§ Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the nation's resources and use of energy, it is expedient to authorize—
- (a)the increase from £25 million to £45 million of the limit on the aggregate of sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under section 2(1) of the Electricity Act 1972 (contributions to expenditure of Electricity Council and others with a view to promoting employment);
- (b)the payment out of money so pro vided of any administrative expenses incurred by a government department in consequence of the said Act of the present Session; and
- (c)payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Oakes.]
§ 1.37 a.m.
§ Mr. John Biffen (Oswestry)The brevity of the Under-Secretary of State's contribution to this debate—
§ The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)It was brilliant.
§ Mr. BiffenThe Minister of State says that it was brilliant. That is one judgment. I do not think it was consistent with the holding today of the Energy Forum. On the very day when we have the Energy Forum, and when the House of Commons has an opportunity to discuss an energy topic, I should have hoped we might have perhaps a more ample introduction of a motion involving what is, after all, a fairly significant sum of money.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)What is the Energy Forum?
§ Mr. BiffenYou would, I think, very properly rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I sought to elaborate and answer that question.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorWhy did my hon. Friend mention it, then?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)Carry on.
§ Mr. BiffenI am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your intervention.
As to the motion to increase to £45 million the contributions which may be made by the Secretary of State towards expenditure intended to promote employment, my first question is whether this is expenditure which has been incurred in addition to the original sum of £25 million which was largely directed to projects such as the Ince power station, which was having its construction accelerated as part of a counter-cyclical employment programme.
The House would like to know whether this additional sum is because of the inflationary circumstances which have proceeded since that date or whether the Department have in mind other projects of which the House does not know—for example, whether it is intended to accelerate construction of a new station at Drax. I know that this will be a matter of great interest to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who will, I am certain, wish to take part in the debate.
The importance of this topic was put very fairly in the Financial Times only yesterday in an article by Mr. Roy Hodson, in which he said that
The CECB's policy is to delay building Drax-B—which is on the Selby coalfield—until work is more advanced on the field, so that the station could be phased to match the build-up of coal production.That is a view which I know the hon. Member for Bolsover will wish to contest. I know that he will share with me the disappointment that the Minister should feel that "I beg to move" is an appropriate way in which to deal with this topic.Alternatively, the Department may have in mind accelerating the work on the proposed steam generator for heavy water reactors at Sizewell and Torness. I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) is here. He is an environmentalist and I understand that he takes a certain interest in Torness power station. He will be a little uneasy 1311 at the casual, if not cavalier, way in which the debate has been introduced by the Under-Secretary of State. All those who have an interest in the civil nuclear engineering capability will be anxious to know whether this is what is in the mind of the Government.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), when the parent legislation was being debated, said in respect of the section of the Act under which this matter proceeds:
I do not suppose it is expected that a vast amount of extra employment will be created in the electricity supply industry itself. It is not a labour-intensive industry these days. So the employment must be created on the contracting side, and the effect in general engineering in particular should run right the way through the economy."—[Official Report, 10th February 1972; Vol. 830, c. 1699.]I should like to know where the jobs have been created. Have they been created in the area which was identified by the hon. Gentleman, or were they created in parts of the mining industry, which I know lies close to the loyalties of the hon. Member for Bolsover?Presumably these very substantial sums of money have been monitored against a performance, and presumably the House will have the opportunity to make its judgment. But that opportunity can be provided only if there is a proper statement from the Treasury Bench. It is no way to conduct a serious debate upon industries central to our economic purpose to suppose that a Minister can escape from such a responsibility with the mere phrase "I beg to move." The Minister begs to move. But we beg to talk. We beg to talk because we believe that these are issues which properly belong to the forum of the House of Commons.
I have never objected to the Energy Forum, but I object to the House of Commons being relegated to being some kind of third or fourth-rate consultative body, because the debates which will take place at Church House later today quite properly also belong to this Assembly as well.
§ 1.42 a.m.
§ Mr. T. H. H. Skeet (Bedford)This is the longest day of the year, and we are experiencing it in this way. Never have I had an experience in this House where 1312 the sum of £25 million has been built up to £45 million with the Minister simply saying that he begs to move, without making any declaration about how the money is to be spent. It is quite disgraceful.
