My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now make a Statement on the recent fuel protests, the resultant shortages and the Government response.
At the end of the first week of September, following extensive action by French protestors to block roads and ports and protest about high fuel prices, small groups of farmers and lorry drivers began blockading oil refineries in Britain, thus threatening essential services.
From the start the Government made it clear that this was not the British way and that no government could allow policy to be dictated by demonstrators threatening to choke off fuel supplies while disrupting national distribution systems.
The Government therefore made clear their determination to put procedures in place to protect essential services and return supplies to normal as soon as possible because of the threat to employment, the disruption to services and indeed the risk to lives. The necessary Order in Council was made under the Energy Act 1976 to give us precautionary reserve powers.
The ministerial Civil Contingencies Committee was convened to receive reports and to co-ordinate emergency action being taken around the country. The oil industry's standing emergency committee monitored the changing situation in the refineries and throughout the fuel distribution system.
Some 3,200 petrol stations--about one in four--together with 2,500 fuel depots were designated priority suppliers. Oil companies were requested to direct available fuel to keep those pumps and depots supplied. Additionally, 300 outlets were designated to supply essential users, including a range of vital business sectors, such as the food industry, as well as the emergency services.
Guidance about these measures was published on government websites and distributed through police statements, local authorities and the NHS. Two call centres were set up to give information to essential users and to the general public.
Although powers had been taken to issue legally binding directions regarding fuel distribution, the arrangements were in fact implemented on a non-statutory basis. Common-sense decisions were made at local level by local authorities working with their local police forces with links across each region to the government offices. Noble Lords may wish to join me in thanking our public servants and those tanker drivers who braved the blockades for the crucial role they played in sustaining and prioritising fuel supplies in difficult circumstances.
My Lords, these events have made clear the vulnerability of modern distribution systems with their "just-in-time" deliveries. Therefore, we must act to make these finely tuned logistical systems more robust and better proofed against disruption.
For that reason, the Prime Minister has set up a task force to seek to ensure that such a situation does not recur. The task force is chaired by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, myself as Minister for Transport, the First Minister of Scotland and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales, plus representatives of the oil industry, trade unions and the police.
In addition, government departments are consulting with the appropriate organisations on the effect of such disruption on the wider community and on measures that might better protect the distribution of goods and services. The Fuel Task Force has already agreed the broad principles of a memorandum of understanding between government, oil companies and police on the handling of any future threat to supplies. That will cover practical arrangements for co-ordination and co-operation required to protect essential services while respecting rights of workers under employment legislation and the right of peaceful protest. We shall ensure that the memorandum of understanding is placed in the Library of the House when it is published.
The task force has also agreed to continue to look at possible legislative changes in criminal law to strengthen the ability of the police to deal with public disorder, and additional civil powers to lay duties or obligations on oil companies similar to those on the gas, water and electricity utilities to maintain essential supplies.
Since the end of the protest I and my colleagues in government have been meeting groups involved with or affected by the protests, such as the Transport and General Workers' Union, which represents the majority of the tanker drivers caught at the centre of the dispute. The trade unions report that, contrary to the broadcast perception, their drivers felt intimidated during the recent protests. The oil companies and their haulage subcontractors confirm that concern, as does the Freight Transport Association, whose 11,000 corporate members dominate road haulage across the UK.
On behalf of the Government I thank the trade unions and the TUC, along with the CBI and those trade associations such as the FTA, for their efforts aimed at ending the recent protests. Involved as they are across every sector of industry and from farm gate to supermarket shelf, they were in no doubt about the extent of the damage in prospect if continuing blockades made drivers too fearful to risk taking out their hazardous loads of fuel.
The Freight Transport Association delegation of senior executives from major road haulage companies who met my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister last week were most concerned that existing channels would be kept open to allow them to inform the Chancellor's consultation process leading through to the pre-Budget Statement this autumn and then to the Budget itself next spring. Of course, that will be done. The FTA has also asked my department to convene a meeting of the Road Haulage Forum (RHF) in the near future.
As Minister for Transport in the DETR--the sponsoring department for the road haulage industry--I endorse that constructive approach. Last year the Road Haulage Forum addressed concerns about competitive pressure in the industry, and industry members welcomed the Chancellor's subsequent decision in this year's Budget to abolish the fuel duty escalator and to reduce selectively vehicle excise duty.
