HL Deb 12 March 1985 vol 461 cc117-8

2.50 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the total additional cost so far to the CEGB of burning oil instead of coal during the coal industry dispute, and how it is intended that such additional cost should be financed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon)

My Lords, now that the strike is over the Government will be considering with the industry the costs they have incurred. It is too early to indicate what these are likely to amount to. No decisions have yet been taken on how these additional costs will be financed. The Government have noted the views of the Electricity Council, the Electricity Consumers' Council, and other bodies, that the strike costs should not be met by the electricity consumer, and will consider this carefully.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, but is it not possible for him now to confirm the press reports that up to the end of January the total additional cost of oil burning was £1,800 million? Is it not possible by now to confirm that figure? In the light of the Chancellor's statement on 31st July, does the noble Earl agree that the cost of the miners' strike represented a worthwhile investment for the nation, that the whole nation should bear the total cost of extra oil burnt and not just the electricity industry and electricity consumers? Finally, can I have the noble Earl's assurance—and we need his assurance—that any attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to swing the burden on to electricity consumers will be firmly resisted by himself and, indeed, by the Secretary of State for Energy?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot comment on the accuracy of any such figures. I suggest to the noble Lord that he waits until the CEGB annual accounts are out. All that matters to Her Majesty's Government is the total effect of the strike on public sector cash flow. The accounting losses of individual industries are only one input to that equation. I understand that during the Budget Statement my right honourable friend is going to seek to provide an updated assessment on the cost of the strike and that, of course, will be the Government's.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, should not some part of the cost of the strike be borne by the political parties which supported it?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, can my noble friend yet say whether there is a figure available for the total value of capital equipment lost through this strike, together with a figure for the number of jobs lost in consequence?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, again, it is too early for us to produce any overall picture. I can only suggest that my noble friend waits with patience.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, is it not welcome news that one large company has today announced its decision to convert two huge oil-fired boilers to coal? Now that the strike is over and coal supplies may, therefore, be thought to be more secure, should not this example be followed by other companies to the great benefit of the coal industry?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing our attention to the coal conversion scheme. This did not, of course, go very well over the past 12 months. We very much hope that it will now go a lot better.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I think it is relevant to the original Question to ask why is it that British oil for domestic consumption is priced in dollars when British gas, coal and other British fuels are priced in sterling?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question.