asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board to review their proposals for oil-firing of power stations, as opposed to coal-firing.

No, Sir.

Is sufficient consideration being given to the fact that what is really relevant is the comparative prices of oil and coal in the 1980s? Is it not likely that for geological if not political reasons the real cost of oil will rise?

All these matters are considered by the Generating Board. It would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to give directions to the Board at every turn. Its duty primarily is to provide electricity on an economic basis.

asked the Minister of Power what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on whether new power stations are to be fuelled by coal or by oil.

asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government of giving preference to areas of high unemployment in allocating contracts, he will ensure that all conventional power stations constructed in such areas, with adequate coal reserves nearby, will be coal-fired.

When I consider an application for a power station I take account of where the load is, what different fuels are available and how much they cost. I cannot give an undertaking that in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr T. Fraser) I shall consent only to coal-fired stations.

But can the Minister say how far he co-operates with the Secretary of State for Scotland on these issues of principle? Is he aware that there is exceedingly great interest in Scotland because a large part of the future of the coal industry depends on this? Can the right hon. Gentleman prod the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to some decision?

I co-operate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland as closely as possible on as many problems as possible, but the problem which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is a matter which is now being discussed between the Scottish Division of the National Coal Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I have no reason to believe that they will not be able to come to an amicable arrangement on the possibilities for the future, but I am afraid that I cannot say that they have come to one yet.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the differential in price between oil and coal for the fuelling of power stations anywhere in these mining areas is bound to be infinitesimal. I think that it would probably work out in favour of coal, but the difference is bound to be infinitesimal. Would not it be totally absurd to build a power station on top of a coal field and fire it with oil, and thus deny employment to about 10,000 miners in the area and involve the Government in considerable expense in trying to find alternative work for those people?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I cannot think of any station which has been built on a coal field and which is fired by oil.

I am talking about the future.

The hon. Gentleman is asking whether it would happen in the future. I cannot give him an undertaking that in all circumstances oil would not be justified, but I bear in mind, and I shall continue to do so, the considerations which I expressed in my first Answer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in several other countries power stations are being built with firing equipment which is readily and economically convertible from one fuel to another, and is there any reason why we should not do that in this country, with all the great advantages that it gives?

My hon. Friend may not know that I recently gave my consent to such a dual-fired power station on the Medway. That was announced a few months ago.

asked the Minister of Power what are the relative technical and financial advantages in the use of oil-firing equipment and modern cyclone coal-firing equipment in electric power stations.

The cyclone firing of coal depends for its success on the use of coal with suitable physical properties, especially as regards ash. Many British coals have not been found suitable. There are no major technical difficulties in burning oil. General financial comparison is not possible because the relation of coal to oil prices varies at different power stations, depending on sources and transport costs.

If there are no substantial advantages in oil-fired equipment over modern coal-fired equipment, provided that the right kind of fuel is used, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why the conversion of Lots Road Power Station has taken place in view of the fact that this conversion, which apparently has no financial and technical advantages, will throw a considerable number of miners out of work in the North-East? Does he realise that his Answer is in complete conflict with one given by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, on 6th March, who said that there was a heavy balance of technical and financial advantage in the use of oil?

I think that the misunderstanding lies with the hon. Gentleman who, I do not doubt, will benefit enormously from reading my Answer in the morning. I pointed out that there are no major technical difficulties in burning oil. The Answer given by my right hon. Friend previously to the Gentleman is absolutely correct and at no point at variance with what I have said.

The Question asks not only what is the balance of technical advantages but what are the financial advantages, too. If there is no financial advantage in it, what is the point of throwing miners out of work in order to make this conversion?

What I said in my Answer was that general financial comparison is not possible. Particular financial comparisons are always made by the Generating Board. Naturally, it is its duty to do so as it is its duty to choose the fuel which will be most economic.

asked the Minister of Power whether he has yet reached a decision on the proposals made to him for the establishment of a nuclear power station at Wylfa Head; and if he will make a statement.

