| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.3 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster): I fully support the order. There are law and order issues to be addressed. The people who took it upon themselves to restrict the flow of fuel to the nation were clearly putting lives at risk. They did so with no electoral mandate. They took to themselves rights that are denied to people involved in an industrial dispute. The reserve powers were thus needed for the protection of the public.
My second point is on the use of the powers. I had some experience of the crisis in the London borough of Havering, where the community management team worked to keep essential services going. The community management team is made up of the police, the local authority and representatives of the health and emergency services. It met immediately the fuel crisis arose, and put into effect policies to assist wherever possible.
After the crisis ended, the team reported to the community planning forum to which Members of Parliament in my area are invited. We discussed the powers and how efficient the team's planning had been. The only criticism was that there had been a lack of co-ordination at a central level in terms of the guidance that was given by Government Departments. At a local level, plans were made to meet the problems of keeping fuel flowing and providing special services, but the implementation of those plans was not helped by the different advice received from different Departments.
Different parts of the country had different experiences, so it would be useful to analyse those experiences to see whether the reserve powers will be able to deal with circumstances such as that arose during the crisis. An inquiry or report into those experiences should be debated on the Floor of the House, because it may be necessary to have different reserve powers on the statute book in future so that much more efficient arrangements can be put in place. I do not want to be critical, because the crisis was a unique experience that arose suddenly; none the less, I would like to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister's response to those points.
11.7 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): I want to ask a few brief questions. I have the privilege of having the headquarters of the defence fuel group in my constituency and the crisis has shown the importance of that tri-service organisation. Its reorganisation has proved to be effective and the group has worked hard to make contingency plans. I would like to show my appreciation of the work that it has done.
Is it correct to suggest that, as a result of the introduction of ultra-low sulphur petrol and ultra-low sulphur diesel, this country will depend increasingly on imported refined products? Traditionally, we have refined the product in this country, having imported it in an unrefined state. However, is the ability of United Kingdom refineries to deliver the Chancellor of the Exchequer's commitment that everyone would have access to ultra-low sulphur petrol by next March achievable only--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying outside the terms of this debate. I would be grateful if he would confine his remarks to the order and its effects.
Mr. Chope: I shall certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is my understanding that, under the powers in the order, the Secretary of State can intervene to direct the distribution and production of particular types of fuel. Because the order will extend over the next 12 months, will the Minister tell us whether it can be used in any circumstances to ensure that ultra-low sulphur petrol is distributed to 100 per cent. of petrol stations by March, as the Chancellor has said it would be?
Under the price control mechanisms in the order, did the Department--and particularly the Prime Minister--intervene in September to ensure that the price of petrol at filling stations did not rise above 79.9p immediately after the ending of the fuel protest and at the start of the 60-day period? It has been said that the Prime Minister used influence--backed, perhaps, by the powers in this order--to put pressure on the oil companies to keep down the price of fuel at the filling station. Consequently the wholesale price of diesel increased by about 8p a litre, and within a fortnight no fewer than 164 of the country's small filling stations went out of business. They will not reopen, and that will exacerbate the distribution problem to which the Minister referred in her opening remarks. I would be grateful if she could tell us who took responsibility for that price control exercise, and under which powers.
Will the Minister also deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), among others, about the impact of tax on the availability of stocks? As I understand it, filling stations large and small have to pay the 75 per cent. tax on fuel as soon as it is brought out of the refinery and delivered to them. Not surprisingly, they do not want to hold large stocks that they cannot sell within two or three days if they have to pay that much tax in advance. However, the refineries do not have to account to the Exchequer for the tax that they receive from the filling stations for 60 days. Does the Minister accept that the need for the order would have been significantly reduced if the Government had changed the tax regime as it impacts on individual filling stations?
Finally, the Minister said that many lessons had been learned in the past few weeks. Do the Government now believe that it would be more sensible to make greater use of pipeline distribution of fuel than has been the case hitherto?
11.12 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I return to my earlier point about the definition of priority users which was picked up by the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). I understand that under the current arrangements, which were introduced in September in the order approved by the Privy Council, priority users are defined by local authorities even though they may service the whole of the United Kingdom. In my area and elsewhere, that led to confusion. The arrangement also makes it difficult for people to access information about priority users centrally because central Government Departments will tell them to ask their local authority, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said.
