asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will give the value of the basic retirement pension in real terms at 31st May, 1962, as compared to the same dates in 1960 and 1961.

The standard rate of retirement pension at 31st May, 1962, was 57s. 6d.; the equivalent value in real terms at that date of the standard rate payable at 31st May, 1960, was 54s. 5d., and the corresponding figure for 31st May, 1961, was 60s. 9d.

I find myself in some difficulty today in framing my supplementary question. Without wishing to comment on the temporary nature of Ministerial appointments, may I ask my hon. Friend if she will be sure to leave a note for the future Minister of Pensions and National Insurance drawing his or her attention to the debate we had last Friday dealing with the plight of pensioners generally? Can my hon. Friend say, if the last Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was right in saying that the National Assistance rate was a holding operation, there is justification for doing the same for pensioners? Can she give me some idea what the present pension would stand at if it had been tied to the cost of living during the past two years?

I will tell my right hon. Friend, the Minister when I have one, what my hon. Friend has said in the first part of his supplementary question. Had the retirement pension kept pace with the rising cost of living, the 26s. single person rate introduced in October, 1946, would be 47s. 11d. and the married couple rate of 42s. would be 77s. 4d.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the percentage increase in the basic retirement pension in each of the two periods June, 1945 to June, 1951, and June, 1951 to June, 1962; and to what extent the purchasing power of the pension was diminished in each period by rising prices.

There was no basic retirement pension in June, 1945. Such a pension was not introduced until October, 1946, under the National Insurance Act of that year. Between that date and June 1951, retail prices rose by about 25 per cent. There was no increase in rates of benefit. The purchasing power of the pension was consequently reduced by 20 per cent. Between June, 1951, and June, 1962, the percentage increase in the rate of the basic retirement pension was 120. As the increase in retail prices over that period was 48 per cent., the purchasing power of the pension increased by 49 per cent.

Is the hon. Lady aware that when the Labour Government came into power the pension, whatever it might have been called, was 10s.? It subsequently went up by very nearly 200 per cent. under the Labour Government. Is the hon. Lady further aware that, whatever might be the records of the respective Governments, the pension has been considerably eroded under both Governments and that therefore, there is an urgent case for reviewing the situation, particularly now, in view of the impending retirement of the Prime Minister himself?

I am aware that there was a 10s. old-age pension, which was on quite a different basis in 1945. I am also aware that the Coalition Government, in which all parties participated, agreed that the pension should be increased to 20s. for a single person and 35s. for a married couple. It was subsequently increased by the Labour Government to 26s. and 42s. and was not further increased until the erosion had amounted to 22·4 per cent

Does the hon. Lady recollect that one of her right hon. Friends at that time accused the Labour Government, when they put the pension up to 26s., of acting too hastily?

I do not remember because I was not here. I wish I had been.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is his estimate of the number of people who were over 65 years of age when the present contributory pensions scheme was introduced in 1948 and so did not qualify for a pension; and how many there are today.

We have no means of knowing how many people over age 65 in July, 1948, were prevented from qualifying for retirement pensions solely by that fact, since many of them would at some time have had an earlier opportunity of becoming insured as voluntary contributors under the Contributory Old Age Pensions scheme. We estimate that there are about 330,000 men and women living today who were over age 65 in July, 1948, and who axe not eligible for National Insurance retirement pensions.

While paying tribute to the excellent record of my hon. Friend's ex-chief, may I ask her to convey to her new chief the desirability of helping this small but very important part of the nation?

I will gladly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to an outstanding Minister who was superlative even by the best of standards. I should have thought that Members of all parties would have paid tribute to the outstanding Parliamentary skill of my right hon. Friend. I will, of course, convey the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question to my next chief, but I would point out that there is very little point in saying, on the one hand, that to get the pension as of right one should contribute to it and, on the other hand, "Never mind whether you contributed or not, you will get it in any case." That seems quite contradictory.

Can the hon. Lady tell us how many of the 330,000 are receiving National Assistance because they are not gettting a pension?

No, I cannot tell the hon. Member that. If he will put down a Question I will do my best to get the information, but many of these people have private resources or occupational pensions.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will introduce regulations to enable unemployment benefit to be paid to fishermen and other seamen while taking approved pilots' courses, on the same terms as members of the Merchant Navy who take other forms of training.

No, Sir.

While the unemployment benefit arrangements for merchant seamen may be a little unusual, can the hon. Lady suggest any reason why there should be this distinction between those who are members of the Merchant Navy and those who take pilots' courses? Ought not this to be looked into again to remove the sense of unfairness which exists?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the arrangements made for members of the Merchant Navy were an anomaly and, as such, I do not think they should be extended. They amount, in fact, to using unemployment insurance to subsidise the training of people in the Merchant Navy.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many employees have now contracted out of the graduated pensions scheme; how many applications are still under consideration; and whether that from the building industry is one of them.

About 4,457,905 employees are now contracted out of the graduated pension scheme; 32 applications are under consideration. No general application from the building industry is among them.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the total amount of graduated contributions received during the first year of the operation of the scheme; and how much was paid out in graduated scheme benefits.

Final figures are not yet available, but it is estimated that such contributions amounted to about £148 million. Benefit payments will, of course, have been very small.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether the current Government studies designed to lead to a long-term incomes policy include consideration of National Insurance and National Assistance rates, and the need to relate these payments to the general level of wages and salaries.

The rates of these benefits are kept under constant review and, as the hon. Member knows, the House approved on Friday draft Regulations increasing the scales of National Assistance. The matters referred to in the last part of the Question are, as has often been explained, among those which are taken into account

In case these talks on a long-term incomes policy lead somewhere, is it not important that the next Minister, whoever he or she may be, should be represented at the talks so as to stick up for the pensioners? In doing so, will the Government bear in mind the long-standing Labour Party proposal for an annual review of rates of all National Insurance benefits so that they can keep pace with increases in the cost of living or with the level of incomes?

The pension has more than kept pace with the rising cost of living. It seems to me that part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is concerned with my former Minister and part with the next Minister.

Is the hon. Lady aware that since the last announcement of increases the pension for married couples has not kept pace with the rising cost of living but has lost 6s. 9d.?

I am aware that it is nothing like the amount lost in percentage terms between 1946 and 1951.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what provision is made under his regulations for those suffering from complicated diseases of the chest as a result of work in coalmines but who are not registered as pneumoconiotics.

In the case of people suffering from a disease not scheduled under the Industrial Injuries Act and which has the effect of making them unfit for work, the provision is by way of sickness benefit.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many miners are extremely unhappy about the partiality of the boards and would prefer the X-ray plates to be sent to some impartial body such as the South-Wales Pneumoconiotic Unit?

I think that raises a somewhat wider question than that on the Order Paper.

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary must be aware of the great dissatisfaction amongst miners, steel workers and others who suffer from pneumoconiosis at the decisions of these boards compared with the decisions of specialists in hospitals and infirmaries throughout the country? Surely the Minister must be ready to try to do something to alleviate the misery of those who are told that they are not suffering from pneumoconiosis?

The determination of entitlement is made under the Industrial Injuries Act and the Minister has no influence over the decisions of the boards.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many on this side of the House who have been interested in these cases because of our experience as branch secretaries fully realise that many men suffering from emphysema, bronchitis and other chest diseases ought to have better medical examinations than they have at present? Could he look into this question, or ask his future chief to look into it, and make certain that these unfortunate miners receive fair judgment and fair play?

This matter was considered in great detail by the Beney Committee, and also by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now increase the amount that may be earned, without deduction from pension, by retirement and widow pensioners.

No, Sir.

May I ask the hon. Lady to inform her next chief that the cost of living has risen by 9·5 per cent. since the amounts were last altered and to request him to bring the allowance up to date and, as far as widows are concerned, to abolish them altogether? [Laughter.]

Not even the Prime Minister could do that.

The present Government have increased the earnings limit by 30s. for retirement pensioners and 40s. for widowed mothers. There is a Question later on the Order Paper relating to the earnings scale and the cost of living.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will estimate the cost to the National Insurance Fund of the abolition of the earnings rule as applied to retirement pensioners.

About £100 million a year immediately.

Does the hon. Lady realise that this takes a tremendous amount of money from retired persons? Does the hon. Lady not think that consideration must be given to increasing the amount allowed under the earnings rule so that not so much is taken from these people and they can keep what they earn?

I will consider later in conjunction with others what the hon. Member has said, but I could not possibly undertake to put forward on my own account any proposal for the complete abolition of the retirement rule. That would be a most unwise step to take. It would prevent many people from earning increments on their basic pensions and, at a time when we have an increasing number of old folk, would result in reducing the age of retirement and the age at which a person would draw a pension.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Professor Cairncross in a Minority Report to the Phillips Committee advocated exactly what the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has asked, namely, the total abolition of the earnings rule on economic grounds? Is she aware that, as a reward for his perspicacity, Professor Cairncross now holds the position of principal economic adviser to the Treasury? Would my hon. Friend undertake to consult Professor Cairncross again about this important matter of the abolition of the earnings rule?

I think that my hon. Friend is mistaken about the Department which this afternoon is answering Questions. My main worry is that the hon. Mamber for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who asked the initial Question might become the economic adviser to the Treasury.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what change would require to be made in the earnings rule scale to make up for the depreciation in the value of the £ sterling since March 1960.

I assume that what the hon. Member has in mind is the figure for the real value of earnings which can be obtained without any reduction in pension resulting. On this assumption the figures are 6s. 8d. in respect of retirement and widow's pension, and 9s. 6d. for widowed mother's allowance.

When will the Government do something about it?

If the Government were to take the hon. Member's yardstick, which is the Index of Retail Prices, the earnings limit at the moment for retirement pensioners would be only 57s. against 70s., and for widowed mothers 86s. against 100s.

That is quite unreal. The Government made a promise in March, 1960, when they raised the limit, but by erosion as a result of the cost of living these people are now 6s. 8d. and 9s. 6d. worse off. When will the Government make up these amounts and keep their promise?

By the hon. Member's own yardstick they are very much better off than they would have been under a Labour Government.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the aggregate weekly disbursement to all recipients of National Insurance benefits for the latest available date; and what would require to be added to that sum to give it the real value that that sum had on the day when the last announcement of National Insurance benefit increases was made.

About £21½ million and £1½ million.

Does the hon. Lady agree that this gives an idea of the extent of the robbery of the poor as a result of the Government's failure to keep down the cost of living? Will she invite at least one Minister whom we know will be in his place for at least a week, namely, the Prime Minister, to attend to this matter?

As the hon. Member knows, retirement pensions are paid to all people who have contributed, regardless of their means, and therefore it is not fair to say that this is robbing the poor. If we were to make good the 6 per cent. decrease since April, 1961, it would mean immediately the expenditure of an extra £13 million by the Exchequer and an extra 6d. a side on the weekly stamp.

I am not interested in April, 1961. I am interested in the real value on the date when the announcement was made and the fact that on that basis the extent of the present suffering is even greater and the figures should be even higher.

And therefore the contribution which the ordinary taxpayer and contributor would have to make. There would be, for the hon. Member's date, an extra £16 million to be paid by the Exchequer to the Fund and there would be an extra 8d. a side on the weekly stamp.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would require to be added to the adult death grant to allow for the decrease in the purchasing power of the £ sterling since the announcement of the last increase of that benefit.

About £2 17s. 6d.

Whatever the Government may claim about other benefits, may I ask the hon. Lady whether this is not one case where it is obvious that the grant has not kept pace with the rising costs? The original death grant was £20 and the present grant is £25. Would the Ministry look at the whole question of death grants, including the question of those disqualified from receiving it?

The death grant has been raised only once to my knowledge since it was introduced in 1948. The hon. Member has taken the cost-of-living index, which is a curious one to take when applied to the death grant. I will, of course, communicate what he has said to the appropriate quarters.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state as a percentage the relationship of the basic pension to the average weekly male earnings in 1946, 1955 and the latest available date in 1962, respectively.

For a single person, 21½, 18½ and 18½ and for a married couple, 35, 30 and 30. The latest available figures are for October, 1961.

Do these figures not demonstrate that the percentages are lower than they were in 1946 and that the claims made by the Government that pensioners would share in rising standards have not been substantiated? Is not this the real test that we should apply to National Insurance benefits?

The actual erosion from 21½ per cent. to 18 per cent. for a single person and from 35 per cent. to 30 per cent. for the married couple took place during the years 1946 to 1951, but since then the relationship has remained constant.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would require to be added to the current pension and allowances of a widowed mother with two children to make up for the decreased purchasing power of the £ sterling since the last increase of insurance benefits was announced.

About 7s. l1d.

Will the hon. Lady look at the position of widowed mothers? Is she aware that they are often in great difficulty? They do not understand percentages. All they understand is the cost of living—the cost of things they have to buy. They are in difficulty unless they are able to obtain employment, which often leaves the family without a responsible person to look after it. Is it not time that something was done for them?

I can understand the hon. Lady's special sympathy for widowed mothers. As she is aware, the Government, under the National Insurance Scheme, have given special preference to the widowed mother to the extent that the widow with one child has benefited by 44 per cent., the widow with two children by 58 per cent. and the widow with three children by 71 per cent. more, in real terms, over 1951.

asked the Minister of Power if he will inquire into the inadequacies of some of the smokeless fuels, as delivered, which are jeopardising the implementation of the Clean Air Act.

The Domesitic Coal Consumers' Council, set up under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, is examining the recent report of the Consumer Advisory Council which criticised the quality of some smokeless fuels as delivered. It will no doubt advise me of any action it considers necessary.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate that we are likely to have some action following this inquiry into the Council's Report, which showed that some housewives are paying up to £4 per ton for water in their fuel? Is he aware that this arises mainly through fuel being left uncovered in transit or in merchants' yards and that it could be prevented by the Government imposing a maximum water content standard?

I hope that the hon. Member does not under-value the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, which I am sure will go into this matter very carefully. The distributive trade has taken the matter very seriously. As evidence of that, there was the introduction of the approved coal merchants' scheme on 1st May this year. I hope that this will be successful.

Is it not about time that the Government themselves did something about it? The consumer is being almost held to ransom in the smokeless fuel areas because of the Clean Air Act. Is it not unjust that the Government should leave it to the good will or otherwise of certain individuals and leave the housewife stranded and having to pay in some cases excessive sums for inferior quality smokeless fuels?

It is not a matter of leaving it to anyone's good will. I echo the comment made in the Report itself, that the customer must do something to protect himself. People should complain to their merchants. Too often bad goods —I am not referring to this trade alone —are accepted without complaint. A great deal is up to the public.

asked the Minister of Power how many mineworkers have become redundant in consequence of pit closures in County Durham in the last five years.

I have asked the Chairman of the National Coal Board to give the right hon. Gentleman the precise figures. The Board has been most successful in limiting the effects of closures and the percentage of unemployment in coal mining in Dunham is very low.

I have asked the right hon. Gentleman the Question. Why does he refer me to the Coal Board? If the Coal Board writes to me, may I impart the information to hon. Members, or have I to inform the right hon. Gentleman so that he may undertake the task? Why does not the Minister answer the Question now, or, perhaps, answer it on some other occasion if I put down another Question?

I should have thought that if anyone in the House knew the answer to that Question it was the right hon. Member himself, because he set up the National Coal Board. It is surely right for me to ask the Chairman of the National Coal Board to give to the right hon. Gentleman information which relates to the day-to-day management of the Coal Board.

This raises the general issue, though I am not quite sure that this is the appropriate moment to raise it. The right hon. Gentleman has implied that we are not entitled to ask questions about redundancies in the hope of getting an answer from him and that I must ask the National Coal Board. Is that correct?

I do my best, as I have always tried to do, to provide information for hon. Members. On particular questions of this kind, when the right hon. Gentleman asks how many mine-workers have become redundant during the last five years, I should have thought that this was a wholly suitable matter to be referred to the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

How does the Minister manage to advise his colleagues in the Government Who may take steps to provide alternative employment in areas where pits are closing if he himself does not know how many men have become redundant?

Obviously, information is in my hands about redundancies caused by actual pit closures, but there is a great deal of reorganisation going on in the industry, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) knows, which does not involve actual pit closures. I should give the right hon. Gentleman misleading information if I gave him details of redundancies in consequence merely of pit closures in County Durham during the past five years.

asked the Minister of Power if he has now given further consideration to the annual outputs of opencast coal mining; and to what extent he now proposes to cut back output except for specialised coals which are in short supply.

As indicated in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member on 21st May, the National Coal Board now expects that opencast coal production in 1963 will be substantially below the reduced level of this year.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "substantially … reduced"? Can he give us some idea of the extent to which we can expect to see opencast coal mining output run down during the next five years?

I think that my right hon. Friend has already told the House that output this year is expected to be about 1 million tons below the 1961 level of 8½ million tons. It would be wrong for me to give any forecast of what might happen in future. As the hon. Gentleman knows, opencast production is a very convenient and easy way of balancing supply and demand, not only in total quantities, but also of particular types of coal in particular areas.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that added urgency has been given to this matter by the recent announcement of the Minister about pit closures? Mineworkers feel very dissatisfied with the Minister of Power in that opencast coal mining has always been recognised as a cushion between production and demand. Rather than see pits closing so quickly, we would prefer to see opencast coal mining cut down first.

I am informed by the Coal Board that it expects that applications for new sites to be worked before the end of next year will be limited to those which contain scarce coal or to which other very special circumstances apply.

asked the Minister of Power how many authorisations have now been sought by the Opencast Executive of the National Coal Board to work new opencast sites in Yorkshire; and how many have been granted.

None, Sir.

I am very relieved to hear that reply. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has taken note of the mounting opposition in Yorkshire from mine-workers, local authorities, various— [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is mounting opposition in Yorkshire from the mineworkers, local authorities and from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England about this matter? I hope that he will consider this opposition before authorising any more workings in Yorkshire.

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Minister of Power if he will now give the date when the restoration of the Wath-upon-Dearne Newhill opencast coal mining site will be fully completed.

The site will be restored to full agricultural use by 1968 at the latest.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say when it will be restored normally?

Contractual restoration should be complete by the end of next year. As the hon. Member knows, coaling will end very soon.

asked the Minister of Power what fresh proposals have been made to him by the Chairman of the National Coal Board for the abandonment of the differential pricing policy for industrial coals introduced earlier this year.

None, Sir.

Is not the Minister aware that his policy appears to be in direct cowflict with that of his right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour and— might I say—the new Secretary of State for Scotland, who are all the time urging new industry to come to Scotland while the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Power, acting with the Chairman of the Coal Board, is doing his best to make coal more expensive in Scotland than in any other coalfield. Is not this an absurd conflict of policy?

I did my best in an Adjournment debate at the beginning of last month to explain to the hon. Member that the increase in industrial costs in Scotland would not be very considerable. When the hon. Member refers to this as my policy or suggests that it is a new policy, I would point out that it dates from the time of the National Coal Board's Annual Report for 1948 and the Plan for Coal, 1950, in which the Board specifically suggested that prices in each market should be related to the costs of producing the coal there.

The Minister says that it does not seem to add much to the cost of production in Scotland. Is he aware that the steel industry reckons that it will cost nearly £1 million extra for the same quantity of steel and that the electricity authorities consider that it will cost them more than £1 million extra for the generation of electricity? Is not this a very big factor in costs?

It is also a fact that without these increases the coal industry would be quite incapable of meeting the considerable losses which it has been making in Scotland ever since nationalisation.

Is the Minister aware that he is talking nonsense, that the Scottish Divisional Coal Board made a profit for several years after nationalisation and that it was only after the Tories took office in 1951 that the Scottish Divisional Coal Board began to make losses?

The hon. Member will not deny that compared with the total deficit of the Coal Board of £93 million, £128 million has been lost in the Scottish Division.

Under the Tories.

Subsidised by the English taxpayer.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has made to the National Coal Board for the reduction of outstanding capital debt in the Scottish coalfield by such amounts as were spent on major development projects which have been abandoned.

None, Sir. The Board tells me that exceptional capital losses, such as those sustained at Rothes and Glenochil, are not carried by any one division. They are largely met as a charge to the industry's central obsolescence fund.

Is it not the case that the Minister has just told us that £128 million has been lost in the Scottish coalfield? Is it not right to ask the Minister whether there have not been special circumstances in Scotland? For example, the kind of policy imposed upon the Coal Board by the Government and the kind of managerial policies which have been followed in Scotland have been responsible for these heavy losses. Would not any other business write off losses such as this?

It is to attend to any special circumstances that may exist in Scotland that, as the hon. Member will have seen, the Chairman of the National Coal Board recently announced that the Scottish interest charges would be carried by the industry as a whole. Any question of capital reconstruction would be proper to the whole reappraisal and future of the coal industry which, as I have announced several times, I have carried out with the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

Is it not the case that the main remedy which is being followed in Scotland is to reduce the Scottish coalfield by about one-third? Is it not the case that the Coal Board in Scotland, which formerly supplied Ireland, is not now supplying Ireland? Has not a policy been followed that denies to Scotland markets which she formerly enjoyed?

If there is a case for some reconstruction of capital in Scotland, no doubt the Coal Board will discuss it with me.

asked the Minister of Power if he will publish a White Paper on the scientific and financial implications of putting power lines underground.

Information has already been published on this subject and I do not think a White Paper is necessary. I am putting in the Library of the House relevant publications and papers, about which I will write to my hon. Friend.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an ever-growing volume of apprehension in the country about the multiplicity of power lines now being put up, and does he realise that it would be a help if we could have a complete and up-to-date picture of the present state of scientific advance and know the financial gap which exists between underground and overhead wires? It would be most helpful if my right hon. Friend could give more information.

I quite appreciate the apprehension to which my hon. Friend refers, but I ask him to study the information which I am putting at the disposal of the House in the Library. Perhaps he will ask me, if he requires any further information after he has read that.

asked the Minister of Power when the first commercial size advanced gas-cooled reactor power station will be ordered.

The Central Electricity Generating Board has not yet decided whether to order a power station with an advanced gas-cooled reactor.

I am obliged to the Minister for that Answer, but will he take care that no large programme of nuclear power station building is undertaken which will not result in electricity being produced at least as cheaply as by conventional means and not waste any of the taxpayer's capital in this way between now and the first economic station?

That is obviously very important, but it is important also that we should keep abreast of nuclear power developments. As my hon. Friend will have noticed, the capital costs of nuclear generation are decreasing very considerably.

asked the Minister of Power (1) having regard to Hunterston financial experiences, what revised estimates he has now made of the cost per unit of nuclear generated electricity in England and Wales, compared with the cost per unit generated by conventional methods; and

The figures I gave in my replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on 19th February still stand.

Is it not a fact that since 19th February the House has been somewhat alarmed by the sensational increase in capital costs for the construction of the nuclear power station at Hunterston? Will not the same factors which operated in those cost increases apply to the three English nuclear stations which I have named? If that hypothesis is correct, as I believe it to be, is it not a fact that within a measure-able space of time these large increases in capital costs of nuclear stations will be reflected in an increase in the cost of electricity per unit generated?

I appreciate the penetrating nature of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I think that the answer to it is that the bulk supply tariff of the Generating Board to which retail tariffs are related takes into account the Board's costs as they arise. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend can be assured that the electricity tariffs already reflect the increased costs of the nuclear power stations compared with the estimates which were originally made.

If one of my hon. Friend's considerations is the same as that of Sir Christopher Hinton, namely, to keep the assembled skill and talent in the consortia together for building these uneconomic power stations, would it not be cheaper to provide some form of subsidy for the companies to keep their staffs together rather than build a lot of uneconomic stations?

I think that the Generating Board's obligations in this matter are dictated by the contracts which they have made with the consortia. If the consortia have any complaints to make about the framework of the contracts which they have reached with the Generating Board, then naturally the Board would be very ready to entertain them.

Does my right hon. Friend's earlier reply to me infer, as it seems to infer, that the increased capital cost of the nuclear power stations as completed is being offset or equated to reduced capital costs of the conventional stations? If that is not correct, then it follows that the cost per unit of electricity must rise. Can my right hon. Friend respond to that?

I will do my best to do so. I tried to explain to my hon. Friend that the bulk supply tariff of the Board depends on the costs, not only of the nuclear stations, but of the conventional stations. If there are compensating decreases in the costs of the conventional stations, they will be reflected in the ultimate bulk supply tariff. My main point is that the bulk supply tariff is adjusted as the differences in the costs of these two kinds of stations become apparent.

Is not the output of the nuclear power stations to which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) refers likely to be greater than the original estimates? Can the Minister say whether the cost per kilowatt of output capacity has increased beyond the original estimates?

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the unit cost or the capital cost per kilowatt?

The capital cost.

That has decreased and is decreasing very considerably. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) that the present capital cost is about £165. The capital cost in three or four years' time will be about £100.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is a proper and adequate check on these rising costs? Who watches the increases? Is there anyone to say "No" to the increased prices put before the authorities?

Part of the increased cost is due to changes in design. Obviously, spread over a period of years, there are bound to be changes in design worth incorporating in the newer stations. Part of the increased cost is due to the increased costs of labour and materials and these are taken into consideration by the Generating Board in the terms of the contract which it makes with the consortia.

asked the Minister of Power what recent general directions he has given to the Gas Council concerning the underground storage of gas.

None, Sir.

May we have the Minister's assurance that, before any gas storage takes place in the north of England, we shall take advantage of the scheme which was submitted to store gas under the City of Winchester?

I shall take into consideration what the hon. Gentleman has said. I hope to make an announcement on this subject quite soon.

asked the Minister of Power what is the average unit cost of producing electricity at conventional power stations; and how this compares with the latest estimated cost of electricity to be produced at each of the nuclear power stations now being built.

The average cost of generation at conventional stations in 1960–61 was 0·88d. a unit, but this figure is not comparable, for a number of reasons, with estimated costs at individual nuclear stations. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures of estimated costs of generation at each of the nuclear stations to be commissioned in the next five years.

Is the hon. Gentleman convinced that the method of accounting and costing for electricity from nuclear power stations is correct?

We are at a very early stage at present. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the fact of nuclear power has only just come upon us. I think that these figures are as good as can be given.

Is it not a fact that the capital cost of nuclear power stations is calculated at the ridiculously high interest rate of 6 per cent. and that, if the interest rates in the calculation were reduced to 2½ or 3 per cent., the Sizewell and all subsequent nuclear power stations would more than break even with conventional stations?

Six per cent. is perfectly correct.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statements which have been made about the costing of electricity from nuclear power stations and that these forecasts and estimates have been proved to be entirely wrong?

I am aware of the statements which have been made. The hon. Gentleman suggests that errors have been made in estimating capital costs. In one case I have here, the error was 16 per cent. If he wants to ask about particular power stations, I think that he should put a Question down.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate has been made by the Central Electricity Generating Board, and put to him, of when further consideration will be given to the building of a new power station in the county of Durham.

It is expected that the Board will consider in about two years' time whether to resume the investigation of sites for a new coal-fired power station to be commissioned in the early 1970s, but this is a matter which is kept under regular review.

There is not much consolation in that. Why has Durham County been selected for such shabby treatment by the Central Electricity Generating Board? May we have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will have further talks with the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and instruct him that there should be a power station built in Durham irrespective of what he thinks? If he fails to do that, will he resign?

I do not think that the Central Electricity Generating Board has treated Durham shabbily. With the new Blythe B station which will come into operation in about three years, there will be sufficient capacity for local demand until the early 1970s. Therefore, any new power station would have to export, with consequent transmission lines, a large part of its output. I have undertaken to several of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends to talk further with the Generating Board about the estimates of demand which it has made, but I should not like it to be thought that I had any doubt that the demand it has estimated is, in fact, correctly based.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is vast unemployment in the North-East? In my constituency, it is 6·4 per cent. A year ago, I was given to understand that there was the possibility of a power station in the vicinity of my constituency, and I cannot understand why this cannot be looked into as a matter of urgency. I support my Socialist colleagues in this matter in trying to reduce unemployment in the area. May we have power stations, not pipelines?

I found it difficult to hear the end of my hon. Friend's supplementary question because of the noises opposite. I think he was suggesting that attempts should be made to employ men in the North-East in this way. I feel that it would be wrong to try to provide new employment by generating electricity in anything but the most economic way.

Did the Central Electricity Generating Board come to its decision not to build a new power station in Durham because it believed that, under the present Administration, economic expansion would not be sufficient to use the power which it would produce?

No, Sir. The Central Electricity Generating Board took into account all the facts, including the likely future expansion of industry in the country.

asked the Minister of Power what directions he has given to the Iron and Steel Board under Section 11 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953.

None, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause an inquiry to be made into steel imports in the last twelve months, and particularly into the type of people importing steel? Is it the case that members of the British Iron and Steal Federation, which last year mounted a very powerful lobby to get an increase in British prices, are importing cheap steel, some from South Africa, including billets and strip, and processing and selling it at British prices, while very large number of steelworkers in Britain are unemployed or are on short-time?

I will do my best to collect any information which the hon. Gentleman thinks may be helpful to me, but that point does not seem to be closely connected with the Question.

Since the Minister has said that he will inquire into this question, will he undertake to tell the House his findings? If it were found that a number of steel firms were importing steel which could be made in this country, would not that be most reprehensible?

If it is in order to answer a Question on the lines which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I am always ready to do so.

Is the Minister aware that the Question was framed in this fashion because of the difficulty of getting an appropriate Question across the Table? Is he further aware that the real trouble is that the steel firms in this country are engaged in a most despicable racket—

Rubbish.

—in reducing their capacity, or not using their capacity to its fullest extent, purchasing cheap steel from abroad and selling it to consumers in this country at the high prices fixed by the right hon. Gentleman some time ago?

I think that that supplementary question was framed to give rather than to get information. I certainly realise that the Question was put down in this way because it might not have been easy to get an appropriate Question past the Table. If it is difficult to get an appropriate Question past the Table, it is probably improper for me to answer it.

asked the Minister of Power whether, in view of the fact that should the United Kingdom join Euratom under the treaty establishing it the Central Electricity Generating Board will, after 1967, be dependent on the Euratom Agency for supplies of nuclear fuel fox its reactors, he will take steps to ensure that the Board will be enabled to build up stocks of such fuels in advance of this situation.

No, Sir. There is no reason to believe that supplies of fuel for nuclear power stations would be adversely affected by our joining Euratom.

Is it not the case that under the Treaty, after 1967 the Central Electricity Generating Board will not be able to combine supplies of nuclear fuels, even home-produced ones, without the permission of the Agency and except through the Agency's instrumentation and at the prices which it determines? Is it not the case that by entering Euratom, we shall be placing the whole of our future nuclear power programme, its development and its pricing at the mercy of the Agency and the Commission of Euratom?

The hon. Member has asked me to allow the Generating Board to build up stocks of uranium. In fact, the Atomic Energy Authority holds stocks of this, which is the fuel used in nuclear generation, and the Article which, I believe, the hon. Member has in mind does not apply to it. It is certainly true that we shall have to get a lot of clarification of various matters during the negotiations. I remind the hon. Member, however, that the object of the Community is to promote the growth of nuclear industries and not to hamper them. Therefore, I do not share the worries which the hon. Member has expressed.

asked the Minister of Power what is his policy about the fitting of gas and electricity meters under stairs; if he is satisfied that present requirements pay sufficient regard to fire hazard; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has powers under the Gas and Electricity Acts to make regulations to protect the public so far as practicable from personal injury, fire or other dangers. These powers would be used if necessary. I have no evidence that present practice in the fitting of meters is unsatisfactory.

Does the hon. Gentleman know that recently there have been two fires in my constituency caused by the proximity of electricity and gas meters and that the situation was rendered far more dangerous than otherwise it would have been by the fact that both meters were fitted under the stairs and, therefore, people tended to be trapped upstairs when the fire took place? Does the Minister do nothing about this?

If the hon. and learned Member will be good enough to let me have details, I will certainly have the case looked at.

asked the Minister of Health what further steps he is proposing to take to increase the consumption of concentrated orange juice as a welfare food.

None, Sir; but current measures will continue.

In view of the nutritional value of this welfare food, may we take it that the Minister will endeavour to obtain greater supplies from next year's crop in Jamaica and the other West Indian territories that produce citrus products?

Supplies are adequate.

Should we not be running down the stocks of these welfare foods and not increasing them, because orange juice, and so on, should be given only to those who really need it?

That is the purpose of the Regulations which we put through the House: to concentrate on the priorities for families who were most in need of help.

Can the hon. Lady say what success her publicity measures have been having? Has the fall in consumption continued or has the trend been reversed in recent months?

There has been a very slight reduction in the decrease in taking up this item, but I would not want to make anything of it. We are continuing the publicity so that mothers shall know that this, by comparison, cheap source of vitamins is available.

What stops is the Ministry taking to increase the consumption of these foods?

Leaflets, personal persuasion, which is the most important, and general publicity through newspapers, radio and television.

asked the Minister of Health if he will expedite the publication of those sections of the 1961 census dealing with households without baths, hot water or inside toilets.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 11th December last.

Because of the special interest in these figures, not least among the estimated 15 million inhabitants, could not these particular figures be given priority, as has been done with certain other sections of the census? Surely, 18 months is a long time to wait, particularly since the knowledge of the vast numbers involved should accelerate Government action?

This work is being processed on a computer and that means a pattern is laid down. To take out one set of figures would delay the general progress, but in fact—and this is what the hon. Member is interested in—publication should begin in the autumn of this year and be completed by 1963.

asked the Minister of Health the estimated number of trained nurses who emigrated to Commonwealth countries in 1961.

I regret that information on which to base a reliable estimate is not available.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the increasingly numerous advertisements which are being inserted in the nursing journals, for example, by the Canadian health authorities offering salaries of £1,200 a year, with lower charges for board and lodging and improved fringe benefits over and above what is being offered in this country? Is not the hon. Lady concerned about the continued wastage which is occurring because of the Government's refusal to pay the nurses a living wage? Can we interpret the fact that the Minister of Health is one of the few who has not lost his job in the recent holocaust to mean a continuation of the Government's brutal treatment of the nurses' pay claim?

The short answer to the hon. Member's string of supplementary questions is that the number of nurses in the National Health Service continues steadily to rise.