:00:11. > :00:15.It is 30 years since the miners' strike started here in Yorkshire `
:00:16. > :00:24.an industrial dispute which caused deep divisions and helped define Mrs
:00:25. > :00:27.Thatcher's Britain. Whatever the rights and wrongs, no`one can deny
:00:28. > :00:30.the hardship faced by the miners and their families and the devastating
:00:31. > :00:36.social impact of pit closures in the years that followed. But there's
:00:37. > :00:45.another legacy of the strike which still causes real bitterness. It's
:00:46. > :01:04.about money and the man who used to lead the miners, Arthur Scargill.
:01:05. > :01:14.Tonight, Inside Out investigates questions about money and the miners
:01:15. > :01:18.and asks why over the past 30 years ?700,000 has been paid to the
:01:19. > :01:24.National union of miners to a separate organisation of which
:01:25. > :01:29.Arthur Scargill is president. Loyalty to every minor and every
:01:30. > :01:32.minor'swife in this country. 30 years ago, Arthur Scargill could
:01:33. > :01:35.claim to be the most powerful trade union boss in Britain. He was always
:01:36. > :01:41.controversial. To his critics, he was an enemy within. To many of his
:01:42. > :01:45.supporters, he could do no wrong. Jim Kelly was a young miner at the
:01:46. > :01:50.Yorkshire Main pit at Edlington, near Doncaster. He followed Arthur
:01:51. > :01:54.Scargill without question. During the strike there was nothing better
:01:55. > :02:02.than him. We'd have followed him to the end of the world and, in effect,
:02:03. > :02:07.we probably did. Do you want a president who is ready to sit down
:02:08. > :02:14.in a backfield `` in a back room doing secret deals? Don't vote for
:02:15. > :02:17.me. But here at NUM headquarters in Barnsley, 30 years after the strike,
:02:18. > :02:24.there's a deep rift between Arthur Scargill and the man who is in
:02:25. > :02:28.charge of his old union. I think Arthur's lasting legacy is in two
:02:29. > :02:31.halves. If you take what he did during the strike, just before and
:02:32. > :02:38.just after then he had a very positive impact on the union.
:02:39. > :02:41.Unfortunately, anybody that's looking at Arthur now on recent
:02:42. > :02:45.events would see him in a very different light.
:02:46. > :02:48.Relations between Arthur Scargill and the NUM have hit rock bottom.
:02:49. > :02:52.There's been a series of legal disputes. In 2012, he got an out of
:02:53. > :02:57.court settlement from the NUM over expenses due to him, including a car
:02:58. > :03:01.allowance. A year ago, he lost the right to stay in his London flat for
:03:02. > :03:08.life at the expense of his old union. There is no question that the
:03:09. > :03:11.union could afford and can afford the payments of that entitlement to
:03:12. > :03:15.which I was entitled and am entitled and I find it rather perverse that a
:03:16. > :03:19.judgement of this kind can be given in today's terms. I would say it's
:03:20. > :03:23.time now to walk away, Mr Scargill. You've been found out. The NUM is
:03:24. > :03:27.not your personal bank account and never will be again.
:03:28. > :03:31.It was a very bitter court case. We've got two of the documents. Both
:03:32. > :03:36.produced in evidence, both likely to do little for Mr Scargill's
:03:37. > :03:41.reputation. One document dates from 1993. It's an application by Mr
:03:42. > :03:43.Scargill to buy his rented Barbican flat from the landlord, the
:03:44. > :03:50.Corporation of London, at a discounted price.
:03:51. > :03:55.This is where Mr Scargill lives, in a very expensive part of Central
:03:56. > :03:57.London. It's hardly a typical council estate. Flats here sell for
:03:58. > :04:00.nearly ?1 million. And Mr Scargill, perhaps Mrs Thatcher's most bitter
:04:01. > :04:02.enemy, was trying to use highly controversial right`to`buy
:04:03. > :04:05.legislation introduced by the Conservatives so tenants could buy
:04:06. > :04:07.their own council homes. It is so hypocritical it is unreal. It was
:04:08. > :04:11.Thatcher's legislation that actually gave council tenants the right to
:04:12. > :04:15.buy their houses. But the application was refused because it
:04:16. > :04:18.wasn't his primary residence. He doesn't mention in his application
:04:19. > :04:22.that the flat was paid for by the NUM. And, it was established in the
:04:23. > :04:24.Barbican court case, that from 1991 until 2008 the NUM's National
:04:25. > :04:32.Executive Committee didn't know it was paying for the flat. I think if
:04:33. > :04:37.it had been made public before then I think there'd have been a huge
:04:38. > :04:42.outcry. People would be actually astounded by knowing that.