On what proposals does the Minister intend to allocate this money? Under the 1972 Electricity Act, it is for promoting employment on proposals carried out earlier than they would have been but for the agreement, and also for the purchase of materials for any project.
I should like to know whether this money is to be spent on buying equipment for the steam-generated heavy-water reactors. Will Drax B go ahead in advance of coal coming from the Selby coalfield? As the drift mines are not yet ready, I see no point in bringing it forward.
But I must concede that the large electrical manufacturers and the boiler makers are concerned about the lack of orders. They have had no orders for several years, and they will be in a very difficult position, largely because of a contraction in the export market, if they cannot find any home market deals. The situation could well result in some of them being liquidated. So that there is pressure from that quarter. I also understand the position of the National Coal Board. Stocks are mounting, and it is trying to persuade the electricity authorities to get them down as much as possible.
One should put forward one or two arguments from the angle of the Electricity Council, or the area boards, or, on this occasion, the Central Electricity Generating Board. It is apparent that the existing coal-fired capacity of the United Kingdom is adequate to burn in total all the coal which the National Coal Board is able to make available at competitive prices up to a maximum of 90 million tons a year. We know that the National Coal Board is not producing anything like that, but I do not think that the electricity industry is responsible for the fact that people are not buying electricity at the moment. That is happening because gas prices are too low.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorNo—not in Scotland.
§ Mr. SkeetI appreciate the point about the price of gas in Scotland, but in 1313 England the price is very low indeed. This is driving electricity out of the market. The Minister of State must know that our gas prices are low by European standards.
I come to the conclusion that in the present circumstances of the surplus generating capacity of the United Kingdom, and the lower electricity demand, there is no case for an additional power station. The CEGB has indicated that in its own particular areas it will not order one, unless it is forced to, until the end of the decade. I hope the Minister will tell us whether he proposes to go ahead with Drax B. Is it wise to do so in present circumstances, particularly as the coal has not yet come from the drift mines at Selby?
Has the Minister any proposals to integrate the cost of fuels and to do something to enable the gas industry to bring its prices into line, by normal methods, with those of other fuels? When one considers the prospects one notes that the CEGB, having just completed a programme of advanced gas-cooled reactor stations, is now engaged in constructing 7.200 megawatts of new major fossil-fired plant, the 1,675 megawatt Dinorwic pumped storage station, and 1,200 megawatts of new gas turbine plant. It is also preparing to build Sizewell B SGHWR of about 2,500 megawatt capacity. This is a very considerable programme, and it will be extremely difficult for the Government to reconcile the various pressure applied to them. The manufacturers of the equipment want a market, and they cannot find potential sales abroad. The National Coal Board is pressing also because the miners want to keep up production, so that more coal is going into stocks, and stocks are not diminishing.
The electricity industry has a mandate to provide a co-ordinated and sufficient supply of electricity at the cheapest possible prices. How can it do that without some flexibility on construction so that it can be arranged when the industry thinks it is desirable, bearing in mind the extent of demand and surplus capacity?
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer these points. He will have an ample opportunity to debate them when we reach Clause 13 in Committee. In justification of the increased sum he requires tonight he should give an explanation to the House.
§ 1.50 a.m.
§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)We have had no information from the Minister and I was confused by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) who twice referred to the Energy Forum and then refused to answer questions about it. That is not the way to conduct a debate at this time of the night—
§ Mr. BiffenI am sorry to have disappointed my hon. Friend. He is the last person to whom I would wish to be discourteous. But when the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) reads that my hon. Friend has not heard of the Energy Forum he will be absolutely chagrined.
§ Mr. TaylorMy hon. Friend has done it again. He has mentioned the Energy Forum for a third time. I do not know whether it has any relevance to what we are discussing. I hope that we may have some indication of what it is and what it has to do with the Money Resolution.
