National Fuel Policy (Hansard, 21 June 1966)

§ 1 and 2. Mr. William Hamilton
asked the Minister of Power (1) what progress he has made with his reassessment of national fuel policy in the light of recent developments;

§ 5. Mr. Albert Roberts
asked the Minister of Power what are the likely energy requirements of Great Britain in coal 255 equivalent by 1970; and from what sources they will be satisfied.

§ 16. Mr. Nott
asked the Minister of Power what is the result of his review of the effect the discovery of natural gas in the North Sea will have on the requirements for coal as outlined in the National Plan and the White Paper on Fuel Policy, October 1965, Command Paper No. 2798.

§ 17. Mr. Stratton Mills
asked the Minister of Power if he will publish a revised White Paper on Fuel Policy.

§ 30 and 31. Mr. Biffen
asked the Minister of Power (1) what proposals he has to revise the energy statistics contained in Chapter II of the National Plan;

§ 34. Sir G. Nabarro
asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the impact of North Sea gas production upon the output of coal and mining manpower.

§ 38. Mr. R. W. Elliott
asked the Minister of Power if he will now estimate the effects of the discovery of natural gas on the coal industry; and to what extent the requirements for coal envisaged in the National Plan will now need to be revised

§ The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh)
I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Palmer) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) on 24th May.

§ Mr. Hamilton
Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any validity now in the figures in the White Paper on Fuel Policy as it was originally presented to the House? In view of the increasing exodus of miners from the industry, will he say whether he will consider making regular statements to the House about the prospects for the coal industry in view of recent developments in the North Sea?

§ Mr. Marsh
There is a great deal of validity still in the original White Paper. As far as the prospects for coal miners are concerned, it cannot be said too often that one of our problems is a shortage of 256 coalminers and not too many of them. That is not attributable to developments in the North Sea but arises out of a system of full employment.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Would not the right hon. Gentleman concur that whereas North Sea gas can make an inestimable contribution to our national resources, it would be a grave mistake to allow the coal industry to run down further, especially where economic production from highly productive pits is concerned?

§ Mr. Marsh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are no factors or figures which lead one to suppose that the country will be able to dispense with its very large coalmining industry. North Sea gas is not an alternative. We want more coalminers.

§ Mr. Elliott
Is the right hon. Gentleman now suggesting that the target of 180 million tons set out in the National Plan is too high? Does he appreciate that in the north-east of England, where coalmining is still a principal employment industry, it is necessary to revise that quantity?

§ Mr. Marsh
May I make the point, first of all, that the figures in the Plan are estimates and not targets? I can only repeat that it is the Government's intention to maintain a viable coalmining industry. Work has been started on a review of fuel policy, and that is going ahead with full speed. But the problems are very complex, wide-ranging and long-term.

§ Mr. Biffen
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Question Time on 12th May his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs told me that the Government still stood by the figures for the coal industry contained in the National Plan? Is that also the view of the right hon. Gentleman?

§ Mr. Marsh
It is far too soon to say at the moment what the outcome of the review of fuel policy will be in relation to the National Plan. The Government are still working to it.

§ Mr. Hamilton
Can my right hon. Friend say what time schedule he has in mind for the production of the revised version of the fuel plan?

§ Mr. Marsh
I would like to make a statement on the whole question of North Sea gas in the very near future. One cannot fix a firm time limit for the review of fuel policy. There is a great deal of work to be done. It is a complex issue, which will take a few months.

§ Mr. Lubbock
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that four years is far too short a period on which to base a national plan for energy requirements? The White Paper on Fuel Policy was based, in the main, on capital decisions already made. Will he institute work to produce a White Paper for a ten-year fuel policy instead of a four-year policy?

§ Mr. Marsh
With the enormous amounts of capital involved in the construction of such things as nuclear power stations, one has to look a long way ahead. One has to have a series of points within any policy to enable one to judge that far. We will go as far as we can. In the short term, within the period up to, say, 1970, one would obviously have a more accurate picture than in the longer term.

§ Mr. Barber
Whilst appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, will he not agree that the estimates set out in the While Paper published last October were based, first of all, on a growing economy, whereas since then there has been virtually no increase in industrial production; and, secondly, in the White Paper no allowance was made for the developments concerning natural gas? Will he assure the House that the revised White Paper will not be held up until he has received the report of his new economic adviser, who I understand was appointed only yesterday?

§ Mr. Marsh
Speaking for myself, I am not too enthusiastic about more White Papers on the subject. One wants to have a longer-term estimate, and clearly the previous White Paper did not take into account North Sea gas because no one knew then and no one knows now what the full potentialities are. They will become apparent, and one would hope for a policy which took them into account. It would be a mistake to believe that anything that has happened in the North Sea completely invalidates the White Paper.