:04:43. > :04:45.Mr Scargill told us the proposal, if accepted, would have been put to the
:04:46. > :04:48.NUM's National Executive and the flat would subsequently have been
:04:49. > :04:52.transferred to the ownership of the NUM. He says it would have saved the
:04:53. > :05:03.union a substantial amount of money and provided the union with an
:05:04. > :05:06.asset. It was a bitter court case and nothing caused more bad feeling
:05:07. > :05:11.than this letter, apparently written by one of Arthur Scargill's oldest
:05:12. > :05:15.friends and colleagues. If we honestly believe that our demands
:05:16. > :05:23.are justifiable. Macro. In December 2001, Frank Cave, the
:05:24. > :05:30.vice`president of the NUM, was dying of cancer. Mr Cave's illness
:05:31. > :05:38.coincided with Arthur Scargill's imminent retirement from the union
:05:39. > :05:42.presidency. I visited Frank on quite a few occasions over those three
:05:43. > :05:56.months. He was in a bad way. I've seen him over the years and he's
:05:57. > :06:05.that was his worst period. At that was written, parent by Mr Cave,
:06:06. > :06:08.setting light his entitlement. Arthur Scargill insisted in court
:06:09. > :06:17.that he had played no part in writing or drafting this letter.
:06:18. > :06:20.I've seen Frank more than most, I would suggest, and, as far as I was
:06:21. > :06:31.concerned, Frank wouldn't have been writing letters. An earlier draft of
:06:32. > :06:37.the letter which Sean, with a change in Arthur Scargill'sown handwriting.
:06:38. > :06:41.The issue was whether or not the letter came from Mr Scargill and Mr
:06:42. > :06:44.Justice Underhill found that it did. Arthur Scargill had known Frank Cave
:06:45. > :06:50.for nearly 40 years. He delivered the oration at his funeral. I don't
:06:51. > :06:55.want to actually say on camera what I actually think about the deed that
:06:56. > :06:58.he did. I hope with my answers that you can actually pick up what I
:06:59. > :07:03.actually think. I don't think very highly of the man at all for doing
:07:04. > :07:06.what he did. I think Justice Underhill put it quite well in his
:07:07. > :07:09.summing up, that when you've got somebody who has convinced himself
:07:10. > :07:13.as to how things are, it is a lot easier then to create the documents
:07:14. > :07:21.to justify that you're right and I think that's, basically, what
:07:22. > :07:24.happened. Arthur had a vision of what the union was, what his rights
:07:25. > :07:32.were, and then created the evidence to back up what he believed to be
:07:33. > :07:38.reality. Mr Scargill told us he stands by his evidence. He rejects
:07:39. > :07:40.Mr Kelly's allegation. He said the Judge had inexplicably disregarded
:07:41. > :07:43.other evidence in the case, indicating Mr Cave had been alert,
:07:44. > :07:47.aware and orientated right up to the time of his death In his judgment,
:07:48. > :07:56.Mr Justice Underhill said it was very unlikely Mr Cave had written
:07:57. > :07:59.the letter. There'd been a lack of transparency in Mr Scargill's
:08:00. > :08:03.dealings and he had been prepared to be economical with the truth. The
:08:04. > :08:06.judge said, I believe he suffers to a high degree from the common
:08:07. > :08:12.tendency to reconstruct his recollection in a manner favourable
:08:13. > :08:15.to himself. I think the common pattern has been that there's always
:08:16. > :08:17.been that nobody seemed to know what was happening but, documentary`wise,
:08:18. > :08:21.everything, all the documents seemed to be there for you to find, when
:08:22. > :08:24.you actually started to look at them in context and what was happening in
:08:25. > :08:25.the organisation at the time, it didn't seem plausible that that
:08:26. > :08:38.would have happened that way. To Arthur Scargill's critics, this
:08:39. > :08:44.lack of transparency is a familiar story. To understand the full nature
:08:45. > :08:47.of the fall`out between Mr Scargill and his old union, you have got to
:08:48. > :08:55.go back 30 years, when the miners were on strike.