After a public inquiry the previous May, I gave my consent on 29th December, 1961, for a station of about 800 megawatts at Wylfa. On 15th August, 1962, I gave my consent to an increase in its size to about 1,000 megawatts. The Board is now considering tenders.

Will not my right hon. Friend attempt to advance the date when the final decision is made? Is he aware that the firm of Richardson Westgarth in my constituency tendered for the contract and, because of lack of decision, may have to lay off a number of people? If the firm got this contract it could employ 700 or 800 people. There is 10·6 per cent. unemployment in my constituency, and I should like early action.

I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's concern. There is no delay for which I am responsible, because I have given all the consents required of me. The construction now only awaits the Board's consideration of the tenders, and I know that the Board is anxious to make progress as quickly as it can.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board that, when placing contracts for new equipment, it should pay particular attention to the unemployment situation in, and facilities offered by, Northern Ireland.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board regarding the placing of contracts by the Board in the Hartlepools, with a view to alleviating unemployment; and what was their outcome.

asked the Minister of Power if, in the national interest, he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board that it should place contracts in North Lanarkshire in view of its high rate of unemployment.

The placing of contracts is entirely a matter for the Generating Board, which carries out the Government's contracts preference scheme.

Is not this rather a short-sighted policy? Does not the Government have an ideal method here of ensuring that work goes to areas of high unemployment, in particular to areas where there has been a run down in heavy engineering industry? Will my right hon. Friend look at this again and give some indication of the percentage of the orders which, over the last few years, have gone to areas of high unemployment?

I will certainly make the researches my hon. Friend has asked for, but the Government's scheme which the Board works does give preference, other things being equal, to areas of heavy unemployment. Clearly it is necessary that things like price, quality and delivery dates should be equal if the tenders are to be considered seriously by the Board.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have much the same problem as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills)? Surely this is a case where the Government can step in immediately for the benefit of areas of high unemployment. In my constituency we have sub-standard electricity works. Surely this sort of thing could be tackled in such areas. As I have stated, I still have 10·6 per cent. unemployed. Can we have action now?

I assure my hon. and gallant Friend again that action is not necessary now because action has already been taken in the formulation of the preference scheme. Preference is given to firms in development districts if their prices, quality and delivery dates are comparable with other tenders.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in areas like Coatbridge and Airdrie, which has a consistently high unemployment rate—it is more than 10 per cent. of the insured population—it is reasonable to expect that publicly-owned enterprises should send in jobs?

Parliament has already told this nationalised industry that it should provide electricity as economically as possible. Therefore, it is right that it should buy its equipment as economically as possible. But, where other things are equal, preference is given to the kind of area the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the East Midlands Electricity Board to speed up the supply of electricity to outlying country districts so that efficiency may be increased, additional employment provided, and rural economy generally stimulated.

I do not think it would be right for me to give a direction to the Board on this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that a development project of £400,000, which is ready to start at this moment, and which would provide considerable employment, is being held up because of the slowness in supplying electricity in Mablethorpe, which is an area of high unemployment? Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter again?

I am aware of this matter, because my hon. Friend has drawn attention to it, but I still do not think that it would be right to direct the Board in this matter. In developing supplies to rural and other areas in this country the Board has the responsibility to balance the need for supplies there with the obligation to cover its costs and to give no undue preference. In fact, the Board concerned has made a remarkable advance and has achieved a higher rate of electrification than the average board throughout the country.

asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to control the price at which electricity supplied by area electricity boards is resold through privately operated meters.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the sale of electricity by landlords to tenants at a price higher than that charged by the Area Boards.

The Electricity Act, 1957, gives the area electricity boards power to fix maximum resale prices. It is difficult to devise a fair and effective formula which could be applied generally, but I am discussing the matter with the Electricity Council.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but I hope that he will go into this matter very seriously because there is considerable exploitation of lodgers in this respect.