No doubt arguments advanced in the Road Haulage Forum also contributed to the Chancellor's decision to increase transport spending by 20 per cent per annum in the July spending review and to the commitment to the £180 billion of investment anticipated by the recent 10-year plan for transport. Other government decisions influenced by the needs of the haulage industry include the introduction of 44-tonne lorries and legislation in the Transport Bill now before your Lordships to impound trucks operating illegally.
Our willingness to listen is further evidenced by meetings held by Ministers at the DETR and at the Ministry of Agriculture last week with groups including companies and individuals in haulage, farming and related activities, some of whom were involved in recent protests, who wished to convey to us their concerns about the cost of fuel and its effect on the profitability of their businesses.
We listened last week, as we have listened for the past 18 months at seven full gatherings of the Road Haulage Forum and at the regular meetings of its various sub-groups. As my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said on Monday to groups who demand cheaper fuel:
"We hear them loud and clear just as we also hear people when they say they want cleaner air and a better environment".
In addition, he said:
"Of course there are real problems. Of course we will listen. Of course we do act. But we will deal with those problems through proper democratic representations in the budget process".
Subsequently, the Prime Minister on Tuesday said that he, too, understood the anger over high fuel prices and acknowledged that for hauliers and farmers, as well as for ordinary motorists, there can be real hardship. That would ensure that their needs were ranked with competing claims in the Budget-setting process.
The impact of more expensive fuel is, of course, provoking disruption across Europe. Last week European transport Ministers met in extraordinary session to discuss common solutions to shared problems. Problems of intense and, it is alleged, sometimes unfair competition in the haulage industry and pressures on profit margins from the rising cost of fuel in other sectors of the economy are common across Europe.
Noble Lords will note that protests have also taken place in countries with lower fuel duties than in the United Kingdom and have also included groups in the UK who pay little or no duty on certain fuels, such as farmers and fishermen. Further, noble Lords will no doubt be aware that, when taxation is looked at in the round, Britain is the least heavily taxed of all major European economies.
The Extraordinary Transport Council discussed ways of ensuring that key routes were kept open for the international movement of goods and services during domestic disputes. It also resolved to set up a road haulage forum for Europe, emulating the initiative taken 18 months ago here in the UK--a decision that we, of course, endorsed.
I hope that recent events and the statements made this week by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor underline that this is a listening Government. The Chancellor also made clear that:
"This national debate is too important to ever be decided by those who shout the loudest or push the hardest. The British way is that every voice must be heard".
I invite your Lordships' House to make it plain that no group should seek to derail democratic decision-making through disruption to essential services.
The Prime Minister also made clear this week that this Government are listening to people's anger over high fuel prices. But he also stressed that government must listen, too, to other priorities, such as extra funding for health services, schools, law and order, public transport and pensioners. This Government must and will govern in the interests of all the people.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
My Lords, we were glad that the protest finished when it did and we hope that there is not a repeat in 60 days' time, as threatened. However, that does not alter the fact that we have a great deal of sympathy for those who were involved in the protest: people who genuinely believe that their livelihoods are at stake because of the enormous increase in the cost of fuel duty and petrol.
I remind the House that we on this side have been calling for action on fuel duty for many months, if not years, and we voted against the increase in the last Budget. No doubt I shall be reminded that it was the Conservative government who introduced the fuel duty escalator in the first place. However, that was at a time when the price of crude oil was very much lower than it is now. The thing about escalators is that one gets off when one gets to the top.
Since this Government came into office, they have increased the average cost of unleaded petrol from 59p a litre to its current price of over 80p. Sixteen pence of the 26p increase in petrol has been due to increased taxation and fuel duty. Britain has the second cheapest pre-tax petrol in the European Union, behind only Germany. However, once tax is added on, Britain leaps to the top of the price league table and fuel is 23 per cent more expensive than the European Union average. Can we really be proud that we have the most expensive fuel in the whole of Europe, probably the most expensive in the world?
As I said, when we introduced the fuel tax escalator United Kingdom petrol was the third cheapest in Europe. The present Government increased the escalator to 6 per cent in June 1997. They held three Budgets in their first 21 months and increased petrol by at least 6 per cent above inflation each time, that is, three annual increases in less than two years. It does not stop there. In the 1999 Budget they increased diesel by 12 per cent, which had a devastating effect on hauliers.