Would it not be better if priority user categories were decided centrally? Otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has pointed out, and as the events of the past few months have demonstrated, there will be confusion locally and nationally. There may also be a sense of injustice because someone who may be regarded as a priority user by one local authority is not regarded as such elsewhere. Such an arrangement does not work well for industry advisers or for those who are trying to go about their business.
11.13 pm
Mrs. Liddell: I have taken careful note of several points that have been made. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a common-sense point, and I undertake to ensure that my officials consider it carefully.
I regret to say that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has misjudged the seriousness of the situation that we are discussing. He sought an opportunity to engage in party political tit for tat, and the importance of these issues transcends that. I urge him to take a leaf out of the book of his colleague Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who spoke on these matters in another place. We are discussing steps to ensure the protection of the vulnerable in our society and of the prosperity of the nation.
Mr. Gibb: I accept that these points are very serious, but I do not believe that the right hon. Lady believes that they are very serious. If she did, she would have agreed to the recall of Parliament as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a few days after the order was laid. If such matters are so important, why did not she, her party and the Prime Minister recall Parliament?
Mrs. Liddell: The greater responsibility at the time was to ensure that the country was no longer disrupted. Indeed, that view has been broadly shared among many hon. Members. I deplore the way in which the hon. Gentleman is trying to engage in a post mortem of a situation in September. He asked why the order is before the House this evening. It is because the order runs out on 19 November and it is important to ensure that the Government can take action if necessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there was not an earlier debate. I suspect that he has not been paying attention. There was a debate on the fuel crisis during the first week
following the summer recess--the week beginning 23 October. The Home Secretary made a statement on 2 November. In another place, there was an oral question on the matter on 5 October, and a debate on the order on 7 November. There have been many opportunities to debate the fuel crisis. Tonight, we are about trying to ensure that we have the measures in place to protect essential services and the prosperity of the nation should there be future disruption in the event of action taken at filling stations or elsewhere.The Energy Act 1976 provides the Government with temporary and exceptional powers to regulate or prohibit the production, supply, acquisition or use of fuel and electricity, either where there is imminent and actual threat of emergency in the UK affecting fuel or electricity supplies, or to meet international obligations. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to that. We must meet certain international obligations. I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the oil industry. Some of his points on changes in the way in which the oil industry does its business were very important. The introduction of the just-in-time system, not just in the oil industry but in manufacturing, was very much underlined by the situation that we faced in September.
While I am on health and safety issues, I should point out that, following Piper Alpha, any one employee in the oil industry who has an anxiety about safety may, without reference to a superior, cause a stoppage or conclude the process in which he or she is involved. That is understandable in the wake of Piper Alpha.
I know from discussions with tanker drivers--I visited the refineries--that many were very much aware of what they were driving. In effect, as the hon. Member for Twickenham explained, they were driving a highly explosive device--a mobile bomb. Because of the 180 cases of intimidation, details of which are available in the Library, drivers were anxious about what might happen to them. There were instances of bricks, plumb lines and so on being thrown from bridges, and of tankers being forced on to the hard shoulder. That is very frightening not just for the tanker driver but for society in general. The worry about what might happen was considerable. The issue of health and safety must predominate in the oil industry, and I, as the Minister with responsibility for Energy, would not want it to be otherwise.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the use of Ministry of Defence drivers. Such drivers have been trained, but in the hope that it will not be necessary to use them. I should point out, however, that, in directing those controlling the tankers to co-operate with the police or the military in securing supplies, we are not taking powers directly to requisition tankers. That is an important point, which must be borne in mind.
The Emergency Powers Act 1920 provides wide powers to make regulations which could be used to control goods or instruct members of the public or companies where the community's essentials of life or transport system are threatened by disruption of the supply and distribution of goods, including fuels. In such circumstances, the Act could be used to requisition tankers or create exclusion zones around specific sites. However, I am sure that the House, like me, hopes that the likelihood of that is extremely remote.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tried to make political capital out of the previous orders that were laid. The speed, scale and effect of the disruption last time took everyone by surprise, and measures had to be implemented quickly. I accept that there was a degree of confusion, and we have reviewed the arrangements so that we are better prepared for any repetition of the disruption. The changes in the regulations reflect consultation with business, local authorities and the police. Rather than criticise, Conservative Members should congratulate local authorities, the police and business throughout the country on the hard work that they put in to ensure that fuel supplies were maintained as far as possible and normality returned as quickly as possible.
The orders demonstrate flexibility in a fast-moving situation. We are trying to ensure that we have in place orders that allow us to act flexibly and to take into account the nature of future disruption, which I hope will not occur.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |