FUEL SUPPLIES (ELDERLY PERSONS)

HC Deb 07 February 1974 vol 868 cc1452-66

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North) rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

I should like first to address a remark to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). I believe that he wishes to raise the problems of fuel supplies to the aged, the sick and the infirm during a possible strike of miners. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he has given adequate notice to a Minister to be present to answer the debate?

Mr. Lewis

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was one of the points which I was about to mention to the House. I have been trying for the last half-hour to get through to the Department of Energy to find a Minister. About a quarter of an hour ago I got a message through to the Department. One point of complaint that I make is that Members of Parliament are kept waiting for half an hour to get a 'phone call through to ask a Minister to come to the House to listen to and to answer an urgent debate. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that these are strange and unusual circumstances, as you said earlier. None of us, not even the Chair or myself, knew until literally a few moments ago what the business would be, how it would proceed, and when and whether the opportunity would be presented to have an Adjournment debate. Nevertheless, I eventually managed to leave a message for the Minister for him to be present this evening. Like yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am somewhat upset that he is not here, but perhaps I may make a few introductory remarks in the hope that a Minister will appear in due course.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Before the hon. Member continues I should say that there is a ruling from the Chair that adequate notice should be given, and that adequate notice would be something in the nature of two to three hours, in order to get a Minister here. Ministers are not necessarily waiting to be called to an Adjournment debate.

I must therefore say certain things to the hon. Member about this. It is the custom of the Chair when this question arises to deprecate very strongly any hon. Member seeking to raise a matter upon the Adjournment which to be realistic needs a reply from a Minister of the Crown.

I must refresh the hon. Member's memory of the ruling of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster in 1964. An hon. Member sought to raise a matter on the Adjournment in view of the fact that no hon. Member had claimed the Adjournment debate, which is more or less the circumstances in which the hon. Member finds himself, no one else having claimed the Adjournment.

Mr. Lewis

That is not so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The situation was as follows: Mr. Speaker: I will explain the difficulty. My predecessors and I have always deprecated the introduction of subjects in an Adjournment debate unless due notice has been given to the Minister concerned. The reason is, really, that, apart from the House of Commons point of view an ex parte statement without reply is not a very valuable parliamentary proceeding. The hon. Member is in order in raising this matter. I cannot prohibit him from doing so, but I deprecate the practice unless notice has been given to the Minister."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February 1964; Vol. 689, c. 799.] All I have to say to the hon. Member is that I must follow the custom of the Chair and I must advise him of the past practice of the House. He should heed what the Chair advises on these things, and I hope that, that being so, the hon. Member will not seek to raise the matter. However, if he seeks to raise it he is in order but it is something of an abuse of the rules in the light of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling.

Mr. Lewis

I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is nothing out of order. The Chair may deprecate such a situation. Your references to Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling applied quite rightly where an Adjournment debate had not been taken up. With respect, two Adjournment debates have been held this evening, and I tried to give the Minister notice much earlier. The Chair may deprecate such behaviour, but I strongly deprecate that the Government have changed the business and have so rearranged the order of business that I would have been unable to give notice earlier. It is not my job to be at the Ministry of Energy to ensure that someone is there with responsibility for answering debates.

This is one of the complaints I wish to make. The Secretary of State for Energy is in another place, quite wrongly in my view. He has no conception of the problems of the ordinary people of this country. If Lord Carrington had sat in this House he could have been here to answer my debate. He has two deputy Ministers, neither of whom is here this evening. I intend to go on making general remarks in the hope that by the time I reach the gravamen of my complaint one or other of the junior Ministers will be present. While the Whips are talking I shall keep quiet. I see that the Whips are doing their job.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member may continue.

Mr. Lewis

I was speaking to you personally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not like the Whips interfering with my freedom.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member must realise that his freedom has been very well catered for and that the Minister will be here shortly.

Mr. Lewis

I shall try to speak a little to use up the time by making a few remarks to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I understand that you are not standing again and I shall, therefore, not have the pleasure of confronting and discussing with you on occasions as I have done in the past. That is rather a pity, but I hope that you have a long and happy retirement in any other place you might arrive in.