Even in this year's Budget, although the Government stopped the fuel duty escalator, they put up the price of petrol by 3.3 per cent, which was allegedly what the rate of inflation was going to be in September 2000. I do not want to embarrass the Minister by mentioning pensions, but it was in the same Budget that a 1.1 per cent increase in the rate of inflation for increasing pensions resulted in the well-known figure of 75 pence, which does not now even buy a litre of petrol.
Under this Government the average motorist is paying around £350 more per year for petrol. In the spring of 1997 it cost £37 to fill a Ford Mondeo; now it costs £52. As I said, we have consistently opposed these fuel tax rises. We urged the Chancellor to end the annual increases in fuel duty two years before he finally claimed that he would stop the fuel tax escalator. We have pledged that we will cut fuel tax by at least 3p per litre when we return to office. That can easily be afforded.
Can the Minister say what is the current estimate for North Sea revenues? It was £4.3 billion at the time of the Budget, with oil at 22 dollars. What is it now with oil at around 30 dollars? It is estimated, according to National Audit Office figures, that the Treasury receives £330 million extra revenue a year for every one dollar rise in world oil prices due to higher VAT, petroleum revenue tax, North Sea royalties and corporation tax. So the time has come when we need to see a reduction in fuel duty.
These protests were not just about the price of fuel for hauliers and farmers. They were also about the extra regulations and red tape that the Government have piled on to small businesses. It is no wonder that the protestors had, according to the opinion polls, the support of some 90 per cent of the population.
I ask the Minister a couple of questions about the list of priority filling stations--those for essential services-- which he mentioned in his Statement. Is it true that the list was inaccurate at the time it was posted on the website and that some of the sites did not actually exist and had not been petrol stations for quite some time? I hope the noble Lord can give the House an assurance that the list is being brought up to date.
Secondly, are the emergency regulations to which the Minister referred still in force or would they have to be reintroduced if another emergency arose?
As I said at the beginning, it is to be hoped that such a situation will not arise again, but it is now up to the Government to take action on fuel duty.
My Lords, we thank the Minister for a long, complicated and detailed Statement. I am sure he will forgive me if I do not respond to or ask a question on every point. Indeed, he will probably be thankful if I do not! It is certainly alarming that not just the United Kingdom but much of the developed world can be thrown into economic and political trauma by the actions of OPEC. Will the noble Lord tell us what the Government can do to prevent more of what might be called "economic terrorism"? Have the Government met with EU governments to discuss the prevention of any further disruption and to consider whether international action could be taken to prevent it? After all, it has all happened before.
The Minister referred to just-in-time deliveries as a special factor in our current vulnerability. But the vulnerability of the economy to a rapid rise in fuel prices was demonstrated in 1973 and the winter of discontent showed us the result of fuel shortages. Will the noble Lord tell us what national emergency plans were already in existence to deal with a fuel crisis? The Government were criticised for their slow response to the crisis and it is interesting that the Statement contains not a single date or day on which an action was taken. At what point was the civil contingency unit put on alert? On what date did the Government first make contact with the oil companies about the breakdown of supplies to the pumps?
The Government are also vulnerable to a charge of not advising the public on how to cope with the crisis. During a drought, government and others advise consumers about how to use less water. I am not aware that television, radio and the rest of the media were used by the Government to advise people how to use less fuel during the crisis by car sharing and driving at lower speeds. Why was that not done?
We on these Benches would be the last to wish to reduce the right of peaceful protest, but another cause for concern was the perceived inaction of the police faced with a need to keep the highways open and to ensure the free flow of goods. As the Minister said, tanker drivers did feel threatened. That is the evidence we have. Members of trade unions, it might be pointed out, are not allowed to behave as these protestors did. If I sat down with 20 friends and blocked Dorking High Street we would be removed. So I have some more questions of the Minister. What is the proper role of the police in these circumstances? Did that particular group of protestors get any special treatment? Did the Home Secretary issue advice to the police or were local forces left to exercise their own judgement?
I now turn to the part of the Statement in which the Minister was looking ahead. Will he explain why there may be a need to use legislation to increase the powers of the police to deal with public disorder? The Minister outlined a wide range of measures which the Government are now taking to cope with a possible recurrence of the protest. I welcome the comment made by the Chancellor that this national debate is too important ever to be decided by those who shout the loudest or push the hardest.