:08:56. > :09:01.It was a fight to the finish between two bitter enemies: the NUM and Mrs
:09:02. > :09:03.Thatcher's government. Early in the strike, after a court case,
:09:04. > :09:06.accountants were called in to identify the union's assets.
:09:07. > :09:12.Eventually, a receiver was appointed to control the NUM's finances. The
:09:13. > :09:18.union effectively, very soon after the beginning of the strike, had no
:09:19. > :09:24.funds, no income coming in. Its members were on strike and yet there
:09:25. > :09:27.were expenses to be met. The NUM needed money to survive and it got
:09:28. > :09:42.millions of pounds in donations from supporters and well`wishers, much of
:09:43. > :09:45.it in cash. There are no receipts, often foreign currency, and it just
:09:46. > :09:48.went into St James' House, went into the headquarters, on the basis, I
:09:49. > :09:53.think he'd said, oh, well, you don't need a receipt you know what we're
:09:54. > :09:55.going to use it for anyway. Understandably, the NUM wanted to
:09:56. > :10:01.keep money away from its accountants. There was a need for
:10:02. > :10:03.secrecy. One French`based journalist remembers helping trade unionists
:10:04. > :10:11.bring secret donations of cash into the UK. I am absolutely confident
:10:12. > :10:14.that when I handed over the money, in an alleyway outside a pub in
:10:15. > :10:35.Folkestone or Dover, that that money was going in cash to the NUM.
:10:36. > :10:41.The miners visit to Libya, now there is a row back home. In October 1984,
:10:42. > :10:44.there was public outrage when it was revealed that Roger Windsor, the
:10:45. > :10:47.NUM's chief executive, had gone to Libya to meet Colonel Gaddaffi, less
:10:48. > :10:50.than a year after a policewoman had been shot dead outside the Libyan
:10:51. > :10:53.Embassy in London. I went in and embraced and kissed Colonel Gadaffi
:10:54. > :10:57.and gave him the story that Mr Scargill and I had agreed beforehand
:10:58. > :11:00.about the plight of the union, the plight of the members and what the
:11:01. > :11:02.Thatcher government was doing to the NUM and provided him with details of
:11:03. > :11:12.a bank account, a bank in 1990, there was a front page news
:11:13. > :11:17.story. It claimed Arthur Scargill paid off his mortgage with money
:11:18. > :11:24.from Libya. The main source was Roger Windsor, who was paid ?85,000
:11:25. > :11:27.by the Daily Mirror. It was claimed that, using Libyan money, Mr
:11:28. > :11:34.Scargill paid off a ?25,000 mortgage on his house. Roger Windsor had
:11:35. > :11:37.repaid a ?29,500 home loan and Peter Heathfield, the NUM's general
:11:38. > :11:39.secretary, had paid off a ?17,000 home loan.
:11:40. > :11:41.It was a shocking story, and very personally damaging to Arthur
:11:42. > :11:49.Scargill, although he decided not to sue for libel. Instead, the union
:11:50. > :11:55.appointed a barrister, Gavin Lightman, to make a report on the
:11:56. > :11:58.NUM's finances. Most people regarded Mr Lightman as sympathetic towards
:11:59. > :12:03.the miners. He'd given the NUM legal advice in the past.
:12:04. > :12:09.Were you pleased when an enquiry was set up? Years. But you wouldn't
:12:10. > :12:13.cooperate with it? I was advised not to participate in it. Like
:12:14. > :12:19.co`operated... I didn't physically attend any meetings, because I was
:12:20. > :12:21.advised not to. Four months later, Mr Lightman
:12:22. > :12:24.produced his report, saying Mr Windsor's ?29,500 loan had been paid
:12:25. > :12:26.from donations and a ?13,000 bill for Mr Heathfield's home
:12:27. > :12:34.improvements had been paid from donations. But the central
:12:35. > :12:38.allegation against Mr Scargill ` that he'd paid off his mortgage with
:12:39. > :12:41.money from Libya ` was completely untrue. The editor of the Daily
:12:42. > :12:47.Mirror later said the story was wrong, and apologised to Mr
:12:48. > :12:51.Scargill. Are you going to be president of the next national
:12:52. > :12:56.executive meeting, when this is discussed? Probably in the year
:12:57. > :13:00.2001. So Arthur Scargill hadn't paid off his mortgage. But Mr Lightman
:13:01. > :13:04.found that during the strike, in late 1984, money from cash donations
:13:05. > :13:13.had been used to pay ?6,800 of Mr Scargill's household bills. Mr
:13:14. > :13:18.Scargill told Mister Lightman he paid the money back in cash a few
:13:19. > :13:24.days later. In the past 30 years, his memory appears to have changed.
