HC Deb 12 June 1947 vol 438 cc1325-8
35. Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has any further statement to make regarding conversion from coal to oil.

Mr. Shinwell

In my previous statement I explained that the annual rate of oil consumption represented by schemes of conversion already approved would be increased to five million tons a year, equivalent to an annual saving of coal of eight million tons by the middle of 1948. This programme, which is the maximum that can be achieved in that time, has been reviewed, and the Government have decided against any further general extension of the programme for the time being. The matter will, however, be considered again in the autumn, when the trend of coal output will be more clearly established.

In the meantime, to provide in appropriate cases for applications that are now awaiting consideration, arrangements will be made to import another one million tons of oil a year. After meeting these cases there will be some margin for special cases where it can be shown that the amount of coal saved would be exceptionally high in proportion to the amount of oil burnt, but no other new applications can be entertained. The additional import of one million tons of oil a year will not begin to be available before the third quarter of 1948, but it is not anticipated that most of the firms whose applications may now be authorised will be able to complete conversion before that quarter: any exceptional case where earlier conversion is possible will be given special consideration. In the result, unless it is decided in the autumn to increase the whole programme, the consumption of fuel oil on coal-oil conversion projects will attain a rate of six million tons a year, and will result in an annual saving of ten million tons of coal by the calendar year 1949.

Mr. Henry Usborne

During the course of his reply the Minister stated that the programme to use up to five million tons of oil was the maximum that can he achieved. Why is it the maximum? Is it because that is the maximum amount of oil that can be imported to this country; or is it because in the estimation of my right hon. Friend it is the maximum amount of oil which can be burnt by the equipment which can be supplied in the time?

Mr. Shinwell

We must have regard to several factors. One is the element of uncertainty about the imports of fuel oil in the next few years. In addition, there is difficulty regarding the supply of steel for the purpose of manufacturing the equipment. Apart from that, we must have regard to the possibility—I would not put it higher than that—that in 1949 we shall be producing a larger amount of coal, and, to that extent, would not require fuel oil.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

Will my right hon. Friend also continue to bear in mind the necessity for making and keeping ourselves as self-supporting as we possibly can, in the event of there being another national emergency?

Mr. Shinwell

We are doing what we can to safeguard supplies, but supplies are obviously affected by a great many considerations, some of which are out of our control.

Mr. Sutcliffe

Could the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to those cases in which the preliminary work is practically completed, and where they are ready to convert except for the oil? Surely their case should have first consideration?

Mr. Shinwell

I think I can give an assurance on that point at once. If the work is already in hand, of course, the fuel oil will be supplied.

Mr. Lipson

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is in the nature of a gamble to assume that there will be sufficient coal available in 1949 to render a large extension of this conversion programme unjustified; and would he consult with the firms engaged in this work, who are very anxious to see a very much bigger scheme than he is prepared to agree to?

Mr. Shinwell

We are in constant consultation with the manufacturing firms in this matter. Of course, we use as our medium the Petroleum Board, who are experts in this regard. As regards the future of coal supplies, the hon. Member will have taken note of the fact that we are seeking to achieve a saving of 10 million tons in 1949.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

It is not very clear, but perhaps we shall understand it better when we read the terms of the Minister's answer. It would appear that this position is a reversal of the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman earlier on. Are we to take it that with regard to any individual firm which placed orders on the strength of the Minister's appeal, the necessary machinery will be allowed to be installed when delivered?

Mr. Shinwell

So far as I know, this is no reversal of the programme originally arranged.

Mr. Hudson

Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question? Where firms or individuals have placed orders for machinery, on the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier appeal to do what they could to convert coal or coke burning installations into oil, and got the machinery delivered, are they to be allowed to instal the machinery or are the orders to be cancelled?

Mr. Shinwell

If the scheme has been approved by the Department the oil will materialise.