I see that the Minister has arrived, which substantiates the point I made, which was that I had given the Minister notice, although, I agree, not very long notice and I apologise for that. I am sorry if I have dragged the Minister away from some other function which he considers more important and enjoyable than being here. I am sorry that I did not give him longer notice, but I can assure him that I took no part in rearranging Government business today. I took no part in calling a General Election or in telling the Government to run away from their term of office. It is purely fortuitous that there was a collapse of business and an opportunity arose of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

I had difficulty in contacting the Minister, just as I had difficulty in contacting his colleague a short while ago. On that occasion his right hon. Friend wrote to me and explained the difficulty, which was that the Department was very busy and there were only a limited number of lines on which to telephone. That is the first part of my complaint. There is a fuel crisis, yet it is impossible to telephone the Ministry. It is worse than trying to get through to Ladbroke's or William Hill's. If a Member of Parliament is kept waiting for half an hour to get through to a Minister, what chance have ordinary members of the public—and it is the ordinary members of the public who pay the Ministers' salaries?

When the Minister of State, Welsh Office, began to speak he commented that there was no one on the Labour benches. When I rose to speak there was no one on the Tory benches. There was no one on the Front Bench.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson (Enfield, West)

There was.

Mr. Lewis

Yes, the exception was one of the Whips, who is also paid by the taxpayer. When the Minister of State made that comment I asked him to give way, but he would not.

There should be a system by which ordinary members of the public, and certainly Members of Parliament, can make their complaints.

I want to raise the subject of energy supply problems confronting the aged, the sick and the disabled, which may well become worse in the weeks to come if—God forbid—there is a miners' strike. I hope that it does not happen, but, if it does, I am all right, Jack. I have a great deal of weight to keep me warm. The Minister and the Prime Minister are all right. You are all right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But hundreds of thousands of old-age pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the infirm will not be able to obtain heat to keep themselves warm or cook their meals, and they will be without light.

I raised the matter when there was the original problem over paraffin. I represent a working-class constituency with many old-age pensioners, large numbers of whom cannot afford the ordinary methods of heating and cooking. They have had to turn reluctantly to the oil heater. The price of their paraffin has risen to fantastic heights. The controlled price is now 21p a gallon, which is nearly 4s. 2½d, and there is a black market. The cost is bad enough, but the old-age pensioners also have the problem of trapesing around trying to find paraffin. They have to go to one garage after another and to distributors.

The week before Christmas I asked the Minister to initiate a scheme whereby local authorities could supply paraffin to old-age pensioners, perhaps even delivering it to the door through their social security departments. Such supplies could have been subsidised. I see no reason why the Government, who give out largesse to the wealthier sections of the population, could not allow every local authority so many gallons of paraffin at, say, 10p a gallon, making up the difference with an Exchequer grant. Pensioners and others in need could then be allowed so many gallons a week on production of their pension book or other documentary evidence. The amount involved would be only a couple of gallons each at the most. Nothing has been done, although the Minister eased the supply problem to some extent by making the price prohibitive.

The situation will become worse. I hope to God that the strike does not take place, but if it does the "Switch off Something Now" slogan will be found to be a lot of drivel. We are told to switch off a bar of an electric fire. The old-age pensioners cannot afford a bar. I do not know where the Minister lives. He should come to my constituency. The poor old devils there are living in one room with one little light. Many do not have television. They have a stove on which they cook and which keeps them warm. Some are more fortunate as they have electric heating, but we are told that we shall all suffer power cuts if the strike takes place. As I have said, I can suffer, or I can go out, as the Minister can. But the old-age pensioners cannot. Has the Minister done anything to see that they have supplies?

Because they cannot afford central heating, some of the old-age pensioners still have open grates. They buy paper bags of coal, for which they pay about two or three times the regular price, because selling coal in that way is a racket. A bag probably has to last them a week, and it barely keeps them warm. If there is a strike, where will they obtain their paper bag of coal?