:13:25. > :13:29.He has now told us the ?6,800 bill was for council and water rates and
:13:30. > :13:33.electricity. But in October 1984, he said in a letter to the NUM's
:13:34. > :13:37.finance officer that more than ?6,000 of this bill was for
:13:38. > :13:42.improvements to his home. Quite frankly, when you look at some of
:13:43. > :13:47.the issues about home loans and repairing homes and things like
:13:48. > :13:51.that, that the meat is just a no`no. `` that the me. This is the Lightman
:13:52. > :13:56.Report. The NUM took court action to prevent its public distribution. So
:13:57. > :13:59.its full contents have never been widely known. But it was far from a
:14:00. > :14:06.total victory for Mr Scargill. Even today, it raises many questions.
:14:07. > :14:09.Mr Scargill has always disputed nearly all Lightman's findings, but
:14:10. > :14:11.it was only due to the Lightman Report that the NUM's executive
:14:12. > :14:19.committee discovered 17 secret accounts had been set up across
:14:20. > :14:22.Europe to take donations. There was money sloshing around in bank
:14:23. > :14:32.accounts with individuals' names on them, most of them who were close to
:14:33. > :14:35.Arthur, and it was just unhealthy. How have those questions not been
:14:36. > :14:41.answered, then, for 20 years or more? I think basically the
:14:42. > :14:44.questions haven't been answered for 20 years or more because there's
:14:45. > :14:47.been a feeling within the union that any attack on the union would
:14:48. > :14:53.reflect badly on what happened in the strike. Because it's in relation
:14:54. > :14:57.to the strike, it's something people didn't want to re`open. It was a
:14:58. > :15:00.case of the strike was right, which it was, and everything that were
:15:01. > :15:07.done in the name of the strike must have been done for the right
:15:08. > :15:12.reasons. The NUM's two senior officials, its president Arthur
:15:13. > :15:18.Scargill and Peter Heathfield, face charges after the report into the
:15:19. > :15:21.union's funds... It had been a tough time for Arthur
:15:22. > :15:28.Scargill but he had survived. He told us the misapprehension of funds
:15:29. > :15:34.had been denied by the Inland Revenue and the watchdog
:15:35. > :15:38.investigation failed at the Lightman report was ruled inadmissible as
:15:39. > :15:46.evidence. I thought you heard as I did that the prosecution offered no
:15:47. > :15:49.evidence. That is a vindication of our position. They offered no
:15:50. > :15:52.evidence against the three defendants, the Case against all of
:15:53. > :16:00.us was dismissed, with costs. He also told us that a special NUM
:16:01. > :16:03.conference in 1990 expressed total confidence in Mr Scargill and Mr
:16:04. > :16:11.Heathfield and ratified all of their financial dealings. It was in Paris
:16:12. > :16:19.that Arthur Scargill, after defeat in the miners' strike, turned more
:16:20. > :16:31.of his attention after 1985. The International miners Organisation,
:16:32. > :16:38.later renamed the ie M O, was created here, and claimed to
:16:39. > :16:44.represent 6 million miners. The IEMO came up in the early '80s, maybe
:16:45. > :16:47.before. It was an idea of both the NUM and the French miners to set up
:16:48. > :17:01.a new organisation which would bring together East, West, Africa, Latin
:17:02. > :17:11.America, Asia. The IEMO General secretary is a French trade
:17:12. > :17:20.unionist, Alain Simon. Someone said to me in a visit to South Africa, he
:17:21. > :17:26.said to me, Arthur Scargill is a hero of the working class. He is one
:17:27. > :17:31.of Mr Scargill's oldest colleagues and closest friends. They both
:17:32. > :17:34.played a leading role in founding this new, French `based
:17:35. > :17:37.international organisation. Mr Scargill has been president since
:17:38. > :17:49.1985, but, for more than 20 years, his close links with the IEMO have
:17:50. > :17:51.caused controversy. The NUM was challenged again today over money
:17:52. > :17:54.donated by Soviet miners during the miners strike.
:17:55. > :17:57.After the Lightman Report, the IEMO was big news. Large sums of money,
:17:58. > :18:01.donated during the strike, appeared to have come under its control.