It is to be hoped that the measures being taken will result in there not being a recommencement of protests at the end of the so-called 60-day ultimatum issued by the protestors. That manner of dealing with what is real public policy is unacceptable. We on these Benches very much support the Government in their refusal to bow to this kind of protest.
Towards the end of the Statement, the Minister referred to those words of the Chancellor about balancing the claims of those demanding cheaper fuel and those demanding a cleaner environment. The problem is that the fuel duty escalator which has now been abandoned by the Government has never been an environmental tax. As the Chancellor made clear on several occasions during the crisis, fuel duty goes to the Treasury and funds general expenditure. It has not been spent on better public transport. It is not a different sort of taxation. It is simply an extra tax. It is no wonder that motorists resented it, particularly those in rural areas or those whose livelihoods were at stake.
Will the Minister tell us what plans he has to try to temper the wind to the shorn lamb in terms of ensuring, for example, that fuel prices are not additionally expensive in rural areas as they currently are? Will the Minister now tell us whether the Government will use the VAT windfall arising from higher oil prices to support better public transport?
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for the Opposition's rejection of direct actions and of ultimatums by unelected groups. I am indeed grateful and should have been even more grateful had that been stated more loudly by the Benches opposite during the blockades.
The noble Lord made several points about our Budgets. I should point out to him that the last Budget was, indeed, the first for 11 years in which fuel duties were not raised above the rate of inflation. As I said earlier, not only did we abolish the fuel duty escalator but we took £1,800 off the vehicle excise duty on a 40-tonne, five-axle lorry in direct response to the concerns of the haulage industry. I should point out that since that Budget, only 2p out of the 19p rise in the price of petrol has been caused by fuel duty.
As for the recent gesture made by the Shadow Cabinet, I should say that when meeting protesters last week, the one thing which united them was their derision about the 3p offered by the Benches opposite on a day when Safeway, responding to the market, put up its fuel prices by 5p per litre.
The noble Lord mentioned the pension index calculation. I believe that that is based on a method of assessment which we inherited from the previous government; but I point out again to the House the dramatic increase in the price of crude oil from 10 dollars a barrel to 30 dollars a barrel at present.
Clearly Budget-setting processes cannot be based on the price of such a volatile commodity. But I point noble Lords opposite towards that budget-setting process as a way for us to advance our arguments in your Lordships' House and to ensure that all parties outside understand the nature of that democratic process.
On the question of the priority filling stations, no doubt when one is issuing orders directed at 3,200 stations across the country, there are inaccuracies. However, I was impressed by the way that the oil companies, the police and the local authorities worked together with the government offices. Our task force will be bringing all of those lists up to date in the process of co-ordination, co-operation and communication in which it is now engaged.
The emergency regulation orders still stand. As I said, it was not necessary to implement them. The actions during the events of the past two weeks were all carried out on a non-statutory basis.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. We have met other EU governments. It is well understood that this is a common problem. We had a meeting in Luxembourg at which a number of shared concerns were raised. Many countries were particularly worried about the very low profit margins in the haulage industry and about the competition that was coming in from eastern Europe and the exploitation of loopholes in Community legislation which allowed some countries to bring in east European drivers who were working for well below the rates prevalent in the rest of the EU.
Questions are raised in that regard as to how we can put in place better systems of communication--hotlines--which will ensure that British tourists and British lorry drivers do not suffer the kind of discrimination which was evident in some of the protests, particularly in France in recent times. I met bilaterally with the French Transport Minister to try to emphasise our concern about actions which needed to be taken if that situation arose again.
As for our national emergency plans, I believe that the calling together of the contingency committee and the other supporting organisation inside the Cabinet Office was carried out as expediently as was necessary. That action was taken on Monday, 13th September, to the best of my knowledge. We were in contact with the oil companies over that weekend.
As to why we did not use television and radio, we wanted to try to keep a proportionate response. We felt that what we were doing, in conjunction with the various authorities which were mentioned earlier, got the information over in a way that certainly informed the essential users.
There has been a suggestion of inaction by the police. The police had a very difficult role in balancing the needs of genuine peaceful protest with the need to keep the fuel moving. Ministers clearly expect that the law will be enforced but that was an operational matter. It was for chief officers to decide how best to deal with that.
There are a number of police powers and a range of offences under public order law which can be enforced where behaviour becomes intimidatory or disorderly. The police can also act to prevent obstruction of the highway.