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall certainly go into it carefully. This is a very complicated matter indeed, because such is the difference between individual tariffs that it would be difficult to fix a maximum price for the average unit sold. It varies with the quantity sold, and there are other difficulties such as appliances provided by landlords, but I shall certainly go into it and, if I may, I shall write Ito the hon. Gentleman when I have completed my inquiries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are cases in my constituency where it would appear that landlords are making a profit of 200 per cent. to 300 per cent. on electricity supplied to tenants and thereby obtaining, in the last quarter, an increased rent of about £1 a week by this means? Will my right hon. Friend not only take action on this, but take it urgently?

Although area boards have not fixed maximum prices, they all tell me that they are ready to try to help in settling individual cases of alleged overcharging. Perhaps my hon. Friend would let me have the details of what he said.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will issue a general direction to the electricity boards to act generously when approached by the authorities of places of religious worship for heating by electricity.

No, Sir. I think that matters of this kind are best left to the boards and the consultative councils.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind in his talks with the heads of the different boards that in rural areas very often church and chapel authorities cannot make a decision to have electricity when it is first available, and then when they ask for it they are told that they must pay for the transformer as well? Could not the charge for transformers be borne by the board, because it is in the interests of all villagers that chapels and churches should be adequately heated?

I shall look further into this if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the details, but it sounds as though it might involve selling electricity below cost to one consumer, which would necessarily involve an increase in cost to others.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ensure that the capacity of the electricity supply industry is extended to meet the extra demands of a 4 per cent. growth in the economy.

asked the Minister of Power what increase in the capacity of the electricity industry will be required by 1966 to meet the demands of the target set by the National Economic Development Council of an annual growth of 4 per cent. in the economy.

An increase of about 2,500 mW above present plans would be needed by 1966, with associated increases in transmission and distribution capacity. As the Report of the National Economic Development Council recognised, a significantly greater increase could not now be achieved by 1966. I said in answer to Questions on 31st January that this will be one of the subjects I shall discuss with the Electricity Council and boards in the course of this year's review of their capital development programmes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, looking at the increased demand for electricity generally, there seems to be a disproportionate increase between the domestic consumer and industry? I think that the domestic consumer is increasing his intake by 13 per cent. per year and industry by about 4 per cent. Does he not think it very likely, indeed almost certain, that if we are to get a 4 per cent. increase in the economy there will have to be a very steep increase in the use of electricity by industry, and if that is to take place the existing plant will not meet this growing demand? Will he give serious consideration to this and see whether we can in fact maintain this 4 per cent. increase in the economy?

I am giving serious consideration to this matter. I told the hon. Gentleman in my Answer what the extent of the gap was. Clearly the extent to which this gap seriously prevents British industry from achieving 4 per cent. growth depends on various factors, such as where the development will take place and whether it is to be achieved by working more shifts or by building additional capacity. It also depends on competition from other fuels. It is difficult to know where the actual gap would be. It is certainly true that on present figures there would be a gap, and this is a matter which will be considered very carefully indeed.

Is not it the fact that one of our troubles over the past winter was that, in the past, forecasts of electricity demands have been lower than the actual demands? Is the Minister taking every step to ensure that this under-estimating is not carried forward into the next four or five years?

I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question that the gap would continue to exist on the basis of the present plans. It obviously takes time to build power stations. But it is planned to reduce the gap as quickly as possible for exactly the reasons the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—that estimates have been too low in the past and are now being increased.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that the consultative councils for the electricity industry make their meetings open to the Press.

This is a matter which electricity consultative councils should decide for themselves. Their practice is to exclude the Press only when they think this justified in the interests of electricity consumers.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he not aware that in some areas much of the work of the consultative councils is done through general purpose committees, which are virtually the councils under another name, and that from their meetings the Press are excluded? Will he investigate the position?

I understand that the councils necessarily want to discuss some of their business—such as the early stages of tariff changes and so on—without the Press being present. It is right that they should be allowed to do this. I understand that all the meetings of the committee in my hon. Friend's electricity area are open to the Press.

As the consultative councils represent the interests of the consumers, is it not important that the Press should be admitted virtually to all the meetings?