:18:02. > :18:05.As far as Alain Simon was concerned, the Soviet money was given to the
:18:06. > :18:08.IEMO and not to the NUM. In the spotlight was a well`documented
:18:09. > :18:11.donation of ?1 million from Soviet miners. This was shown to have been
:18:12. > :18:17.given not for the NUM, but for miners around the world.
:18:18. > :18:23.Mr Simon had refused to co`operate with Lightman. Indeed, Mr Lightman
:18:24. > :18:25.described the secrecy surrounding the finances of the IMO as
:18:26. > :18:29."practically impenetrable." These were troubled times for Mr Scargill
:18:30. > :18:36.and his union. The National union of Mineworkers and the IMO have agreed
:18:37. > :18:42.a formula which they hope will end the dispute over ?1 million. These
:18:43. > :18:48.are troubled times for Arthur Scargill and his union. The NUM, of
:18:49. > :18:52.which he was president, was in dispute with the IEMO, of which he
:18:53. > :18:55.was president as well. Finally, a deal was struck and the IEMO paid
:18:56. > :19:00.the NUM ?742,000. Mr Scargill says no money intended as donations for
:19:01. > :19:04.the NUM members was paid into stayed in the IMO accounts after the
:19:05. > :19:11.strike. He describes the ?742,000 as a donation from the IMO to the NUM,
:19:12. > :19:19.in return for which, the NUM agreed to make no new claims against the
:19:20. > :19:23.IMO. There's so little publicly available information. If it was a
:19:24. > :19:25.trade union, the IMO would have to comply with French laws requiring
:19:26. > :19:31.unions to publish accounts ` something it hasn't done since 1993.
:19:32. > :19:35.TRANSLATION: Probably, they didn't do, because they are not a trade
:19:36. > :19:37.union. The IEMO is an international organisation which brings together
:19:38. > :19:47.trade unions. They certainly ought to publish accounts, but they're not
:19:48. > :19:51.obliged to. I suspect most of it is probably still sitting somewhere,
:19:52. > :19:54.being given off in bits and bobs. To be honest, I don't think offered to
:19:55. > :19:57.any of it personally. That is not really the way he does business.
:19:58. > :20:00.In response to our questions about publishing the IEMO accounts, Mr
:20:01. > :20:02.Scargill said the IEMO had always presented its accounts in accordance
:20:03. > :20:04.with the instruction of its Congress. `` Arthur took any of
:20:05. > :20:11.We asked him what that means. So far, he hasn't got back to us.
:20:12. > :20:14.A freelance journalist specialising in industrial stories, Jeff Apter
:20:15. > :20:19.spent three years in the 1980s working for the IEMO. I travelled
:20:20. > :20:26.quite extensively, to various meetings. Health and safety... There
:20:27. > :20:30.was one in Australia, one in the Philippines ` but that was on the
:20:31. > :20:36.way to go to Australia. There was another one in Namibia, and one or
:20:37. > :20:41.two in Europe. It was not staying in posh hotels, and we were hosted by
:20:42. > :20:45.the unions there and I did reports. You cover trade union matters. When
:20:46. > :20:52.did you last write a story about the IEMO? Er... I don't think I've ever
:20:53. > :20:58.written a story about the IMO since the strike, since the end of the
:20:59. > :21:01.strike. When did you last read a story about the IMO? I can't
:21:02. > :21:04.remember. Is there any evidence in the last 20 years that this
:21:05. > :21:07.organisation has done anything productive? Well, you should ask
:21:08. > :21:15.somebody who is working for it or who is affiliated to it.
:21:16. > :21:18.For Chris Kitchen, this is more than history. Mr Scargill's supporters
:21:19. > :21:23.are certain all money was accounted for. But, 30 years on, Mr Kitchen's
:21:24. > :21:35.still concerned about the financial relationship between the NUM and the
:21:36. > :21:38.IEMO. So there is still a feeling that the IMO may have some money as
:21:39. > :21:43.far back as the strike that was destined the British miners? There
:21:44. > :21:49.is a feeling but looking back now, almost 30 years, it is difficult to
:21:50. > :21:52.try and trace funds you never had any trace of in the first place.
:21:53. > :21:55.Setting aside any money donated during the miners' strike, Mr
:21:56. > :21:58.Kitchen has established that, in the 30 years since then, the NUM paid
:21:59. > :22:01.the IEMO an additional ?712,000. More than ?464,000 of that is in
:22:02. > :22:09.subscriptions paid by the NUM between 1985 and 2010.