The noble Baroness asked about any instructions which we gave to the police. We did not issue the police with any instructions on how to end the protests as we felt that that would infringe the operational responsibility of the police. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it very clear that he expected to see the law upheld vigorously. The police were in regular contact with the Home Office during the protests to keep Ministers informed.
As for fuel prices in rural areas, I understand the problems. I realise the complexities of those issues. But yet again, I believe that those are best addressed inside the Budget process.
The noble Baroness referred to the VAT windfall. Although there may be a windfall from petroleum revenue tax--with the volatility of the price, one will not know that until the end of the financial year--I must emphasise that, as the Chancellor has said, there is no VAT windfall because VAT is very largely recoverable by the businesses involved in this. Of course, in terms of the spending of disposable income, money that is not spent and "VATted" on fuel would be money spent and "VATted" on something else. So there is a displacement factor there.
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on providing a listening response to this matter. However, I urge him not to listen to people who talk economic nonsense. Where the world oil market is driving up the price of oil, I hope that he does not fall into the trap--I am sure that he will not--of assuming that one can use the tax system somehow to offset those market forces. That would be a serious error. One cannot possibly insulate those who use oil from the market forces which are at work.
I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that the French Government, acting apparently in panic, seem to have done precisely that. Certainly when I was in France last week, the French budget appeared to have been thrown totally into disarray by the open-ended commitment given by M. Jospin. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to reassure me that the Government will not listen to those who really do not wish to face reality. The fact is that when oil becomes expensive, those who use it must face up to the consequences. Much as the Government would like to help, they cannot possibly shield them from those powerful market forces.
My Lords, I note that cogent advice. Perhaps I may add that relatively tight oil markets together with low product stocks are the main reasons for high oil prices. In addition, the introduction of the OPEC price band of 22 to 28 dollars per barrel of oil has added to the speculative pressures in the market. The Government have been active on all issues relating to the oil market. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have recently commented on oil prices, noted their unsustainability at current high levels and urged OPEC to take actions to calm the market.
My Lords, I accept all that has been said about the character of the protests. However, would the Minister also accept that there is a huge level of public frustration around these issues? That is partly to do with the feeling that a policy of trying to control fuel consumption by rising prices is doomed to create frustration rather than success. Moreover, there are significant numbers of people, not least in our rural communities, who suffer real hardship as a consequence.
I accept that there are provisions for our farming communities. Nevertheless, their families and the communities in which they live have considerable distances to travel to get their children to school and to get to services. Can the Minister assure the House that, having abandoned the regulator on fuel, the Government will give fresh thought to the principles at stake in the pricing policy on fuel? Can he give the House any evidence that the policy which has been pursued by successive governments over a long time has had any success in controlling fuel consumption?
My Lords, in recent years, the growth in the levels of traffic has reduced. The price of fuel may have contributed to that reduction, as may congestion. The decision by the Chancellor to abolish the fuel duty escalator was evidence that the high price of oil was doing a job which made it unnecessary to introduce further taxation, and the price of oil has pushed beyond that.
The problems of the countryside are complex. We have tried to address them through our investment in 2,000 new rural bus services. A rural White Paper is in prospect and should be published in a few weeks' time. It will deal in detail with the whole question of transport in the countryside. It should be noted that the fuel duty escalator, introduced by the previous government, was designed to have an environmental impact. It has been estimated that the increase in duty between 1996 and 1999 will reduce the carbon output between 1 million and 2.5 million tonnes by 2010. So it appears to have had a beneficial environmental impact.
My Lords, I repeat that we dealt with this sudden crisis in a way which restored normality within a reasonable period. I believe we were also open to lobbying from the various groups involved. I listed earlier the activities of the Road Haulage Forum and the actions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget. Those include a far more significant investment in transport than would have been imaginable to this House only a year or so ago. I do not believe there is a need for apology, but a need to understand the widespread frustration and concern. Perhaps the noble Lord should lift his eyes a little from party political point scoring, look at the situation across Europe and try to understand what has been happening there.
My Lords, in view of the Opposition statement that they are against direct action, does my noble friend join with me in asking them to disown their leader when he refers to the demonstrators as being fine upstanding citizens? Will he also ask them to point out to those people that action in favour of tax cuts, which puts lives at risk, is totally unnecessary in the democratic society we have in Britain?