I wonder whether this Money Resolution is defective and should be rejected on that ground. It reads at the end of paragraph (a)
(contributions to expenditure of Electricity Council and others with a view to promoting employment)".That is simply meant to be a description of the payments. But in Clause 14 the Bill statesprojects advanced in the programme with a view to promoting employment".Is there any precedent for such a variation between the wording of the Money Resolution and that of the parent Bill? I cannot find any such precedent. These two quotations simply describe the way in which powers are to be used.
§ Dr. J. Dickson MabonThere is no difference.
§ Mr. TaylorI reject what the Minister of State says. Clause 14 says that the money is for projects advanced in the programme with a view to promoting employment. In other words, the Bill refers to projects which are to be built sooner than originally planned. The Money Resolution relates to expenditure with a view to promoting employment. That could cover the conversion of an oil-fired power station to burn coal. It 1315 would certainly promote employment in the coal industry if the CEGB decided to change from oil-fired to coal-fired stations. That would come within the description in the Money Resolution, but not within the terms of Clause 14. Why are the words different?
§ Dr. J. Dickson MabonThis is a bogus point.
§ Mr. TaylorIt is a genuine point on which I am seeking information. It know that the last place I should look for it is the Minister of State, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will do his best to give me an answer.
The second question concerns those who can qualify for the money. The Money Resolution refers to the "Electricity Council and others". What is meant by "others"? Are we talking about the South of Scotland Electricity Board, or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, or any other body? It seems to me that the use of the word "others" could be applied to job creation by the Electricity Council or the boards and not just the generating boards.
I come to my third question. In view of what has been said about the price of gas, could any expenditure under the Money Resolution be related to removing differentials in the prices of gas in different parts of Great Britain? The Minister of State used to complain about it when he was in opposition, and I hope that, now that he has a position of authority, he will take the opportunity to do something about it. There are wide variations in the prices of gas north and south of the border. I have complained about that on many occasions, and the Minister of State has joined me in those complaints.
The Minister of State will be aware that electricity was the responsibility of the Scottish Office when I was a Minister and that, because of the splendid work of the Conservative Government, domestic electricity in Scotland was cheaper than that in England and Wales. The Minister of State knows that to be a fact. If he disputes that, I gladly offer to make a payment to him and to buy him lunch at my expense in the House of Commons tomorrow, on condition that he will reciprocate by giving me lunch tomorrow if he is wrong and I am right. I see that he is not responding.
§ Mr. BiffenI assure my hon. Friend that he is very safe to make that bet, because the Minister of State will be at the Energy Forum.
§ Mr. TaylorMy hon. Friend is trying to tax my patience. Although we achieved that situation for electricity, for which the Minister is not now responsible, gas costs substantially more in Scotland than it does in England and Wales. Many of my constituents find it difficult to appreciate when we have a British Gas Corporation why the price of gas in Scotland should be higher than the price in England.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I are fighting a valiant battle to keep Britain united and out of this devolution nonsense, but we are finding it difficult to justify a situation in which the price of British gas is higher in Scotland than it is in England and Wales. Paragraph (a) relates to expenditure on promoting employment, and the removal of the gas price differential would certainly create employment and improve the economic climate of Scotland.
Will expenditure on promoting employment be identified in some way so that hon. Members are aware of it? If a job has been accelerated, or if something else is done to create employment, will that be separately identified? For example, will the Minister make annual statements? Will the information be included in the report of the Electricity Council or the South of Scotland Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board. If the Minister is to spend an extra £20 million on these schemes, can he assure me that the items of expenditure will be separately identified so that we are able to consider them?
I come to my fourth question. Is expenditure on the obligations that we undertake under the Common Market included in paragraphs (a) and (b)?
There are a number of matters included in the Energy Bill which I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who is a bit of a fanatic on Common Market issues, has not mentioned.
Clause 6 of the Bill states that what we are doing stems from our obligation under EEC Directive 68414. In Clause 11, the Government take on obligations 1317 under the Directives 75404 and 75405. We know there are differences between regulations and directives, but perhaps the Minister can tell us whether, if one of his employment creating measures was the consequence of an EEC directive which we had little option but to implement, this would be included as optional spending or be separately identified. The Government may claim credit for spending money on the promotion of employment when the measures are part of an obligation under a directive or regulation.