:22:10. > :22:12.Mr Scargill told us that the IEMO had in fact been entitled to more.
:22:13. > :22:15.The NUM should have paid ?520,000 in subscriptions, but had stopped
:22:16. > :22:27.paying in 2010, in breach of an NUM Conference decision. The trouble
:22:28. > :22:38.happened when I was asked to justify paying that amount of money, and I
:22:39. > :22:43.asked for the accounts from the IEMO and was refused them. Where do you
:22:44. > :22:47.think that ?20,000 a year has been going, what it has been spent on? I
:22:48. > :22:50.have no idea, that is why I wanted to see the accounts. It is
:22:51. > :22:53.difficult, you cannot justify expenditure if you don't know what
:22:54. > :22:56.it has been put to. One payment that's raised questions
:22:57. > :23:02.is ?145,000 paid to the IEMO in 2002, shortly before Mr Scargill's
:23:03. > :23:07.retirement. This was paid by the NUM without the union's National
:23:08. > :23:10.Executive Committee being consulted. In the case about his London flat,
:23:11. > :23:18.Mr Scargill said this money was the equivalent of what he could have
:23:19. > :23:22.expected as a severance payment. What come out in the court case was
:23:23. > :23:24.that Arthur's belief that he were entitled to severance redundancy
:23:25. > :23:27.payments from the union upon retirement. They were discretionary
:23:28. > :23:30.and not agreed, he hadn't asked for them.
:23:31. > :23:34.Mr Scargill told us this wasn't a redundancy or severance payment to
:23:35. > :23:39.him. It was money which would have been payable to him if he'd accepted
:23:40. > :23:43.a lump sum, which he hadn't. He said the grant was from an NUM trust fund
:23:44. > :23:48.and did not need to be referred to the union's National Executive
:23:49. > :23:52.Committee. The explanation that was given that was this was money that
:23:53. > :23:54.Arthur was entitled to receive the didn't want to receive. And
:23:55. > :23:58.therefore the donation of the same amount of money were made to the
:23:59. > :24:02.IEMO. Are you content with that? Do you think there was something more?
:24:03. > :24:05.Without seeing the accounts of the IEMO, you can draw different
:24:06. > :24:08.assumptions as to what happened to that money.
:24:09. > :24:12.Meanwhile, things haven't gone smoothly for Roger Windsor. He was
:24:13. > :24:17.accused of being an MI5 spy inside the NUM ` a claim he denied. And,
:24:18. > :24:20.after he moved to France, he was sued for the recovery of a ?29,500
:24:21. > :24:25.NUM loan which had been supposedly paid off with Libyan money during
:24:26. > :24:29.the miners' strike. A French court decided Mr Windsor had forged
:24:30. > :24:33.documents relating to his home loan. The successful legal action against
:24:34. > :24:37.him came not by the NUM, but the IEMO. Mr Scargill continued to
:24:38. > :24:41.pursue that action until eventually he obtained a court order in France
:24:42. > :24:51.for the compulsory sale of our family home and half of the proceeds
:24:52. > :24:56.of that sale went to the IEMO. The IEMO have now got their money
:24:57. > :24:59.whether I like it or not. Chris Kitchen got a shock when he
:25:00. > :25:02.discovered the extent to which the NUM had been funding the IEMO's
:25:03. > :25:08.legal action against Roger Windsor in France. When I looked into it,
:25:09. > :25:12.they had actually been wrongly categorised under Gavin Lightman
:25:13. > :25:14.enquiry costs, which wasn't true. So I had them reinstated in the
:25:15. > :25:17.accounts under Roger Windsor, the costs which obviously start the
:25:18. > :25:22.questions about, "What is the Roger Windsor case? Why are we funding it?
:25:23. > :25:24.What's it all about?" The case highlights the continuing close
:25:25. > :25:27.links between Mr Scargill and the IEMO.
:25:28. > :25:31.The case highlights the continuing close links between Mr Scargill and
:25:32. > :25:34.the IEMO. Correspondence recently from the IEMO has emanated from the
:25:35. > :25:36.Barbican flat. Do you think that's inappropriate? I personally think
:25:37. > :25:48.that's inappropriate. We have spent two months trying to
:25:49. > :25:53.get a response from Alain Simon or the IEMO, we have had none. So I
:25:54. > :25:54.have come to see if we can get some answers here.
