers the recent actions of British Coal and the National Coal Board will appreciate that some huge closure programmes took place between 1965 and 1970. The Opposition cannot escape that, yet it is one example of the selective amnesia of the Opposition.

I should like to refer to the annual report of the National Coal Board for 1965–66. I believe that a Labour Government were in power at that time. That report states that the board had originally planned to phase colliery closures fairly evenly over the years 1966 to 1970, but at the Government's suggestion the major part of that closure programme will be completed in the two years 1966 and 1967. There was no help whatever from the Government to see that transitional period through. There was no British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and nothing to help those mineworkers.

There have been tremendous changes in the coal industry. We have accepted that those changes must take place, but we have tried to do something to help.

When my hon. Friend replies to this debate, I hope that he will make some reference to the Select Committee on Energy report. I draw his attention to paragraph 193; It may also be that there are pits which BC has recently closed or will close in the immediate future which could be operated profitably, whether on a different scale or by different methods.

§ Mr. Rogers

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that he is out of order if he talks about the mining industry. Will he address himself to the problems we are talking about?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

What I have done is the very opposite of what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has suggested. It is in order to talk about the coal mining industry. It would seem to me extremely difficult to talk about the coal mining communities without talking about the coal mining industry. However, I was at pains to point out that the fact that there was a link provided on the Order Paper with that Select Committee report did not mean that we should have a debate about that Select Committee report, although it would be relevant to refer to it.

§ Mr. McLoughlin

I am grateful to you Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that this matter is important. So often Opposition Members say that there is not enough investment in the coal industry. However, we are told that the National Union of Mineworkers has access to quite a bit of money, often from Libya and such places. The report continues: For example, BACM witnesses thought that Horden colliery had an 'opportunity of breaking even' or better; NACODS argued vigorously that Bates colliery should not have been closed; while the NUM maintained that up to 20 million tonnes of capacity had been lost because of the abandonment of the Plan for Coal. In consequence, when BC decides to close a pit, we believe that the licence to operate at that site should immediately be offered on the open market. The report said that that licence should be offered on the open market only after it had been offered to the unions and those people interested. I believe that that would be a positive way to ask the unions to give their commitment to British Coal.

1329 British Coal and the coal industry have great opportunities in this country. I believe that those opportunities will come about as a result of investment and achieving more sales in the industrial market. At the moment, approximately 10 per cent. of British Coal's output goes to the industrial market. There must be ways in which that level can be increased, and that would lead to a great future for the coal communities. I appreciate that those communities feel threatened at the moment. Indeed, there have been tremendous changes within that industry, but the challenge of those changes has been met.

§ Mr. Cummings

rose——

§ Mr. McLoughlin

I am about to conclude; then other hon. Members will be able to speak.

The challenge has been met by the coalfield communities. I believe that, in future, similar challenges may be faced if a positive commitment is given to the industry. So far as the union has an impact on the future of the industry, the present president of the NUM has done more to sell British Gas for industrial installations than anybody else. At the very mention of the burning of coal, the spectre of Scargill emerges. That does great damage to the potential sales of coal.

There is only one way in which British Coal will have a successful future; that is by selling its products within the market so that we do not have to rely on imported coal. That is the way that the coalfield communities can secure a future.

§ Mr. Rogers

Cheap black labour in South Africa.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. All this sedentary noise is only delaying the debate and it is out of order. I hope that hon. Members will behave themselves.

§ Mr. McLoughlin

When British Coal has a positive future, the coal communities will have a positive future.

Let us consider wages—the hon. Member for Rother Valley mentioned this. The average wage of miners in 1965–1966——

§ Mr. Barron

I never mentioned wages.

§