The Minister of State is a proMarketeer, despite the damage our entry has done to Scotland. Under Clause 11 of the Bill, a person wishing to instal or convert electricity generating plant or enter into arrangements for the supply of natural gas as a fuel for that plant must notify the Secretary of State, who may give directions in relation to the proposals.
The EEC, through its directives, is giving policy guidance to the Secretary of State. Can he assure us that the extra money provided for in the Order will be that which the Government have decided of their own volition to spend on the promotion of employment and not something they have had to do because of other obligations?
Have the Government determined how much of the extra money will be spent by the Electricity Council and how much by what are loosely described as "others"? We have separate generating and distributing boards in Scotland. How much will be spent on the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board? I hope that the Minister will always remember the importance of the electricity and gas boards in Scotland. There is considerable confusion in Scotland because we have gas supplied through a United Kingdom network while our electricity is separate. Does the Secretary of State envisage that this will continue? If so, can he give separate figures, in respect of the additional spending, for England, Scotland and Wales? The Minister has an obligation to say where the extra money will be spent. It is also very unusual for a Secretary of State to ask for an additional £20 million without giving an indication when the money is to be spent.
1318 I have just received a note from my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty which says something about the SNP. It entirely bemuses me. Perhaps on this, as on other matters, my hon. Friend can give me some further indications later.
I have understood neither the speeches from the Front Bench nor the notes from my hon. Friends. The Minister of State has plenty of experience of that—with his rather nefarious activities within the Labour Party, which have been a shock to some of his hon. Friends who previously regarded him as a colleague.
However, I should like some indication of the time scale involved. When is it expected that the additional £20 million will be required? When do the Government plan to spend this sum? Bearing in mind that the electricity boards and the Electricity Council are borrowing very little money in Britain at present but are borrowing it essentially from international, foreign and EEC sources, I should like an indication whether the additional £20 million relates to additional money raised by the boards in sterling or money raised in other currencies. For example, if it were understood that the boards were borrowing an additional £20 million in the sterling equivalent of a foreign currency at present, is it the Government's intention that this £20 million is to be a sterling sum or a sterling equivalent?
I hope that the Minister can give some indication of replies to those specific points. I should be most grateful to hear anything that he could say.
§ 2.7 a.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Gordon Oakes)The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), in opening the debate, said "I beg to talk." I think that that is the truth. He begs to talk. If I did not know the hon. Member for Oswestry, and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), I would say that this was merely mischievous intervention.
§ Mr. Oakes—saw fit not to vote against the Bill when it came before the House. Therefore, why should I waste the time of the House in giving detailed explanations of a Money Resolution on a Bill which they did not see fit to oppose last week?
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)Will the Minister give way?
§ Mr. OakesNo. I have been asked a number of questions. Opposition Members must decide whether they want answers to the points they have raised. I am quite prepared to give them answers.
§ Mr. OakesIt is Opposition Members who may well be prolonging my remarks.
Let us look at the questions raised by the hon. Member for Oswestry and some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart. The bulk of the expenditure with which we are now dealing arises from the Ince B power station in Cheshire. The Ince B power station was a job creation programme inaugurated in 1972 by Opposition Members. I do not criticise Opposition Members for doing that. I am a North-West Member of Parliament, a Cheshire Member. I applaud Opposition Members for initiating that job creation programme in 1972. They allocated £25 million for that project. I have been asked why the sum has gone up. It is because inflation has gone up between 1972 and 1976.
Do Opposition Members want to stop this programme at Ince B in Cheshire? This debate is sandwiched between a debate on unemployment this afternoon—which the Opposition raised—and an Adjournment debate tonight by a Merseyside Member. I must ask whether Opposition Members want to stop this project going on.
I will give some of the figures. The Ince B power station accounts for £36.8 million. There are a number of minor projects, the largest being Leicester gas turbine station at £1.45 million.
I was asked about Scotland. There are approximately 25 projects. The largest is the third unit of the Inverkip power station. The total between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and 1320 the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board is £3 million.
That accounts for some of the money for which we are asking in this Resolution. We are asking to carry on a commitment entered into by our predecessors.
