HC Deb 22 July 1974 vol 877 cc1019-22
2. Mr. Jim Lester

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the contribution of the European Community to the existing national scheme of assistance for redundant or redeployed coal miners.

8. Mr. Holland

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Commission of the European Communities regarding the establishment of a convention under the European Coal and Steel Community treaty regarding rehabilitation aids to British coal miners.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie)

Following discussions with officials of the European Commission, I hope that formal agreement on a convention will very shortly be reached. It will apply to men made redundant or transferred after 1st January 1973, and the Commission will contribute to the cost of the existing Government schemes for the mining industry. The Commission will also contribute to the cost of deploying redundant men from mining to other industries and the retraining of ex-miners at Government training centres. I expect that the total contribution will be about £4 million for all redundancies or transfers occurring during the first year.

Mr. Lester

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not agree that this illustrates the practical side and benefit of the Community, rather than the rich man's club suggestion which we hear made so often?

Mr. Eadie

It is well known that hon. Members on both sides of the House have different views on this matter. It is as well to tell the hon. Gentleman that the agreement that I outlined in my answer to his Question was the result of long and protracted negotiations. The standards imposed by the Commission are different from those that we have in this country. For example, the Commission provides a maximum grant element of £300, whereas in this country it is a lump sum of £1,250. In addition, the Commission does not take into consideration the fact that the scheme should last for three years, but says that it should be for 24 months. Further, the Commission does not take into consideration national health and social security benefits. But, as the hon. Gentleman said, this convention will be of some advantage.

Mr. Holland

Will the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the European subsidy it is proposed will be used by the Treasury and the National Coal Board to recoup cash already committed to the existing scheme, and how much of it may be used to extend the existing scheme or improve on it? In other words, to what extent will British miners benefit directly, financially, from European money coming in to support the reorganisation scheme?

Mr. Eadie

As I informed the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), our scheme is much more advantageous than that proposed by the Commission. Although the total sum will be £4 million eventually, the 1973 levy on the NCB was about £2½ million.

Mr. Marten

In addition to the levy, have we not also, as a country, had to pay into the fund 57 million units of account? Therefore, on balance, are we not getting out only a proportion of the units and the levy we have paid in?

Mr. Eadie

The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that as well as getting benefits we have to pay in substantial sums so as to pay for the benefits.

6. Mr. Rost

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will detail the terms of the EEC loan to the National Coal Board for the modernisation of housing for mineworkers.

Mr. Eadie

The board has applied to the Secretary of State and to the Treasury for the necessary formal consent to borrow from the ECSC, and for the Treasury guarantee which is required by the ECSC. The conditions of the loan, which is a sterling one, are as follows: £1.66 million at a rate of interest of 1 per cent. per annum, repayable in 25 equal annual instalments commencing in December 1975.

Mr. Rost

Is that not a further example of the tangible advantage derived from our membership of the Community? Why does the Government propaganda machine deliberately try to suppress good news coming out of the Community? Is it because anti-Common Market Members on the Government side are afraid of letting the public know the truth?

Mr. Eadie

I do not see anyone on this side of the House trying to withhold the truth. If the hon. Gentleman wants more information I can tell him that benefits which will accrue in regard to modernisation of National Coal Board houses will mean that tenants will gain some advantage in relation to rent.

Mr. Skinner

Does not my hon. Friend agree that £1.66 million, even at 1 per cent. rate of interest, is minuscule by comparison with the current trading deficit of £2,000 million which this country is now running with the rest of the Common Market?

Is my hon. Friend aware, with regard to the housing loan, that the BBC "Nationwide" team is currently running a propaganda stunt? It has gone to my constituency and has talked about money being allocated to parts of my constituency where houses have been modernised, despite the fact that rents were drawn up, as a result of a tribunal with which I was involved, three years ago, before we entered the Common Market.

Will my hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is enough.

Mr. Eadie

My hon. Friend draws comparisons involving sums of money relating to our balance of payments, but this does not bear any relationship to the scale involved in the matter with which we are concerned here.

With regard to the "Nationwide" programme and my hon. Friend's constituency, I am sure that my hon. Friend is capable of taking care of anything that might arise from that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Will the Minister confirm that this is an example of tied houses of which the Government thoroughly approve?

Mr. Eadie

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The National Coal Board has a great deal of compassion for people who have to leave the industry because of difficulties.