The Minister has known that these problems were liable to occur. Has he set up a co-ordinating committee to see that such people are supplied? If not, why not? I have read and heard on the radio that the miners have said that they will do their best to see that hospitals, essential services and the like get their coal. The Minister should set up a joint committee with the National Union of Mine-workers to ensure that coal supplies are sent to borough councils which could set up yards from which local authority workers could make supplies available, perhaps even delivering them to those in need.

I am not suggesting that such supplies should be limited to old-age pensioners. They should also go to the disabled, the sick, the blind and so on, who will find it very difficult to manage.

The Minister may say that he hopes that the strike will not occur and that, therefore, there will be no necessity for what I suggest. I hope he is right, but that does not mean that he should not at least establish a "National Distribution of Energy Committee"—[Interruption.] The Minister is taking orders from the Whips. The power of the Whips in the House is terrific. There should be a national committee on which the Minister and the NUM would be represented. There should also be area committees with representatives of area branches of the NUM and local authority representatives. They should draw up a list of those in need.

That should have been done weeks ago, when I first raised the matter in December. The committees could then tell the local welfare officers or dustmen, if the strike occurs, "Take a sack of coal or a gallon of paraffin to Mr. Smith and Mrs. Brown, or tell them that they can pick them up at the council depot." The mine workers could be told "We need so many tons of coal". I understand that nothing has been done by the Department to get anything like that machinery set up. I am amazed about that.

I said earlier that we could argue about who is responsible for the energy crisis. The Government are saying that they have tried to enforce a fair prices and incomes policy to control inflation and that they will not go outside the terms of their counter-inflation policy. They say that the crisis is the responsibility of others. If the Government's policy has been working, God knows what would have happened if we had not had it. It is fantastic that it should be called a counter-inflation policy.

I see the poor in my constituency. The poorer they are, the more vicious and the more wicked are the attacks upon their limited income. There has been vicious action against the nurses, the dustmen and the road sweepers, and now the miners. They must not get more than £20 or £25 a week. The Government say that that would be inflationary. But a company director under phases 1, 2 and 3 can each year put up his salary by thousands of pounds. I have sent details of dozens of examples to every Minister, including the Prime Minister, and I have asked for action to be taken. No action has been taken.

Only last Friday it was reported in the Press and confirmed that a director of a building company had increased his salary by £300 a week. That represented a salary increase of 172 per cent.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the present Secretary of State for the Home Department has made it clear that he regards as the hallmark of freedom the right of every individual to negotiate his own wages without interference by the Government? It seems that to allow the company director to increase his salary by £300 a week is in accord with Government policy.

Mr. Lewis

My hon. Friend is right. I do not know when the Secretary of State for the Home Department made that statement, but during the last election it was said by the present Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and many other Ministers that in no circumstances would they have a statutory prices and incomes policy. They said that it would be inflationary. They claimed that it would cause industrial unrest and damage the economy. Now that there is another election, we shall have to remind them of that.

My hon. Friend is right when he says that the company director is entitled to negotiate a £300 a week increase on top of his salary of about £10,000 a year. Of course, that is only one example. I can quote dozens of examples. Such increases have been certified by chartered accountants, public auditors and by company directors themselves.

The week before last, the chairman of a well-known brewery increased his salary by £2,650 a year. He did so on the very day that he announced a profit increase for his company of about 45 per cent. Believe it or believe it not, on the very same day the Price Commission allowed the company to increase the price of its beer

This is what happens under the Government who are alleged to be attacking inflation, who say that they will not allow a miner to have a few extra pounds a week because to do so would be inflationary. They are prepared to allow a company director to increase his salary but they do not allow the nurses, the hospital workers and the teachers, for example, a few extra pounds a week. These are the people who are assets to the country.

The director to whom I have referred builds houses. He has given himself an extra £300 a week. To whom is that money passed on? I am sure that the Government do not pay him his £300 a week. The answer is that it is passed on by increasing the price of the end product—the houses. The young couple who cannot get a house for £10,000 or £15,000 want to remember that one of the reasons which stops them buying a house is that company directors have been encouraged by the Government to increase their salaries by 172 per cent. in one year.

The Government can take action when they want to do so. They cancelled today's business and they introduced a Bill to allow hon. Members to claim extra election expenses. I am not against that. They also introduced the Pensions (Increase) Bill. But since last December nothing has been done to look after the possible discomfort of some of the poor devils who may lose their lives.

