§ Q5. Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibility for fuel supplies.
§ Q3. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will now take steps to appoint a Minister with Cabinet status with sole responsibility for energy policy.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William 248 Hamilton) on 6th November.—[Vol. 863, c. 119–20.]
§ Mr. FraserMay I ask the Prime Minister—or should I say Mr. 13 per cent. plus?—whether, in the absence of such an appointment, he would care in the present state of affairs to consider not merely appointing a Minister responsible for fuel but allowing the country an entirely fresh administration that can rescue it from the disaster and deception into which it has been plunged by the present administration?
§ The Prime MinisterIn the past the hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in energy and oil policy. Therefore, I will deal seriously with his question and answer it by saying that I think the present organisation in which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Industry have responsibility for the whole of energy policy has great advantages and I do not propose to make changes at present.
Mr. Edward TaylorAlthough the interruption of fuel and power supplies will cause inconvenience to everybody, may I ask my right hon. Friend or one of his colleagues to take a special interest in the problem of those living in multi-storey flats who suffer acute hardship if the lifts do not work during a power strike, as many of these people are elderly or disabled?
§ The Prime MinisterI will certainly ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in government to pay particular attention to that point
§ Mr. OrmeHaving set up the Pay Board, and having now introduced their stage 3, why have the Government suddenly decided today to consult the electrical power workers but not the National Union of Mineworkers? Also, why did they consult the Glasgow firemen? Does not all this prove that the Prime Minister's policy is a sham and that he is trying to buy off one section so that he may attack another?
§ The Prime MinisterNothing of the sort. I think that the hon. Gentleman must be on the wrong Question. What he says has nothing to do with responsibility for energy policy.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the nation's need is not for a fuel Minister but for sensible and constructive co-operation within the law by all those engaged in all the fuel industries?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is absolutely right. I have already said that, in order to look after this country's interests, what is required is not only co-operation but responsibility from all groups.
§ Mr. SkinnerWill the Prime Minister take a fresh look at the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the connection it has with the original Question asking for the appointment of an industrial energy supremo, and will he do that with special reference to the view that some people, both inside and outside the House, hold of what the Government have done in finding a great deal of flexibility for the Glasgow firemen and by meeting the electrical power workers this afternoon? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it can be argued that he is taking on the miners deliberately in order to blame them for a trade deficit of £300 million, a bank lending rate of 13 per cent. and all the other ills of the nation's economy?
§ The Prime MinisterThe House knows very well, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, that there is absolutely no question of the Government wanting to take on the miners or to have a confrontation with any section of the community. I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to recall that I myself met the miners' negotiating body and I went over the whole of the stage 3 possibilities with them in the utmost detail. They have been fully informed by me personally about the whole situation.