asked the Paymaster-General if he will ask the Iron and Steel Board to report to him on the provision of additional production facilities at Normanby Iron Works, Cargo Fleet, in order to maintain full employment at those works.

No, Sir. The Board has already informed my noble Friend that no additional facilities are proposed at these works.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these works are owned by the Steel Agency? Could he say why all proposals that have been submitted for the modernisation of this plant have been turned down in recent years? Is it not possible that the Iron and Steel Board is deliberately allowing the plant to run down in order to give assistance to the works' principal privately-owned competitors that manufacture the same product?

The hon. Gentleman should not allow his suspicions to run away with him. I must say that the decisions at issue, which are the relevant issues, on this matter of reconstruction are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for my noble Friend the Minister of Power.

But the Paymaster-General will understand that I have good reason to be suspicious because this affects the employment of my constituents. Is he aware that 400 to 500 of them are affected?

I am aware of the employment position, but doubtful of the suspicions.

asked the Paymaster-General what recent advice he has received from the Gas Council on its plans to pipe gas from the North Midlands to the Home Counties, in relation to schemes of high pressure carbonisation which are subject to his approval.

The Gas Council is examining the problems involved in transmitting gas over long distances, but is not yet in a position to lay any definite conclusions before my noble Friend.

Would it not be as cheap to convey gas by the method outlined in the Question as it is to convey electriciity from the Midlands to the Home Counties?

There are very considerable possibilities in the long-distance conveyance of gas, and they are being studied by the Gas Council; but it would be unwise to make any predictions until we have the benefit of the Council's findings.

asked the Paymaster-General what is the total sum paid in interest on capital and loans by the Gas Council and gas boards in the 10 years, 1949 to 1958.

About £120 million.

Would not the Paymaster-General agree that this industry is expanding, that it is flourishing, that it is in a very satisfactory financial position? Can he, therefore, tell us what the Prime Minister meant when he said in this House a short time ago that this industry was not paying its way?

I do not know the reference which the hon. Gentleman makes. The fact is that the gas industry is having a stiff fight with competition from other fuel industries. We all hope it will be successful. That is why, among other things, we encourage many of its experiments, which seem rather unpopular on the benches opposite.

asked the Paymaster-General what is the total sum paid in interest on capital and loans by the Electricity Authority and the electricity boards in the 10 years 1949 to 1958.

About £340 million, excluding the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board since it was constituted in 1955.

It is a far from negligible figure. Would the Paymaster-General agree that the electricity supply industry is very progressive and very well managed and obviously in a good financial position? As he and his noble Friend have a responsibility for these industries, may I ask whether either he or his noble Friend or both protested when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made those untruthful observations on the industries for which they have responsibility?

Once again, I do not know the reference which the hon. Gentleman makes. The fact is that the electricity industry is doing a good job, but to go into a complete analysis of the comparative strengths and the comparative weaknesses of this and the other nationalised industries at Question Time would not be very easy.

Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite use such words to describe the coal industry when its productivity is higher than it has ever been, what words would they have used to describe its condition in the 'thirties?

Would my right hon. Friend explain to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is no business in the world which does not have to pay interest or dividends or both upon its issued capital? Why should the nationalised industries be an exception in that regard?

Is it not quite clear from the Answers which the right hon. Gentleman has now given to these Questions that all the nationalised industries referred to have not only paid in full their debts to the Government but have met all their commitments to the previous owners of the property?

The fact is that with the assistance of the Government guarantee they have, of course, obtained their capital at lower rates than they would have done without the Government guarantee.

In view of the unsatisfactory Answers, I give notice that I shall raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent stocks of oil intended for use other than by Govern-Departments are being built up; and how much of the expenditure involved will fall on public funds.

Stocks of oil available for Government and for general civil use are increasing. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the levels reached or projected, but the bulk of the cost does not fall on public funds.

Would not the Minister agree that this is another example of Government policy in tipping the scales in favour of oil? Why should the Coal Board be responsible for the cost of stocking coal while the Government are apparently going to be responsible for the cost of stocking oil for private enterprise?

If the hon. Gentleman, studies what I said, he will realise that his supplementary question is quite wrong.

This is rather surprising. Are we to understand that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, cannot disclose information about the piling up of oil stocks is for security reasons? Has that any bearing on the position of the National Coal Board and on the consumption of coal? Are we building up oil stocks and using more oil and encouraging more oil to be used for security reasons?

I answered the Question as best I could. I said that I could not give the actual figures of coal stocks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oil."]—for reasons of national security which are well-known to the right hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend resist the implication that the changeover from coal to oil is due to some act of the Government and has no relation at all to international developments in industry and science?

I should have thought that we had said enough to make anyone except the Opposition believe that anything like that was responsible for the change-over.

On a point of order. The Minister made a Freudian slip and used the word "coal" when he meant "oil"

I think it was a slip of the tongue.

The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. Are we to understand that the Government disclaim any responsibility for the further use of oil by electricity stations or in other fashion for security reasons? Is that the position of the Government? If that is so, how can the Government disclaim responsibility.

The Question I was asked was about stocks of oil. I said it was not in the national interest to disclose the size of stocks. It is perfectly clear why we need stocks of oil, as we do food. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the Defence Department and knows why the figures should not be given.

As the Government spokesman has informed us that £6 million of public money has been provided for extra stocks of oil, is the House not entitled to know what it is getting for its money?

The capital expenditure on a number of things, including oil storage and distribution facilities, is published in the Ministry of Power Vote, Class IX, Vote 6.

asked the Paymaster-General what progress has been made in producing a processed smokeless fuel from coal dust and small coal other than anthracite; and to what extent such a fuel will be available for industry and the domestic consumer in the near future.

Besides having increased supplies of "Warmco" for sale, the National Coal Board hopes to have two new processed smokeless fuels ready for testing on the domestic market in the winter of 1960–61. As small coal can be burned virtually without smoke in suitably equipped industrial plants, there is not the same need to produce a smokeless processed fuel for this purpose.

In view of the continued stocking of coal, will the Minister press on the Board the need for a solution of this question at the earliest possible date.

I do not think any pressure on the Board is called for, as it is doing a very good job here.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that we have the best anthracite in the world and that anthracite is smokeless. Would he not agree that, as part of the campaign to get more smokeless fuel, every encouragement should be given to increase the production of anthracite?

The Question referred to coal other than anthracite.

asked the Paymaster-General what action he has taken to put into effect the several recommendations of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in relation to the National Coal Board.

Information about the action taken on the recommendations of the Report is given in Chapter VI of the Report of the National Coal Board for 1958.

Is it not a fact that if the recommendations of the Select Committee, particularly in the matter of commercial independence for the Coal Board, were fully carried into effect, it would tremendously help the Board in the present situation? Should not the Government, therefore, pay greater attention than hitherto to the Report of the Select Committee, particularly as it was a unanimously agreed all-party Report?

No, Sir, I cannot accept that. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind, as I think he has, the gentleman's agreement on the present policy for coal prices, the Committee did not object to that policy. It wanted to make it stiffer, statutory rather than informal.

What action are the Government taking in respect of the gentleman's agreement? Are they acting on the Report or are they not?

I have made it clear in Answers on more than one occasion that we cannot accept that recommendation. We think that the present gentleman's agreement is, on balance, better for all concerned.

asked the Paymaster-General how much the National Coal Board has paid to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Ministry of Power and the Treasury in interest on capital and loans in the 10 years 1949 to 1958.

About £200 million.

As this is not a negligible figure, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is usually left out of account when Ministers are commenting on our nationalised industries? Further, can he tell us what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant when he said only a week ago that this industry was in a mess, in view of the fact that it is not only in a good financial situation but that British miners produce the cheapest coal in Europe and have the highest output per man-shift?

I think that any figures which were published about the success of an industry and which omitted the capital charges involved would be quite unrealistic.

asked the Paymaster-General how many electricity generating stations are equipped with dual-firing apparatus; and what is the coal equivalent in oil now being consumed at these stations.

As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on 22nd June. In the first 24 weeks of this year these stations consumed oil equivalent to approximately 2·7 million tons of coal.

In view of the extreme difficulties the coal industry is experiencing and in view of the highly prosperous oil industry, will the right hon. Gentleman give directions that these stations should all be turned over to coal burning?

As I said before, the Government would not give directions to any nationalised industry to break commercial contracts.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent he has given general directions to the Central Electricity Generating Board regarding their future plans for coal burning; and what is the possibility of the Central Electricity Generating Board's increasing their annual consumption of coal during the next 10 years.

No general directions have been given to the Board on this subject. The Board is confident, however, that its consumption of coal should increase substantially during the next ten years.

Can we take it, therefore, that in future the Government will not force the Central Electricity Generating Board to burn oil?

I think that all we have said recently about coal and oil should make the Government's position very clear in these matters.

Is it not a fact that the policies of both the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board are in no way governed by restrictions imposed by the present Government but by the terms of the Act passed by the Labour Government?

The real root of the problem is that only a short time ago there was very little prospect of obtaining enough coal to meet our requirements for electricity generation.

asked the Paymaster-General what estimate he received from the Central Electricity Generating Board of the compensation which would be payable to the oil companies for the cancellation of their present contracts for oil for their power stations, before the Government decided not to instruct the Board to cancel these contracts.

None, Sir.

Does not the Paymaster-General think that it would be desirable to know how much the compensation would be so that he could consider whether it would not be right to give a direction to the Electricity Generating Board to use coal where that is economic?

No, Sir. It would be quite wrong for the Government to contemplate giving directions to a nationalised industry to cancel commercial contracts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there was no pressure from the Government on the Board to turn over to oil?

I am talking about commercial contracts. I said that it would be quite wrong for the Government to consider directing a nationalised industry to break a contract. The main reason why the Government were anxious to see more oil consumed a few years ago was that it was not possible for the coal industry to supply the coal which appeared to be necessary.

Then I understand from that answer that the Government did bring pressure to bear on the Board to turn over to oil. That being so, would it not be equally right in the national interest for them now to tell the Board that it had better use coal instead?

The right hon. Gentleman cannot really take that from my answer. He has put down a Question about the cancellation of existing contracts. If he wants information about what happened in the past, perhaps he will put down a Question.

May I press the Paymaster-General? Is it not a fact that the Government did bring pressure to bear on the Board to use oil?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

asked the Paymaster-General whether he is aware that the cost of fuel oil imported from abroad in the year 1958 was £37,208,547, and that it is estimated that the cost in 1959 will be considerably increased; and, in view of the heavy drain which this involves on the national reserves of foreign exchange, what general direction he intends to give to the Central Electricity Generating Board to reduce their present consumption of fuel oil.

The oil industry must be viewed as a whole, and as such it makes a very substantial contribution every year to our balance of payments.

Is not the increasing use of fuel oil for purposes which could be equally well served by coal a very heavy drain on foreign exchange which ought to be avoided?

If coal can equally well be used, I cannot see why oil is taking its place. We must look at the thing as a whole, and the cost paid for importing oil is small compared with the enormous gains of foreign exchange by our international oil companies.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent research experiments have shown that greater quantities of sulphur dioxide are given off from oil burning than from coal burning.

The amount of sulphur dioxide released by any given operation depends both upon the type and upon the quantity of the coal or oil that is used. As the sulphur content of both fuels varies widely according to type and as the quantity required depends upon the type selected, there can be no general answer to the hon. Member's Question.

Surely the Paymaster-General is evading the Question? Is it not a fact that the ratio of sulphur dioxide given out from coal burning and oil burning is one to one and a half? In view of that, will he consider restricting the use of oil in smokeless zone areas?

My Answer was given on the basis of the best scientific advice to which I have access. I think the hon. Member will find it to be the most accurate Answer that can be given.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent Her Majesty's Government, in framing their policy of freedom of consumer choice, have made allowance for possible loss of livelihood of miners; and if he will bring before the House a plan to meet this contingency.

The Government take full account of all relevant considerations in their fuel policy.

Is the Paymaster-General aware that there is deep anxiety in the coalfields because the livelihood of many is threatened and that when the 1960 programme comes out the industry is bound to contract? Will he tell us whether the Government intend to find work for those people who will be casualties of the Government's policy?

I recognise, of course, that there is anxiety, but I would ask the hon. Member to await the presentation of the National Coal Board's new plan. I think that to make any comments on the future before that would be a mistake. In the meantime, I think it is a mistake to be too pessimistic about the future of the coal industry. The Government are not.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an approximate idea when the plan will be published? Will it be when the House is in Recess?

I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking about that. The plan is pretty close to completion now.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations about it to the National Coal Board so that the plan may be published before the House goes into Recess and we can have an opportunity to discuss it, otherwise we shall probably have no opportunity to discuss the plan before events of immense importance may take place in the mining areas?

The Coal Board is not the only party concerned. It has to have quite a number of consultations, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. I think it would be a great mistake to rush things ahead at the cost of not fully consulting all concerned before the plan is finalised.

asked the Paymaster-General what steps have been taken to ascertain total maximum stocking capacity for distributed and undistributed coals; and, as total stocks now exceed 40 million tons, what maximum potential stocking capacity is available before further curtailment of coal production becomes necessary.

Whilst the provision of facilities for holding undistributed stocks has given rise to problems, the National Coal Board does not anticipate that lack of stocking capacity will determine the level of coal production. The stocks at present held by coal consumers are well below the limits of their stocking capacity.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that when the National Coal Board's revised plan is published it will contain some reference to what is considered by the Board to be the maximum stocking capacity available both in physical terms and in financial terms? Has my right hon. Friend observed that the present total level of distributed and undistributed stocks is nearly 42 million tons? Ought we to go higher than 50 million tons or, roughly, a calendar quarter's supply of coal in stock?

I have no doubt that that consideration will be very much in the mind of the National Coal Board in formulating its new plan.

asked the Paymaster-General what increase, or otherwise, has taken place during the first six months of 1959, compared with the equivalent period of 1958, in industrial and commercial consumption, respectively, of coal and fuel oil; and whether the trend and rate of conversion of industrial and commercial fuel-burning plants from coal to oil is accelerating this year or decelerating.

In the first 21 weeks of 1959 the large industrial consumers required to make fuel returns used 1,610 thousand tons less coal and 330 thousand tons more fuel oil than a year ago. Conversions from coal to oil among these consumers were fewer in number and smaller in volume of fuel usage in the first three months of this year than a year ago. Similar information is not available about commercial consumers.

Has my right hon. Friend read the well-informed article in the Sunday Observer yesterday, entitled "Jeremiah in I.C.I.", and the most important reference therein by the chairman-elect of I.C.I., Mr. S. P. Chambers, to greater sustenance for coal burning in industry by the slowing up of the coal to oil conversion programme? May I commend that article to my right hon. Friend for his bedtime reading tonight?

I did not see the Observer yesterday, but had I known it would be dignified by my hon. Friend's commendation today I would have hastened to buy a copy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that imported fuel oil is being stored at less price than crude oil and that coal just cannot compete with with the dumping of imported fuel? Is he going to allow this to continue entirely unchecked?

I have often heard this allegation of dumping, but I have not yet seen evidence of it. I do not believe it is taking place.

asked the Paymaster-General how much of the aggregate 40 million tons of coal in distributed and undistributed stocks is house coal; and whether he is satisfied that efficient steps are being taken to assure adequate supplies of house coal for next winter, well deployed, spread and stocked among merchants, and in a fashion to prevent local shortages even in severe winter weather conditions.

About 2½ million tons is suitable, including some 900,000 tons held by merchants. Distribution is a matter for the National Coal Board and the trade, but consumers could help a great deal by buying their coal early.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that 2½ million tons of house coal in stock at present, out of a total stock of 42½ million tons is a very small percentage, and will he make quite sure that householders everywhere are not lulled into a sense of false security of mind, by imagining that this huge surplus of coal is house coal when, in fact, the overwhelming bulk of it is industrial coal unsuitable for house use?

The National Coal Board and the trade are doing all possible to persuade people to take coal in the summer months when distribution is easier, and the more they do so the better.

To get the stock position in perspective, would it not be right to point out that most of the stock consists of small coal coming out of the screens and that one must have the small coal if one is to produce the large coal for which there is still an adequate market?

I think that the hon. Member is supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) when he said that the proportion of large coal in stock is fairly small.

I am the best friend that Sir James Bowman has in the House.

asked the Paymaster-General what were the amount of undistributed coal stocks at the latest date for which figures are available; and what proportion of these stocks were in the East Midlands Division.

27·5 million tons at 20th June, 1959, of which 8·9 million tons are in the East Midlands Division.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that coal is flowing like lava on every square yard of ground around some of these collieries in my constituency and in the constituencies of many other hon. Members, and that we are well beyond the limit which the Government accepted last November of 22 million tons? As this situation cannot go on, will the Government accept that this is a matter to be dealt with as an emergency and not one of which they can wash their hands?

I think that the hon. Member is exaggerating the situation. Certainly stocks are very large, but the measures which the Coal Board is taking are the best that can be taken in the circumstances to deal with the problem.

asked the Paymaster-General whether having regard to the prospect of further pit closures in 1960 and subsequent years, he will introduce legislation to enable grants to be paid to the National Coal Board to provide wholly, or in part, for the payment of adequate compensation to miners made redundant by such closures.

No, Sir. Miners rendered unemployed by pit closures are entitled to benefits under the National Unemployment Insurance Scheme and the National Coal Board's Scheme of Compensation for Redundant Mineworkers.

Whilst agreeing that the Coal Board has been very generous so far to redundant miners, may I ask whether we are not approaching a very serious situation? Would it not be well to prepare for it well in advance? Have the Government considered the possibility of doing for publicly-owned industry what they have been prepared to do for a number of privately-owned industries, from cotton to shipping?

I thought that cotton would appear in the supplementary question, but on examination it will be seen that there is a considerable difference between the two industries. The hon. Member, as I said, is rather exaggerating the difficulties which lie ahead of the coal industry.

asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board on the pricing of coal for the export market.

None, Sir.

Does the Paymaster-General realise that more flexibility must be given to the Board if it is hoped to enter foreign markets again in the selling of coal? Does the right hon. Gentleman further appreciate that many of us on this side of the House are anxious to see our export markets develop to the extent that they did pre-war?

I accept what the hon. Member says. Both sides of the House are extremely anxious to see an extension of our coal exports, but the Board has already complete freedom in export pricing.

Has the right hon. Gentleman asked his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether or not he is including coal as one of the factors in bilateral agreements between this country and other countries?

Bilateral agreements are much fewer than they were, but my noble Friend the Minister of Power has called the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the need to sell all the coal that we can.

That is not the answer to the question. Has the right hon. Gentleman raised this subject of coal in bilateral negotiations which have recently taken place?

The right hon. Gentleman put that Question to the President of the Board of Trade. My noble Friend has made it clear to the President of the Board of Trade, who is well aware of it, that is is desirable to sell as much coal as possible, partly by bilateral agreements.

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he is not aware whether the President of the Board of Trade has raised this matter or not?

The point is that I cannot answer questions on behalf of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) never answered on behalf of the Board of Trade.

asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board recently regarding the future of the coalmining industry.

asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board regarding the future of the coalmining industry with regard to a new coal policy.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to a previous Question he said that it would be a great mistake to hurry things? Is it not apparent that the time has come when he should hurry matters and let the Board know what the Government decide so that it can get on with the policy for the coming year?

Yes, but we must not hurry things to the extent of damaging or avoiding consultations which are desirable in this situation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no possibility of damaging anything by hurrying matters? Is he not aware that not only the national economy but the mining industry has everything to lose by this delay?

I agree that one should go on as fast as possible but not so fast that one falls over one's own feet.

There is no danger of that with this Government.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will now make a statement on the long-term policy of Her Majesty's Government for the mining industry taking into account the period 1959 to 1961.

No, Sir. I do not consider that a statement would be appropriate in advance of the National Coal Board's proposals for the future development of the industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a member of his party has made a statement concerning a proposal to decentralise control within the mining industry? Is that part of Government policy and can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement accordingly?

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the matter last week.

asked the Paymaster-General what recent consultation the National Coal Board has had with his Department regarding the flexibility of prices; and what consideration has been given to it.

There is frequent consultation between the Ministry and the National Coal Board on prices, as on other subjects. On price flexibility, I cannot add to what I said in reply to a number of hon. Members on 22nd June.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will list the 12 projects of research on human and medical problems within the coalmining industry and state which of these are receiving Government assistance.

Details of their research programme are a matter for the National Coal Board. Government Departments are co-operating in projects dealing with mortality and sickness statistics and pneumoconiosis.

Is that the only project that the right hon. Gentleman can cite today? Is he aware that in reply to my Question last week he mentioned 12 projects, hence this Question seeking further information about what is being done? Has the right hon. Gentleman not yet reached a position in which he can give the necessary information?

In these matters I must have regard to the constitutional position of the Coal Board. I am not trying to be difficult on this, but the Board settles its research programme subject to the general approval of the Minister. Therefore, I can only answer about the generalities. I will ask the Board to provide the information for which the hon. Member asks.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the average number of hours worked per week by all mineworkers, surface and underground, during the first six months of 1959, as compared with a similar period in 1958.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will give the average number of hours worked per week by all underground workers in the mining industry during the first six months of 1958 and 1959.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the average number of hours worked per week by all surface workers in the mining industry during the first half of this year, as compared with the first half of 1958.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the average number of hours worked by coalface workers in the coalmining industry during the first six months of 1958 and 1959.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is it not a pity that the information is not available? Is it not a fact that with less overtime and no weekend work there has been a big reduction in wages? Should not the Government do something to bring down the cost of living in view of the fact that wages are now considerably reduced?

I think that comment goes rather wider than the Question. I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asked is not available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman confessing that his statistical department cannot provide these figures? Surely, they are placed on his table weekly?

I am sorry to argue with the hon. Member, who knows so much about these things. The statistics are provided in terms of shifts, and I gather that there is no common factor whereby one can convert shifts into hours of work.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that hours of work underground are determined by Act of Parliament and that his Ministry is responsible for the Act being observed? Is no return made to his Department of overtime worked above the statutory hours? Could the right hon. Gentleman not supply the figures?

That is a different question. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put that question down I should be glad to try to answer it.

The question asked about the average number of hours worked underground. I appreciate that the matter of hours worked on the surface is quite different, but underground hours are governed by Act of Parliament, for which the right hon. Gentleman's Department is responsible, and that is why I asked him for the figures.

The available statistics for which the question asked are kept in terms of shifts and not of hours. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I think that we can do no better than we have done.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question definitely dealt with coal-face workers and not surface workers?

I gather that the answer is the same—that statistics have been kept in shifts and not in hours of work.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a shift in the coalmining industry means a precise number of hours worked as defined by Act of Parliament? If the right hon. Gentleman gets information about the number of shifts he can clearly answer a question about the number of hours. Are we to understand that his Department does not receive from the Coal Board a report on the number of hours of overtime worked in the coal mines beyond the statutory number?

I made precisely the same inquiry as the right hon. Gentleman now mentions and I was surprised that the information was not available. I am told that no suitable multiplier can be applied to shift work as the length of shift can differ from area to area, and also some tasks are done in stints and when a stint is done miners may leave the pit although the actual shift has not been fulfilled. One has not, therefore, information about hours worked. If hon. Members want answers to these other questions, perhaps they will put them down and I shall be happy to answer them.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the mater on the Adjournment.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent his Department, apart from the specific work undertaken by the National Coal Board is developing or furthering research into the uses of coal, particularly as a source of chemicals.

As the hon. Member will be aware, this question is under examination by the Wilson Committee. In the meantime, experimental and development work, and work on design studies, is being pressed forward by the Ministry in conjunction with the Gas Council, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the British Coal Utilisation Research Association and private industry.

Can this work be expedited, since we are still importing vast supplies of chemicals which can be produced from British surplus coal? Has the Paymaster-General considered the Charles Turner project whereby coal is boiled for the extraction of chemical by-products and from which process, it is claimed, will flow power as cheap as water?

My noble Friend recognises the need for speed in this matter, and it was with that thought in mind that he appointed the Wilson Committee. I shall make sure that the Wilson Committee's attention is drawn to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of turnover is spent on research into the uses of coal, and does he regard it as satisfactory?

I could not say without notice.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will break down the estimated fuel requirement figure of 310 million tons of coal equivalent which will be needed by 1965 into the separate tons of coal equivalent to be supplied by each of the United Kingdom's fuel industries.

No, Sir. Future demand for each form of energy will depend on its relative competitive position.

Since the Paymaster-General has repeatedly stated in the House that by 1965 we shall require 310 million tons of coal equivalent, and since in our last debate he repeated that statement and said that there was every assurance that it would be achieved, will he tell us the constituent parts of that total and particularly what part coal will play?

If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at the original speech, he will see exactly what I said and why I cannot give the constituent parts.

The right hon. Gentleman has already admitted that there have been consultations with the National Coal Board on this matter. Since a re-assessment must have been made, why can he not tell us what the re-assessment envisages for 1965 and particularly what part coal will play in producing that total figure?

Once again, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what I said in 1957 about the total demand for energy and the possible competition between various sources of energy. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the availability of the Coal Board's views about its future prospects.

asked the Paymaster-General what annual rate of economic expansion he had in mind in arriving at his estimate of 310 million tons of coal equivalent by 1965.

Three per cent. a year increase in the national income.

That sounds very much like what we intend to do. Is not the first requirement for this figure to be achieved a change of Government, or are we once more to see raging inflation followed by a period of recession with coal slumped into its present position again?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have been looking at the recent facts of the economic situation.

asked the Paymaster-General when he now anticipates he will receive the report of the Wilson Committee on processing, research and development in the coal industry.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 8th June.

As the task of finding alternative uses for coal is now a matter of extreme urgency, will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to speed up publication of the Wilson Report?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent the terms of reference of the Wilson Committee on processing, research and development in the coal industry permit them to make recommendations as to the desirability of the National Coal Board itself carrying out large scale development work on gasification processes.

My noble Friend would regard recommendations on this subject as entirely within the Committee's terms of reference.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as the National Coal Board is particularly concerned with the maximum utilisation of coal, it might well be the appropriate body to undertake large-scale development work on gasification?

The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the question would be in order, and then asked me to anticipate the result.

Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean on this matter and tell the House who is this noble Friend to whom he constantly refers and whom none of us has ever met, and whether he leads a separate, viable existence and what he does for a living?

The hon. Gentleman should refer to HANSARD at appropriate stages in the Session.

asked the Paymaster-General (1) what effect the present contraction in the mining industry has had upon the recruitment and training of administrative and technical staff; and whether he will make a statement;

These are matters for the National Coal Board. As my hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) on 16th February, the Board is taking steps to reduce its non-industrial staff by 5 per cent. in 1959.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot evade complete responsibility for the situation. For ten years young men have been encouraged to undertake specialist training in the coalfields. Now a situation has arisen in which there is a contraction in the industry and in which young men are seriously concerned about their future. Is there not an urgent need for the Government to take responsibility?

By the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, the Coal Board is required to carry out and perform its functions relating to training on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister. Clearly, therefore, the initiative rests with the National Coal Board.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for generations the coal industry has recruited, at all levels, from coal mining families and that it is desirable that that process should continue and expand? Does he not realise that unless some security is given to the industry, the advice that I and my hon. Friends will give to the sons of coal miners is not likely to be to enter the industry?

I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which was clearly important. It is for that reason that, while recognising the problems of the industry, both sides of the House should do their best not to exaggerate them, for the sake of future recruitment and training.

asked the Minister of Supply on what date the preliminary suggestion for the design of the Cockerell Hovercraft was first submitted to his Department; what assistance was given; what action was taken; and on what date.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on 29th June.

In view of the fact that that reply was entirely inaudible to me, perhaps it would be repeated. How is it possible for me to put a supplementary question without knowing whether an Answer was given, and without knowing whether the Minister is prepared to give the information to the House? Is it possible for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to remember that whatever resemblance he bears to a well-known television personality his conduct in the House need not always follow that particular line.

Order. I do not think this has anything to do with the Question.

On a point of order. Is it not strictly in accord with Parliamentary usage that when the Minister, having replied to 40 Parliamentary Questions with their supplementaries and the hurly-burly—

Order. Mr. Hale.

May I finish, Mr. Speaker?

It is the custom for applause to be delivered at the appropriate moment if hon. Members feel disposed to do so. I do not object to that, but I think we ought to get on with the Question.

Not having heard the answer to my Question, as a matter of courtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, I put Question No. 42 without pressing for an Answer. Might I hear the Answer to Question No. 42 without further demonstration?

asked the Minister of Supply what applications have been received in respect of the vacant large Government factory at Bardsey, Oldham and what steps have been taken to obtain suitable lettings.

Two applications have been received and negotiations are about to start with the firm which would employ most labour.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply- Will he bear in mind that Oldham Corporation is deeply concerned about this and is most anxious to have the fullest opportunity of cooperating in any arrangements that may be made and offering the fullest advantages to any tenant who would like to take over this factory, which is of very great importance to the town?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I also appreciate the interest of Oldham Corporation, and I will see that every effort is made to keep the hon. Gentleman informed of progress in the matter.

asked the Minister of Supply what assistance he gives to the manufacturers in demonstrating to the armed forces of the United Kingdom's allies the quality and range of British aircraft and equipment.

Official demonstrations are staged from time to time to present British aircraft and defence equipment to representatives of our Allies. In addition, Ministry of Supply aircraft, equipment and airfield facilities are made available to manufacturers for commercial displays and demonstrations, when this is desirable.

Is it not becoming increasingly apparent that the support our manufacturers are given in selling military equipment abroad is totally inadequate? Is it not time that the Government, and especially the Ministry of Supply, completely revised their policy in this matter and gave as much assistance in selling as the American Government do to their aircraft manufacturers?

No, it is not becoming so apparent. I think it is the duty of the Ministry of Supply to help any aircraft manufacturer to the utmost possible extent in his exports, but I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to realise that American equipment is making inroads into the Continent of Europe for reasons that have nothing to do with the volume of Government support.

asked the Minister of Supply (1) what mechanical characteristics and aerodynamic features of the Short Britannic 3 are similar to the Lockheed C130 family of aircraft; and whether he will make a statement;

asked the Minister of Supply how many Britannic aircraft have now been ordered by his Department.

While the Britannic design envisages a number of completely new components, such as a large capacity fuselage, it is fundamentally based on the Britannia design and includes many components either identical with or derived from those of the Britannia.

The Britannic superficially resembles the American C.130 family of aircraft in that it is a turbo-prop freighter aircraft with a long range and a high wing. In no way can it be said to be derived from the American designs.

Since the specification for the Britannic has not yet been made final, no contract has yet been placed with the Company. I am informed, however, that about 200 technicians are now employed on the project and that by the end of the year this figure will have risen to about 500. Next year, as the programme gets under way, the additional employment will be substantial.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Defence informed the House that he was placing an order for a long-range freighter aircraft on the lines of the Britannia? The Minister expected the aircraft to fly in April, 1961, and be in production by 1962. Is it not now clear that this aircraft is an entirely new one, that it will not fly in 1961, and that it will be very lucky if it gets into the air at all by 1962, and it certainly will not be in production before 1964 and probably 1965? By the time it is available to the Armed Forces it will be completely out of date and there will be no civil market, which was one of the essential conditions that the Minister of Defence informed the House he took into account in placing the order.

I do not recall the exact terms of the statement made by the Minister of Defence. However, it is nonetheless a fact, and the hon. Gentleman must accept it, that this aircraft is based to a large extent on the Britannia. It is true that the new specification is not identical with the original one, but nevertheless I hope, and I think it is a well-founded hope, that this aircraft will find a civil export market if only for the reason that its capacity and fuselage are greater than in its competitors.

On a point of order. Three Questions of mine are being answered together. If I am allowed only one supplementary I cannot raise the points I want to. I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker, on one very important point, that is, about timing. The Minister made a statement that the prototype would fly in 1961 and that it would be in production at the end of 1961 or 1962. We now know that that timetable is out of date.

As I said, I do not recall the exact terms of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, but if the hon. Member will put down a further Question I shall endeavour to give him an answer.

On a point of order. I have on the Order Paper three Questions, one of which referred to the time-table. If the Minister does not know the answer which the Minister of Defence gave, he ought to know the answer which he himself gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) only last week, which differed substantially from those made by the Minister of Defence and the company itself.

That is not a point of order. That is a point of dispute between the hon. Member and the Minister. The hon. Member is asking about something which the Minister of Defence said, but there is not a word about that in his Question.