What will happen? The Government will blame everything on the miners. There should be a new song entitled "Every problem we are confronted with is due to the miners". It would be lovely if the Government could get away with it. But it is not all due to the miners. The Government had the power to govern and they should have used their power. They have done so only in the interests of rich surtax payers such as company directors. They have done nothing to look after the interests of the aged, the sick and the infirm. If they have done something, I shall be glad to know the details from the Minister. For instance, when was the regional committee set up? How does it operate? Where should the old people go to in my constituency to get coal and paraffin? Will coal and paraffin be subsidised? Those are the sort of matters to which the Government should have attended. If there is not a strike, no harm will have been done. To put into effect the suggestions which I have made might have cost a few thousand pounds. Surely it is worth that sort of money although we all hope that it will not be necessary to use a regional committee.

The Government have wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds in other ways. I do not know how many millions they have wasted on the Channel Tunnel and on Concorde. The Government said that they would not nationalise Rolls-Royce and then they decided to do so. It would seem that the money does not really matter.

Mr. Ronald Brown

We all understand the point my hon. Friend is trying to make. The serious fact is that many of the people to whom he has referred will have their lives shortened by the Government action.

Mr. Lewis

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is all very well saying that if Ted and his merry boys are returned, all will be well in 1975 or 1976. Of course, a lot of old people will not be with us then. They will be up in another place. They will probably be warmer than they are now. They will not be able to judge whether Ted broke all his election promises and pledges. We shall have a chance to judge, along with the electors, but many old people will not be here.

I referred, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the earlier occupant of the Chair, Sir Robert Grant-Ferris. I was given to understand that he would not be standing for election. I believe, Mr. Mallalieu, that you too will not be standing again. I am most sorry to hear that. I have had brushes with every occupant of the Chair but there have never been any hard feelings. We have had our squabbles but certainly on my part there have been no hard feelings. I shall let the House into a little secret: we have often had a drink afterwards and discussed what took place. I am sorry you are going. If you end up in another place, I hope you will be as happy and as effective there as you have been here.

I wish that another friend of ours could have been here—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). My hon. Friends do not know this, and I will let them into the secret. The right hon. Gentleman is not standing for re-election. Indeed, it is rumoured in the House that he has resigned from the Conservative Party, but I do not know whether that is true. Good old Enoch. I am glad he is not standing, because I agree with what he said.

The right hon. Gentleman is not here, and I apologise to him if I get his words wrong, but I believe I am giving a correct paraphase when I say that he has said that he will not be party to a crooked election, that he is not going to be party to an election held to smash a miners' strike, a dishonest and crooked election. The right hon. Gentleman is not standing for re-election but I am sure that I shall be back and I am sure that we shall see him again, perhaps at a by-election. Meanwhile let the Government get on with the job of looking after the aged, the sick and the infirm.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. David Mudd (Falmouth and Camborne)

I was going to begin by apologising to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Having heard the opening of his oration, I thought we were going to be treated to another lung-bursting marathon speech based on bogus arguments with a large degree of speciousness. I must admit, however, that I recognised the sincerity with which he has made an acceptable case, one which I hope the Government will not overlook. I congratulate the hon. Member also on a notable double achievement. In a speech of 20 minutes, he was told by two successive occupants of the Chair that they were resigning. To drive two worthy Deputy Speakers into premature retirement is an achievement even for the hon. Gentleman.

I took to heart the hon. Gentleman's point about the long delays experienced by constituents attempting to telephone the Department of Energy. It is a serious matter not only in terms of time and of the 2p pieces wasted, but even more serious, more embarrassing and more financially unacceptable when the people making such calls are in West Cornwall trying to contact a regional office in Bristol. Should the emergency continue, I hope that the Government will review the situation in an attempt at least to open avenues to the public at a cost they can afford to pay.