:25:55. > :26:00.Their office is inside the headquarters of the CGT, the French
:26:01. > :26:04.equivalent of the TUC. That was interesting. I was taken up
:26:05. > :26:09.to the sixth floor, to the offices of the IEMO, and I met Alain
:26:10. > :26:11.Simon's secretary, who attends it is actually his wife. She said that
:26:12. > :26:16.apart from the pair of them, there is only one other person who works
:26:17. > :26:20.for the organisation, writing its journal. I ask that there was any
:26:21. > :26:27.other star and she said, no, we have got no money. She wouldn't ask ``
:26:28. > :26:28.answer any questions answered we needed to put further questions to
:26:29. > :26:32.Arthur Scargill. From Paris, the IEMO has now sent
:26:33. > :26:37.the NUM the ?29,500 it received for Mr Windsor's loan. Mr Scargill says
:26:38. > :26:40.the NUM agreed in 1990 to pay costs for the IEMO's legal action against
:26:41. > :26:44.Roger Windsor. He said Mr Windsor had still not paid the IEMO his
:26:45. > :26:47.total debt, and the NUM would be reimbursed when he had.
:26:48. > :26:50.The NUM says it's about to launch legal action against Arthur Scargill
:26:51. > :26:57.and Alain Simon over the legal bill, which the NUM says is more than
:26:58. > :27:04.?100,000. But Mr Scargill says that doesn't take into account money owed
:27:05. > :27:08.by the NUM to the IEMO. Mr Scargill's supporters say he's a
:27:09. > :27:13.man of complete integrity. To some, he's still a hero. But to his
:27:14. > :27:22.critics, he's left a bitter and troubled legacy. If a Mineworkers
:27:23. > :27:25.sells his job, he is selling the job that belongs to his son and his
:27:26. > :27:32.daughter, and he has got no right to sell that. Here we are in Edlington.
:27:33. > :27:35.This was actually the first colliery to be closed after the strike and we
:27:36. > :27:39.were huge supporters of Arthur at that time. And when you think
:27:40. > :27:45.there's lumps of cash lying about in bank accounts in a foreign city,
:27:46. > :27:48.it's not right. You should vote for me, because Margaret Thatcher and
:27:49. > :27:51.the Tories hate me and want to see me defeated. I've always said about
:27:52. > :27:54.the miners' strike and the aftermath of it all, looking at it now,
:27:55. > :27:58.Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill deserved one another. These
:27:59. > :28:07.communities deserved neither of them. If you want a leader that is
:28:08. > :28:10.prepared to stand and fight in full view and on principle, then I am the
:28:11. > :28:13.person that will continue to represent the best interests of
:28:14. > :28:18.miners. How much has all this disappointed you? Has it shattered
:28:19. > :28:21.your illusions of the man he was, the man you thought he was?
:28:22. > :28:24.Unfortunately it has, the perception I had of Arthur the great trade
:28:25. > :28:28.unionist, socialist, just is nothing like the reality as to the man that
:28:29. > :28:30.I know now and that I've been at loggerheads with for most of my term
:28:31. > :28:47.of office. On Inside Out next week, we
:28:48. > :28:54.investigate claims by an industry expert that unregulated fracking
:28:55. > :28:57.could soon be a rare `` reality all the Yorkshire. And we follow the
:28:58. > :29:05.investigators on the Trail of the energy thieves.
:29:06. > :29:10.Hello, I'm Ellie Crisell with your 90-second update.
:29:11. > :29:13.The PM has backed fracking. He's promised councils incentives if they
:29:14. > :29:16.let companies drill for shale gas. Critics have called the offer a
:29:17. > :29:19.bribe, but the Government claims the process will give us cheaper energy.
:29:20. > :29:22.More at 10pm. The biggest public inquiry into
:29:23. > :29:26.child abuse in the UK has begun in Northern Ireland. It's looking at
:29:27. > :29:30.care in church and state-run homes over 70 years. More than 400 people
:29:31. > :29:34.have asked to give evidence. Mark Bridger was convicted of
:29:35. > :29:38.murdering April Jones last May. Today, he dropped his plan to appeal
:29:39. > :29:41.a whole-life sentence. The five-year-old's body has never been
:29:42. > :29:45.found. Is Britain on the verge of an
:29:46. > :29:46.obesity crisis? The National Obesity Forum says