I was asked about Drax B. The Bill and the Resolution have nothing to do with Drax B power station. I firmly believe that it is sensible and proper to build coal-fired power stations. But hon. Gentlemen opposite are misguided if they think that Drax B has anything to do with the Bill or this Resolution.
§ Mr. SkeetIs it the Minister's view that the Government will not go ahead with Drax B in the next three or four years?
§ Mr. OakesIf I were to expand on that theme, I should rightly be ruled out of order. We are dealing with a narrow subject—the Money Resolution to the Energy Bill which the Opposition did not see fit to oppose when it came before the House last week.
§ Mr. BiffenI realise that this Resolution deals primarily with Ince B power station. But, arising from the comments made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), will the Minister indicate the number of jobs which are considered to be affected by the scheme and their location?
§ Mr. OakesI understand that 2,000 jobs are involved at Ince B power station. The previous Administration, when they introduced this proposal, thought that 5,000 jobs were involved.
This is an important matter. We are not only improving the electricity supply but carrying on the job creation programme inaugurated by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1972. Yet they are now criticising this Resolution in the middle of the morning.
Other matters have been raised. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart asked whether this was our own creation or an EEC commitment. The job creation programme, as the hon. Gentleman should know—I think that he was a Minister at the time—is a domestic matter. The Conservative Government entered into this programme and the Labour Government are now carrying it on.
1321 The hon. Members for Bedford and Oswestry referred to the Energy Forum today. It is a good, proper and courageous thing for any Government to submit their policies to public view and to have a conference along the lines that we are having today. All parties are invited to attend. Hon. Gentlemen can make their contributions at that energy conference today as well as in the House tonight.
The hon. Member for Bedford made a somewhat surprising intervention. The hon. Gentleman said that the Money Resolution was necessary because the price of gas was too low. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking for his party, or for himself? Does he want to increase the price of gas? I should like a statement of the Opposition's policy. Does the hon. Gentleman want to make the price of gas artificially high?
§ Mr. SkeetThe price of gas is so low that it is forcing down the consumption of electricity, and because the demand for electricity is down the industry requires less and less productive capacity. It has a lot of surplus capacity. One has to realise that these energies are interrelated. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, he cannot see sense.
§ Mr. OakesI can see the hon. Gentleman's argument. I believe that the Conservative Party was in favour of energy conservation. I thought that it believed in a primary fuel being used to the best possible advantage. The Opposition speeches on the Energy Bill certainly indicated that. There is no doubt that the gas industry is effective. There is no doubt that it sells its gas cheaply. Are the Opposition saying that the gas should be sold at an artificially high price? I should like to know their views on this matter, but I am in danger of straying from order because the price of gas is not the subject of this Money Resolution.
§ Mr. SkeetThe Government are paying a subsidy of £20 million to the gas industry. Why is that being done if gas is being sold at the correct price?
§ Mr. OakesThe gas industry is to make an application in the autumn to increase prices. What the hon. Gentleman said was that the gas industry was selling its product too cheaply. I should 1322 like to know the official Opposition view on that.
This Money Resolution is pursuant to a Bill that was unopposed in this House last week, and the bulk of the criticism relates to Ince B power station. This is a commitment which the Labour Government are fulfilling on behalf of the Conservative Government who entered into it in 1972. As this relates to my part of the world where jobs are desperately necessary I make no complaint about that commitment.
I ask Opposition Members to respect and honour the commitment into which their Government entered and not play about with jobs in the way that they are trying to do, by delaying the House by talking on this Money Resolution, which is what the hon. Member for Oswestry clearly indicated was the object of the Opposition's tactics.
§ 2.19 a.m.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)Two points made by the Minister should be recalled and noted. First, the Government's policy is that a Minister will not make a statement in support of a resolution because he believes that it should go through unopposed. I regard that as a shocking development in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] Secondly, and I shall make this point as briefly as the first one if the interruptions cease, the Minister failed to give a simple answer about the number of jobs produced by each of the schemes, and for how long. If the Minister comes to the House without that information and he therefore has to filibuster, he ought to reconsider the way in which he intends to do his job.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the nation's resources and use of energy, it is expedient to authorize—