As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I could not help reflecting on the tragic irony of the present industrial situation. It seems the epitome of folly and the underlining of inhumanity that only a few months ago so many trade unionists took a day off work for a protest parade against the low level of old-age pensions, yet a group of trade unionists are now saying "Either we will deprive these old-age pensioners of fuel for their fires or we will win a settlement which will be so inflationary that the value of their pensions will be further eroded." The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

The hon. Gentleman launched his customary attack on the largesse of the Government to the wealthy. Under the present Government, however, 4 million working people have no tax liability whatever. A married man with two children earning £1,000 a year pays £51 a year less tax than he did under the Labour Government. A married man with two children earning £2,000 pays £107 less tax. Let the hon. Gentleman at least accept that largesse when bestowed by a Conservative Government is across the board and benefits the lower paid best.

Mr. Arthur Lewis rose——

Mr. Mudd

I am not prepared to give way. I sat biting my tongue during the hon. Gentleman's speech and I am sure he will show me the same courtesy. He has made a very good case for the disabled and those in impoverished circumstances, and for all who need fuel. My only quarrel with him on this issue is that, in the dying moments of this Parliament, he makes his appeal to seek publicity and headlines when he should have been addressing his comments to his absent friends and inviting the attention of the trade union movement to the effects of the strike.

8.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Emery)

I add my own good wishes to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to your colleague, the right hon. Member for Nantwich (Sir R. Grant-Ferris) on this last day but one of the long and distinguished service that you have both given to the House. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the Government when I pay this tribute to you. You yourself came from the Opposition benches to your present position. I hope you will permit me to pay this tribute to the excellent way you have performed your duties.

I want to put some aspects of the subject of this debate into perspective. I was informed at 7.20 p.m. that there was the possibility of a debate. I immediately left my other duties to come here. It was, indeed, purely by luck that a Minister of my Department was near enough to be able to be here within 15 minutes. Not very much notice was given.

The Government took immediate steps in December—contrary to suggestions made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—to ensure that, where there was any lack of paraffin, supplies should be made available. We increased the allocation of paraffin by 20 per cent. over the previous period. Where there were difficulties in obtaining supplies, we made it clear that appeals could be made to the Oil Industry Emergency Committee, and these have been dealt with. At the same time, when we saw that there was the possibility of price rises, we imposed a maximum price on paraffin. This was done in the third week in December and has applied ever since.

I had investigations made only this week in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We have no appeals at the moment from any authority wanting paraffin to be delivered into his constituency. That is not the impression one got from his speech. Let it be clear that retailers wanting paraffin delivered could appeal if they felt their supplies were not big enough, and that if that were so extra allocations would be made by the Oil Industry Emergency Committee.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The hon. Gentleman said no complaint has been made, and I agree with him. But I made a complaint to him in the House on 18th December and improvements have been made since. He will recollect that Dr. Cilfton Hill, Chairman of the Newham Community Centre, wrote to him and to the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman answered. Complaints had been made but they were put right following that initiative. I went on to develop the other side of my argument by pointing out that nothing tangible had been done about the other things I was raising.

Mr. Emery

As usual, my words are being twisted. What I said was that at this moment there are no complaints.

Mr. Lewis

Oh, well!

Mr. Emery

This is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, that there are complaints. He wants action to be taken. It has been taken and the position rectified.

The hon. Member suggested that hon. Members had not been able to get through to the Department of Energy. Every hon. Member has received from me updated information about the regulations and all the facts dealing with the emergency. In that there is provided the telephone number of the duty room at the Department—825–1200. That room started with 20 telephone lines, they were increased to 40 and they have been further increased to 50.

Mr. Lewis

Good.

Mr. Emery

During this week, operating on a 24-hour basis, it has been found that for most of the day there are over 30 lines vacant

Mr. Lewis

I am going to try the number now.

Mr. Emery

The total number of those who applied this week has been between 500 and 800 in any day. I hope that my Department keeps the hon. Gentleman on the telephone.

Mr. Lewis

I am back.

Mr. Emery

I was afraid that that might have brought the hon. Gentleman back.

Supplies of coal are a matter for the NCB and the coal traders, who are in consultation about this. The hon. Gentleman talks with crocodile tears about wanting to stop the strike but not once did he urge the miners not to strike. That is the way in which his constituents will be best served.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eight o'clock.