Energy Supplies (Hansard, 2 April 1984)

§ Mr. Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to ask his private notice question, I remind the House of two things. First, this is an extension of Question Time and, secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman has read out his question, the House will understand that it relates to a single matter which was not covered in energy questions today. That is why I granted the PNQ.

§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) (by private notice)
asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether, in the light of the decision of the transport unions to support the National Union of Mineworkers, he will make a statement on energy supplies.

§ The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker)
I gather that last week there was a meeting of the national officers of six unions who stated that they would recommend to their members action which they described as being in support of the National Union of Mineworkers. I gather that those actions will be discussed in some unions by their executives and in others at branch level. Naturally, I hope that in considering those recommendations trade unionists will take into consideration the fact that, as I understand it, 14 of the 24 members of the National Union of Mineworkers' executive are mandated to support a national ballot, that almost all those in the areas of the National Union of Mineworkers that have been able to express their view in a ballot have demonstrated conclusively that they want to go to work and that today 56 pits, compared with 46 pits last Friday, are either working normally or——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am sorry to stop the Secretary of State, but I said at the beginning that the question relates only to the transport unions' support of the National Union of Mineworkers and has nothing to do with the closure of pits.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I will take the point of order afterwards.

§ Mr. Walker
The question asked me about the action of some union leaders last week. I am commenting that those unions are in a state of discussion as to what they will do. I am expressing the hope that they will carefully consider the position of a majority of the members of the NUM executive and the majority of those who have voted so far.
As for the question of supplies, there are no specific actions following those decisions on which I am in a position to comment. I can only say that this is an industry for which the Government have authorised £2 million of capital investment per day. I hope, therefore, that it will not be an industry——

§ Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I will take the point of order afterwards. However, I ask the Secretary of State to be good enough to deal with the question that was actually asked.

§ Mr. Eadie
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I told the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) that I would take the point of order afterwards.

§ Mr. Walker
I can only express the hope that there will be no damage to supplies which will jeopardize——

§ Mr. Eadie
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not taking points of order now.

§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Secretary of State has put the matter——

§ Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Orme
I am speaking to a point of order. Now that the Secretary of State has widened the question, it should be permissible for the House to raise those matters.

Several Hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I specifically said at the start of this private notice question that it was on a narrow point. I drew that to the attention of the House and pointed out that, while we had had a long run of energy questions today on the mining dispute, this question referred specifically to a new element which had arisen before 12 o'clock today, namely, the decision of the transport unions to support the NUM. That is what this question is about.

§ Mr. Eadie
Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), may I ask if you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that you are making precisely the point that I wanted to make? I regretted having to raise this point in the middle of the Secretary of State's statement. The right hon. Gentleman, deliberately to some extent, went wider than you asked when you called the private notice question to be answered. That is why I am raising this point of order. I submit that the Secretary of State has no more rights than any Back Bencher in this House when it comes to obeying the Chair. I must put it to you, Mr. Speaker—I do so with regret — that the right hon. Gentleman is not carrying out the wishes of the Chair. That being so, it must mean that the whole issue has now been broadened. If he makes that type of statement, the whole issue must be broadened.

§ Mr. Peter Hordern (Horsham)
rose——

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I say again to the House that I granted this private notice question on a single issue, and we cannot broaden it. That is exactly why I made my statement and why I granted the private notice question. I might well have had to take other matters into consideration if I had granted a different type of private notice question.

§ Mr. Michael Morris
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you please to protect the rights of my right hon. Friend, who is answering this private notice question to the best of his ability?

Several hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State is in exactly the same position, as the hon. Member for 649 Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) pointed out, as every other Member of the House. The same rules apply to the Front Benches as to the Back Benches.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), may I ask you to give an assurance that now that the matter has been widened by the Secretary of State, by bringing in other matters, Back Benchers will be able to come into the discussion on the same lines on to which the right hon. Gentleman ventured? Will you also take into account the fact that we expect the Secretary of State to move in such diverse ways? The right hon. Gentleman must think that he is operating another Slater Walker trust that travels all over the world.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall not allow the question to go wider, whatever the Secretary of State said — [Interruption.]—which he should not have said—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"] — and the House will know that I asked him twice not to do so. I shall allow questions strictly in relation to the matter on which I granted the private notice question.

Several hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If any right hon. or hon. Member wishes to proceed on that basis I shall be willing to call him, within the parameters of the time available. I must warn the House that we have two statements to follow and an important Bill to debate.

