§ 14. Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Minister of Power whether he intends to postpone his decision on a national fuel policy until the results of exploration under the North Sea are available.
§ Mr. Frederick LeeNo, Sir.
§ Mr. LloydBearing in mind the great advantages generally and from a currency point of view which would result from this operation if it turned out to be successful, would the Minister undertake in the meantime not to enter into any commitments which might limit any advantages which the nation might gain?
Mr. MorrisThere must be a certain amount of flexibility in fuel policy but, as it would be at least five years before
§ tion between individual local authorities and the Central Electricity Generating Board, will the hon. Gentleman appoint a national advisory council to advise him when there is a conflict between the provision of electricity and the preservation of the countryside?
§ Following is the Answer:
§ we could make any commercial use of any finds in the North Sea, I think that that would be stretching flexibility a bit too far.
§ Mr. PeytonWhen can we expect details of the national fuel policy about which we heard so much before the election?
§ 15. Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Minister of Power to what extent his proposed national fuel policy will afford a guaranteed level of employment in the coal industry.
§ 20. Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power how he intends to equate the 989 consumption of coal to the production target he will set for the industry.
§ 41. Mr. Boxasked the Minister of Power whether he will now issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board that they should maintain an annual output target of 200 million tons.
§ 3. Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Minister of Power in view of the success of the plan for exploiting the oil and gas deposits in the North Sea bed, if he will give an assurance that, in formulating a new national fuel policy, the present share of the coal-mining industry in the fuel and energy needs of the country will not be diminished.
§ Mr. Frederick LeeI refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 9th February.
§ Mr. LloydIn view of the fact that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers still appears to be dissatisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's rather equivocal answer as an implementation of the pledge given by the First Secretary before the election, will he take an early opportunity to make his position plain, and do so in the House?
§ Mr. LeeI was under the impression that my meetings with officials of the N.U.M. were very happy indeed.
§ Mr. PeytonWill the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity to set a good example to his colleagues and make a full comprehensive statement of his fuel policy in the House of Commons?
§ Mr. RidleyThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered Question 20 either now or in a previous Answer. How does he intend to cause consumption to meet production?
§ Mr. LeeI have said that I am not in a position to give a full answer on the implementation of our fuel policy. I will do so at the earliest possible moment.
§ Mr. RidleyWill the right hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members had better wait until they are called. Mr. Gibson-Watt.
§ Mr. Gibson-WattDid the right hon. Gentleman see the B.B.C. programme "Panorama" last night? In view of some of the statements made on that programme, could he do a little more to allay anxiety, particularly in the Welsh coal industry, than so far he has been able to do?
§ Mr. LeeI think that the statement which I made last week, to which apparently the hon. Member took exception, did quite a lot to allay anxiety in the Welsh coalfields as well as elsewhere.
§ Mr. William HamiltonDoes my right hon. Friend recognise that there was much more anxiety among the mining community when hon. and right hon. Members opposite were in office?
§ Mr. LloydArising from the right hon. Gentleman's reference to his so-called happy meeting with the National Union of Mineworkers before he made his statement, may I ask whether he noticed the statement of the President of the National Union of Mineworkers, after his own statement, that it was not a complete reaffirmation of the coal policy of the Labour Party before the election?
§ Mr. LeeI noticed what Mr. Ford said about it. I have discussed the question with him. He is happy about the statement which I made and he is quite sure that it gives greater security than the miners had felt previously.
§ 17. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power if he will make a further statement on the progress of his discussions on the formulation of a national fuel policy.
§ 22. Mr. Rowlandasked the Minister of Power what progress he has made in his discussions with the chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries on a long-term co-ordinated fuel policy.
§ 30. Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Power what progress is being made in the co-ordination of industries producing the energy resources of the nation; and whether he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Frederick LeeI have, at this stage, nothing to add to the reply I 991 gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on 9th February.
§ Mr. HamiltonDoes my right hon. Friend recognise that the Coal Board is engaged on a very big capital investment programme based on the production target of 240 million tons annually given to it by the party opposite and that, therefore, if it is now asked to accept a target of less than 200 million tons annually, it will be caught in a vicious circle of spiralling prices and reduced demand? Will my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he will—bear this most important point in mind when formulating his policy?
§ Mr. LeeMy hon. Friend will remember that I gave an answer earlier in which I pointed out that some of the problems which the National Coal Board now has stem from the period when it was asked to produce 240 million tons. I am well aware of the point, and I shall keep it in mind while we are discussing the capital reconstruction upon which we are now engaged.
§ Mr. PeytonDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he says that he has nothing to add to the reply which he gave me last week, he is simply adding nothing to nothing? Does not he think that this comes ill from the spokesman of a party which said that when it came into office it would produce immediately a co-ordinated fuel policy?
§ Mr. LeeIn view of what the hon. Gentleman says, I fail to see why he should bother the House by discussing nothing.