§ 6. Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has sent to the West Lothian district council evidence to the Cooper committee on Polkemmet, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
§ Mr. Allan StewartMy right hon. Friend does not propose to comment on this document. The closure of collieries is a management matter for the NCB in which it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene.
§ Mr. DalyellDo Ministers dispute the West Lothian figures?
§ Mr. StewartAs my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy told the hon. Gentleman on Monday, he will be responding to the council's statement and the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
§ Mr. DewarSurely the Minister recognises that it is unsatisfactory to say that he will not respond. It sounds almost as if he is saying that he has no interest in the matter. It is an area which has already been traumatised by the British Leyland closure at Bathgate, where unemployment is appallingly high, where Polkemmet is an important source of jobs, and which is interrelated with the whole Ravenscraig issue. Does he not recognise that the Government have a duty to take an interest and to make it clear that they will help an area which is determined to help itself, as the Cooper report underlines?
§ Mr. StewartI can only repeat what I have told the House, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy will be responding to the point about that document. I shall underline the Government's commitment to the Bathgate area. Good progress has been made on the Bathgate working party's various recommendations. For example, I am pleased to note that agreement has been reached on the financing of the restoration work on the Bathgate-Edinburgh rail link, which will commence shortly with a view to the line re-opening in about May 1986. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the range of other measures that have resulted from the joint working party on Bathgate.