§ 4. Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the boards of the energy industries.
§ 5. Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation.
§ 12. Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation.
§ 14. Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. BennMy next meeting with the chairmen of the boards of the energy industries, and with representatives of the energy unions, will be at the next meeting 1241 of the Energy Commission on 13th February. However, I may well see individual chairmen and union representatives before then in the normal course of business as matters arise.
§ Mr. CanavanWill my right hon. Friend ask the chairmen of the gas and electricity boards why they use private credit checking agencies to check on potential customers in respect of the supplying of fuel or for hire-purchase agreements? Is it not intolerable that public bodies should use private snoops, who go around spying on people and prying into their financial affairs, simply in order to put them at a disadvantage?
§ Mr. BennSubject to the fact, as the House knows, that I am not the manager of the fuel industries, I shall inquire into the point that my hon. Friend has raised and write to him upon the matter.
§ Mr. NeubertAs the Secretary of State now believes that the prospects of an energy gap are receding, how does he see Denis Rooke's recently reported suggestion that supplies of North Sea gas might be limited this year? Will not this artificial restriction at source by a monopoly supplier mean higher prices for gas and fuel generally than might otherwise need to be the case?
§ Mr. BennThe hon. Gentleman has raised many complicated issues in his supplementary question. As for the energy gap, the House knows that we published forecasts in September which implied that the gap might be very much narrower by the year 2000, to the extent of 60 million to 90 million tons of coal equivalent. That is partly because we allowed greater scope for conservation, partly because of change in methodology and partly because of the impact on energy demand of the current recession in the Western industrialised world. These factors have no bearing on the second point to which the hon. Gentleman made reference. I would rather have the opportunity of giving a considered view in response to his question. However, it has no bearing on the gas price decisions that might be taken this year, which will be governed by other considerations.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs my right hon. Friend aware that the respective bosses of the NUM and the National Coal Board have 1242 conspired together to smash the unity of the NUM and to ignore the result of a democratic ballot? Will he recommend to Sir Derek Ezra and others in the higher echelons of the National Coal Board that when they go for a massive pay rise, as is being suggested by certain people—for Sir Derek Ezra it is suggested that his salary will be in the region of £40,000—they had better ask for a productivity deal?
§ Mr. BennMy hon. Friend knows that the payment of the chairmen and board members of nationalised industries has been handled on the basis of the Boyle recommendations. It has been the subject of a general statement. My hon. Friend may also know that discussions have taken place on whether it would not be better for these matters to be considered in the context of each industry. Were that to be the case, considerations of the sort that my hon. Friend mentions might come to the forefront. However, in general I take the view that in this respect it is for the NUM to consider its own position and not for the Minister to comment.
§ Mr. ViggersWhen the Secretary of State meets the chairmen of the nationalised industries, will he follow up the idea put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and discuss their remuneration and that of the other directors of nationalised industry boards? For how long will the Government tolerate a situation in which people who are not board members are in many cases paid more than those with board responsibility? What representations did the right hon. Gentleman make on behalf of board members in the recent discussions?
§ Mr. BennI have had a number of discussions with board members of all the fuel industries on this matter. They have been to see me over a period of time about the anomalies and inverse differentials that exist between the most highly-paid officials and the board members. This is one of the problems that causes the greatest concern in the nationalised industries. It was with that in mind that, in passing, I made the point about these matters being considered in the context of each industry. The decision on this matter falls to be announced on behalf of the Government as a whole covering all board members and chairmen arising 1243 from the Government's response to the recommendations of the Boyle Commission. That is the basis upon which these matters are handled.
§ Mr. PalmerWill my right hon. Friend say whether he hopes soon to meet again the Chairmen of the Electricity Council and of the Central Electricity Generating Board and whether, after that next meeting, he will be in a position to announce the choice of the next nuclear reactor?
§ Mr. BennI shall not be in a position to announce the choice, because the decision has not yet been made by Ministers. However, as the House knows, a further round of discussions is taking place. I think that the House is also familiar with the alternatives being pressed by various interests. I have to do the best I can in the light of these further consultations. When the Government have reached a decision, it will fall to me to announce it.
§ Mr. Tom KingWill the Secretary of State take this opportunity to say that, when he next meets the Chairman of the National Coal Board, he will make clear to him that, if the various ballots go in that direction, area or pit-by-pit productivity schemes will have the warm support of the Government?
§ Mr. BennThere is no doubt or argument that the 1974 productivity agreement entered into by the Government, the National Coal Board and the unions referred to productivity schemes, and these have been handled in the normal way by management and unions. It does not fall to me to make any further comment on that matter.
§ Mr. KelleyWhen my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the National Coal Board and one of the barons of the National Union of Mineworkers, will he draw their attention to a report that a productivity agreement had been reached at Bevercotes Colliery which awarded coalface workers an increase of £23 without any extra effort of productivity? Is this not either indecent propaganda or a flagrant breach of the Government's 10 per cent. policy?
§ Mr. BennI think the House knows that the nature of such arrangements is that they be locally negotiated. It is not 1244 for the Government to comment on that matter.