My Lords, I confirm that among those I met who had been on blockades were many decent, concerned and properly anxious people who were trying to run businesses on tight margins. However, I also listened to John Ashton, a brave executive from the health service on Merseyside who went along to Stanlow. He stated that, while there were fine, upstanding citizens there, there were also some people who were very unpleasant, particularly when it became clear that one was not in support of their cause. There is nothing exceptional in that situation. It is probably one which could have been found on many a barricade and protest in the past.
My Lords, first does the Minister agree that oil is a scarce and diminishing resource which we must use more economically in future? The sooner the country and the world takes on board that message, the better. Most of my comments result from my experience in the police authority and county council during the fuel crisis. Perhaps I may say that the channels of communication to which the Minister referred were slow to act. If there is a future crisis, they will need to act more quickly.
Secondly, it is clear from the work of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that speed reduction, less use of the accelerator, and not using the car for the 50 per cent of journeys which are less than two miles, will save far more than 3p a litre; and probably 6p or 7p per litre. If people really wish to economise, there is a means at their disposal which is easy to take and, according to my information, results in much slower speeds, fewer accidents and less air pollution.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider whether the obstruction of the highway by heavy moving lorries is covered by the present law. I believe the law of obstruction relates to stationary vehicles, and that may need to be attended to. We know that we live in "just in time" supply days. All bus companies and most hauliers have low stocks of fuel. One of the reasons for that is the high tax rate. Can the Minister consider an arrangement whereby if people hold strategic stocks of fuel there is a method of rebating the tax?
As regards rural dwellers, does the Minister agree that spending money on home insulation would do far more than having cuts in fuel duty? Lastly, would he consider the question of extending fuel duty rebate for buses and community transport? Bus fares in rural areas are affected and services are being cut back hard because of the cost of fuel.
My Lords, I endorse the comments of the noble Lord regarding the encouragement of alternative fuels. As he will know, in the budget we put more money into the Powershift Programme. There were many enlightening examples of the use of alternative fuels during the recent problems.
I welcome the emphasis placed by the noble Lord on what is a current DETR advertising campaign--that is, what can be gained from more intelligent and economical driving--and his emphasis on better insulation. The channels of communication may at times not have been up to the mark. That is a matter which will be addressed by the task force, along with the question of what stocks might be held and where they would best be held.
As regards obstruction of the highway, the highway authorities can sue for obstruction. There are also traffic commissioners who keep their eye on various offences and try to ensure that licensed hauliers are people of good repute. The Highways Act 1980 makes it an arrestable offence wilfully to obstruct the free passage of traffic. But through the task force the police will no doubt be advising us as to whether they feel the need for further powers.
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that as well as listening, which is to be commended, the Government must also remember? In that connection, I live fairly close to Cortonwood colliery where, as the constituency MP, I was assured that the colliery had five years' life and learnt five weeks later that it was to close straightaway.
The men at Cortonwood campaigned. They were not called "salt of the earth"; they were called "the enemy within" by noble Lords opposite, one of whom may be speaking shortly. Is my noble friend aware that those men committed no crime which led them to be sacked when the strike ended, but scores of them were prosecuted for obstruction? Has that law changed? What would have happened to the miners if they had driven at five miles an hour in an agricultural vehicle fuelled by red diesel? Does my noble friend also accept that, in listening, the Government should not take action whereby the farmers forfeit the public sympathy which allowed the Government to provide substantial support for that industry?
My Lords, I hear with sympathy what my noble friend says. But I do not believe a lot will be gained by my speculating retrospectively on the events of 15 years ago.
My Lords, I am proud to have earned the friendship of the Attorney-General. Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, can the Minister tell us the exact date on which he and his colleagues decided that it was immoral and wrong that those with industrial power should use it in industrial disputes to try and change the policy of a government? They have some explaining to do as to the precise time when that change took place.
My Lords, as I said in reply to the previous question, I do not like to speculate retrospectively about events 15 years ago. However, I do not recall this party then being in favour of anything which would disrupt or derail the democratic process. Again, from a lifetime of experience of being involved in or covering trade union activities, it has often been the role of the Trade Union Congress to ensure that, after a disruption of the kind we saw--certainly on the union side--people got back to work in good order as soon as possible.
