ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES (Hansard, 12 November 1973)

§ Mr. Palmer
(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking over the voltage reductions and limitation of public electricity supplies now resulting from the decision of the industry's supervisory engineering staffs not to work outside normal hours.

§ The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman)
So far there have been only minor voltage reductions, and the only limitations on supply have resulted from a small number of breakdowns in the distribution system followed by delays in reconnecting supplies. I have urged both sides to explore again how they can 30 be lost to the members of the union by the conduct of their officers.

§ Mr. S. C. Silkin
Is not the Attorney-General fully aware that he has not answered either of the questions asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones)? Is it not right that the order of the court was simply one of sequestration, followed by a fine, and that therefore somebody must have made the decision where the money should come from? We are asking who does that, and on what principle.

§ The Attorney-General
The Question which I was asked to answer was about fines levied on trade unions. I repeat that this was an order made by the court. An officer of the court, for whom neither I nor any other Minister is responsible, made the order out of which these fines were paid.

§ Mr. McBride
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Attorney-General's answers, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

§ Mr. Palmer
In view of the Secretary of State's overall responsibility for maintaining the continuity of electricity supplies, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to urge his right hon. Friend to take notice of the representations made by the Electricity Council and the Central Electricity Generating Board that the technical staffs' out-of-hours payment which was negotiated 11 months ago should be honoured? Furthermore, should the arbitrary intervention of a date on the calendar be allowed to compel a responsible section of the staff of this industry to take industrial action in order to obtain justice? 31 Is not the real difficulty the inflexible, restrictionist attitude of the Government under the Pay Code? That is the real difficulty surely, and nothing else at all.

§ Mr. Boardman
No, Sir. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, there is considerable flexibility in the code within which to operate. The agreement that was reached after the standstill had started could be implemented under stage 3. Part of it could be implemented straight away by the use of the flexibility margin, and the remainder, if the union so wished, could be implemented on the anniversary of the agreement by using part of the 7 per cent. margin.
But there are other areas which the parties should get together to discuss. There is the unsocial hours provision which they should discuss, and they should put joint representations to the Pay Board on anomalies and relativities. I urge that this most responsible group of men should open discussions with the council to see whether exploring those lines enables the council to go some ways towards meeting their points.

§ Mr. Skeet
Can my hon. Friend say what is the percentage of total coal stocks available under the control of the CEGB, to avoid picketing, and also what capacity of electricity is available?

§ Mr. Boardman
I cannot, off-hand, tell my hon. Friend what the quantities are, but the House knows that the power stations have substantial coal stocks.

§ Mr. Skinner
Will the hon. Gentleman exercise his mind on the possibility of solving this dispute by using flexibility to the extent that it was used in the case of the Glasgow firemen? Would that provide a solution?

§ Mr. Boardman
As I understand it, the solution is within stage 3, and there can be no question of a settlement of this dispute outside it. I was saying that there is substantial flexibility within stage 3, and I hope that the union and the industry will consider it again, because they have not really sat down to consider some of these points in order to see how close they can get to a settlement.

§ Mr. Rost
As it is impossible to impose rota restrictions satisfactorily enough to prevent disruption to industry and essential 32 services, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will apply emergency powers promptly to ensure that less essential supplies for such things as display lighting and television are switched off in order to ensure that adequate resources are available for industry and essential services?

§ Mr. Boardman
That would not be a matter for me, but, at a time when there are various pressures upon our energy supplies upon which the wellbeing of the country depends, I ask whether it is consistent with the responsible attitude which this group has adopted in the past that it should continue this action now.

§ Mr. Dalyell
May we be clear as to precisely what the Minister sees his own responsibilities to be in the matter, or is it all to be left to the flexibility of the Pay Board?

§ Mr. Boardman
I have urged both sides to discuss again those areas within the pay code which contain considerable flexibility to see whether a satisfactory settlement can be reached therein.

§ Mr. Dalyell
What are the hon. Gentleman's responsibilities?

§ Mr. Evelyn King
Would it not be prudent also to look at electricity supply in the long term? Is it not a fact that the Central Electricity Generating Board, which ought to have ordered reactors long ago, has now, in a measure of panic, ordered American reactors? Is it not a fact that those reactors are less efficient and less safe than British reactors, and that if that decision were implemented we should have wasted £100 million and many years of devoted work by British research scientists? Is my hon. Friend further aware that these American reactors are, on the evidence we have, unsafe? Will the Government consider reversing that decision, if it has been taken?

§ Mr. Boardman
I assure my hon. Friend that no such decision has been taken, contrary to reports in parts of the Press. The position is that there is a Nuclear Power Advisory Board, which was reported to the House. That board is considering the alternative systems which are available. It will in due course advise my right hon. Friend, who will then make a decision on the 33 choice. No such decision has yet been made. Indeed, there is a certain amount of further work to be done before my right hon. Friend will be able to have final advice on this matter.

§ Mr. Benn
As this dispute clearly endangers supplies at a time of general difficulty and as the dispute does not lie between the employers and the staffs involved, because they are in agreement and have been for some time, will the Minister say what his responsibility is? He is the Minister responsible for the safeguarding of supplies. Is not the flexibility that is wanted a flexibility of direct Government intervention in this dispute, instead of a shielding behind the Pay Board, which is forced to be rigid in a matter in which flexibility by the Minister is really necessary?

§ Mr. Boardman
If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that flexibility should extend to breaching the code, this would be unacceptable because the maintenance of the code is essential if we are to preserve the standard of living of the people of this country. The right hon. Gentleman asks about my responsibilities. My responsibilities are to endeavour to get the parties to reach agreement within the code and at the same time to ensure that, whatever action my be taken, the necessary contingency arrangements are made to ensure the best continuity of supplies that it is possible to do.