§ Mr. Walker
Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. I must point out to the House that I was asked a question about the decision of certain trade unions. There has been no decision of certain trade unions; there has been a pronouncement of certain trade union leaders. I submit, therefore, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that it is perfectly in order in reply to this question—[Interruption.]—for me to suggest what those trade unions might take into consideration in coming to their conclusions.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask the House to calm down about this. I hope very much that the Secretary of State's office received a copy of the private notice question. If it had, he would then have seen that it concerned the decision by the transport unions and not a wide range of other unions. I shall now take questions, for not more than five minutes, specifically on the question that was asked. I repeat it for the benefit of the House. The Secretary of State was asked whether, in the light of the decision of the transport unions to support the National Union of Mineworkers, he will make a statement on energy supplies.

§ Mr. Benn
Everyone understands the Secretary of State's difficulty. He ran the three-day week 10 years ago as Secretary of State for Industry——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The same rules apply.

§ Mr. Benn
—and was rejected after a ballot of the nation.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to persist in that line.

§ Mr. Benn
I was drawing attention to the reason why the Secretary of State would not answer the question.
What I want to know is what the Secretary of State is obliged by the Act to tell the House — how long the present stocks of coal and coke will last at current rates of 650 production, distribution and consumption. Has the Ministry of Defence been consulted, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the escalation of the dispute which gave rise to my question is due to the policy of the National Coal Board in setting aside all consultation procedures and the action of the police in making peaceful picketing impossible?
Will the Secretary of State now please answer the question?

§ Mr. Walker
If we are commenting on histories at the Department of Energy, I must tell the House that few people have a worse record than the right hon. Gentleman for lower investment, worse pay and much less generous redundancy payments in the coal industry.
I am pleased to say that the power stations have very considerable coal stocks.

§ Mr. Benn
How much?

§ Mr. Walker
They are certainly likely to last about six months. In other industries stocks vary according to the industry concerned. In the interests of the coal industry, however, I hope that supplies of coal will not stop, thus preventing firms from converting to coal.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)
Will my right hon. Friend accept that members of the Transport and General Workers Union such as I have no more been consulted on our leaders' decision in relation to the coal dispute than have members of the National Union of Mineworkers nationally? Will he encourage Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to state their view on a national ballot of those directly involved?

§ Mr. Walker
I agree with my hon. Friend that at a time when the coal industry is enjoying such high investment and such good prospects for the future it is a great pity that, seemingly against the wishes of the majority of the national executive and the majority of those who voted, no ballot has been allowed.

§ Mr. Eadie
The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Transport and General Workers Union is part of the triple alliance. What was the advice given to him as Secretary of State for Energy as to the part that would be played by the triple alliance in the event of an industrial dispute in the mining industry?

§ Mr. Walker
That is an interesting point, especially in relation to what the triple alliance should do in Nottinghamshire, for example, where the majority of the miners' part of the triple alliance are at work and want to work. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the other parts of the triple alliance should take industrial action against them?

§ Mr. Kenneth Carlisle (Lincoln)
Will my hon. Friend advise those enterprises whose business and job prospects are being damaged by lack of fuel that they have legal rights against secondary picketing?

§ Mr. Walker
I think that people are aware of their rights. In the interests of the coal industry, however, I should point out that the prospects for increased coal consumption in the future — in December, 78 firms applied for grants for conversion to coal, but in March the figure was down to two — are being considerably damaged by the present action.

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is considerable 651 concern in Scotland today over newspaper reports on the effect that any threat to supplies might have on the future viability of the Ravescraig steel plant? What steps will the Government take to ensure the continued viability of that plant in any crisis?

§ Mr. Walker
I hope that coal and coke supplies will continue flowing into our major steel plants. I know of the considerable disquiet expressed about any danger to jobs, including the disquiet of a leading trade unionist whose union is part of the triple alliance.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Will my right hon. Friend suggest that while the transport workers are making their decisions they should take into account that Arthur Scargill, the Galtieri of the coalfields, has no interest whatever in the future of the coal mining industry but is using the NUM — or abusing it — for purely political purposes to confront the Government?

§ Mr. Walker
I can only express the hope that all of the important questions at stake on pay, the likelihood of closures, the massive investment in the coal industry, and the generosity of redundancy payments for those who wish to volunteer for redundancy will be carefully considered by the miners and that they will be allowed to express their views.

§ Mr. Orme
In view of the serious effect of this escalating dispute upon employment and industry, which makes it a national issue, what action will the Secretary of State and the Government take to bring both sides together? The right hon. Gentleman cannot stand idly by any longer. He has a responsibility to intervene to bring both sides together.

§ Mr. Walker
I find it astounding that if the right hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about the nature of this industrial dispute—I am sure he is—he does not urge that the members of the NUM should be given an early opportunity to say how they wish the matter to be handled.