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the same day that the oil companies in this country threatened to put up the price of diesel by 2p, the same oil company in Holland reduced it by 2p? Does not that demonstrate the futility of trying to adjust oil prices by changing the tax? Is my noble friend also aware that some of the independent suppliers of the oil companies and other multinationals are asked by the same companies to carry the increased cost without any increase in payment? I am sure that that is part of the reason for the frustration of the small suppliers. Will my noble friend agree that that is much more the challenge of the future rather than trying to adjust the price of fuel per se?
My Lords, I have every sympathy with the position of the small suppliers, which has been significantly worsened by this dispute. I read today in the Evening Standard that a number of them may go out of business because of the impact of recent events. The cost to business of those events was put by the Institute of Directors at around £1 billion. I have no doubt therefore that the decision to return to their own work and leave the barricades was encouraged by a growing sense relayed to them by the farm industry and others as to exactly what damage they would do to the rest of business. I take, too, my noble friend's point in relation to the shifts in the market against any specific change in the national tax rate. But concerted action by the governments in Europe should encourage OPEC to think again about its present policies.
My Lords, the Minister indicated that the national emergency committee met on Monday 13th September. Monday was the 11th and Wednesday the 13th. I shall be grateful if he will clarify to the House on which particular day it met. Is he aware that a number of noble Lords, myself included, experienced the situation in France? The big difference in France was that it was clear that the police requisitioned individual filling stations for use by the emergency services. That was singularly in contrast to what happened in the United Kongdom. To that end, given that in Sandy where I live we have one of the emergency pipeline provision outlets, why were those provisions seemingly not used for supplying the emergency services?
My Lords, bereft of my diary I may have misled the House in speaking as I did. My noble friend next to me lent me her diary which shows me that it was Monday 11th September on which we first got together. In relation to the emergency provision of oil, stocks are held particularly by the Armed Forces. They are a little different in kind from the diesel used elsewhere in civilian life and there is still some question as to their suitability for certain kinds of engine. In the event we were relieved that it was not necessary to call upon those emergency provisions. However, I note what the noble Lord says and it will be taken on board by the task force.
My Lords, can we put this matter in perspective? Can my noble friend confirm that the actions taking place in this country, which were brought to an end, are still continuing in most parts of the Continent where they started at the same time?
My Lords, at the meeting we had in Luxembourg last week it was evident that there were still a whole range of activities going on across the Continent which were of serious concern to the transport ministers there. Indeed, it was not limited to Europe but extended to the United States and even as far as Australia.
My Lords, is there any relationship between a young Gus Macdonald who used to hold up and riot and generally cause mayhem in the Upper Clyde shipyards as a young man, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston? Furthermore, has not there been a long history of rioting influencing Parliament from the poll tax to the Chartists, from the Suffragettes to the Reform Bill? On a much more serious point, can the Minister give us any evidence of intimidation? As the noble Lord said, the trade unions were against taking any industrial action. My daughter, who is a house doctor in Barrow-in-Furness, said that her national health hospital was running perfectly the whole time. Furthermore, has the Minister read what Anatole Kaletsky said in today's Times? The problem is really overregulation and alienation of small industries in the countryside and among the hauliers.
My Lords, I am afraid my modest efforts among the underpaid apprentices in the Upper Clyde some 40 years ago do not stand comparison with some of the other examples cited by the noble Earl. I can assure him that even in those days we never behaved as hooligans, and indeed we grew up.
My Lords, as regards intimidation, I do not want to make assertions. I merely report to the House what we have been told by the trade unions representing the drivers, by the employers who hire the drivers and by the Road Haulage Association whose members were driving at the same time. There is a unanimity of view and I look forward to seeing it pulled together by those parties. Perhaps there will then be a body of evidence for those assertions, but the behaviour of the drivers indicated that some were overly fearful.
As regards the National Health Service, reports which we saw implied that there would be a serious situation across the country not only in hospitals but also as regards health visitors and vulnerable people in the community had they not been able to be serviced by health service workers.
One of the most alarming assertions made during the events was that groups of people at the gates of refineries could somehow decide what was an emergency service and in effect dictate who might live and who might die. There are some 900,000 workers in the NHS and it has been put to me that in many ways people who clean the operating theatres are as important as the people who carry out the operations. Looking at the 30 categories of essential users covering wide areas of the economy, I cannot see that we could have left the right to make such judgments in the hands of small groups outside refineries.