That is exactly the position in the area of my hon. Friend. All the committee meetings are open to the Press.

asked the Minister of Power what applications he has so far received for pipeline authorisations under Section 1 of the Pipe-lines Act and what action he has taken thereon.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give the names of the companies which have applied for permission to lay pipelines, the routes involved, and the distance in miles of each project.

I have received two applications, from United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Limited and Rugby Portland Cement Co. Ltd., both of which published their proposals. I therefore gave details of them in my Answer of 15th March to my hon. Friend, the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet). I have allowed the application by Rugby Portland Cement to go ahead and I am considering the other.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, according to Press reports, he is likely to receive an application from Trunk Pipelines Limited for an authorisation for a pipeline running over the same region as that for which he has already received an application? As the Minister is committed by Section 1 of the Act to have regard to the public interest in making his decision, will he give an undertaking that full details of all applications received by him under Section I will be published, either in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in some other form?

I have read the Press reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I am expecting an application to build a pipeline from Trunk Pipelines quite shortly. I intend when I get that application to examine both these schemes on their merits before deciding whether to allow either, or both, to proceed. If either, or both, proceed, I know that the hon. Member is well aware of the procedure which would have to take place and which would be an opportunity for any scheme which is allowed to proceed to be examined very fully.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider my hon. Friend's request? I am sure that he will agree that the provisions to which he has referred do not offer an opportunity for Parliament to consider the details of schemes put before him, which we hope he will consider from the point of view of public interest. In view of the immense importance of these terrific schemes for two oil pipelines, will not he consider whether in one way or another he will bring the details to the attention of hon. Members?

In this particularly important case I will certainly consider how this matter can best be dealt with, but I know that the hon. Member is very familiar with the procedure to be followed. When the Trunk Pipelines or the other scheme proceeds, it will be carefully gone into, if necessary at a public inquiry. There will be no doubt at all about the details of the company's intentions and proposals.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be quite wrong to publish details of these schemes until they are gazetted, or details are published in the national Press?

My hon. Friend has made a very sound point. The details of the United Kingdom Oil Pipelines scheme were published by the company, but when the details are not published by the company, I should have to consider very carefully whether publication would be right.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that the procedure laid down by Section 81 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the Modification of Mines Act Regulations, 1948, has proved cumbersome for a wide range of minerals, if he will introduce legislation to extend the provisions of the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1934, to cover all minerals, thereby obviating the time expended in prolonged procedure causing damage to the undertakings concerned.

I am willing to consider any evidence that amending legislation is necessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under the existing practice it may take about a year and a half to complete an application and that certain selected minerals such as coal, under the Acts of 1926 and 1934, are able to bypass the existing machinery? Is it not time that legislation was brought into line for the benefit of all mineral producers?

I would not wish to add to any delays unnecessarily. Proposals on the lines of my hon. Friend's Question were discussed with interested organisations in 1956 and 1957, but no detailed proposals were put forward then. If my hon. Friend has any such proposals, I should be glad to look at them.

asked the Minister of Power whether he was consulted by the Iron and Steel Board about the British Iron and Steel Federation's price-fixing arrangements with the European Coal and Steel Community; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. Neither the Iron and Steel Board nor I have to be consulted about such a matter. The British Iron and Steel Federation told us about its talks which have led to an understanding that the steel industries of this country and of the Community would have regard to the price regulations of the Treaty of Paris when selling in each other's home markets.

Does not this mean that the British steel companies have given an undertaking to the six countries in the Community that British steel will not be sold in Europe at competitive prices if those competitive prices give an advantage to the British producer? Surely the Minister is not going to say that he favours this kind of arrangement, the private cartel arrangement? If he has not authority to deal with these matters, should not he come to the House to get authority to stop this kind of arrangement?

I do not think that the advantages are nearly so clearly in the direction which the hon. Gentleman claims. It is certainly true that inceased sales, even at low prices, would provide welcome work for the industry—and that is the point the hon. Gentleman made—but it is also true—and this he has not pointed out—that production in the Community is 3½ times the size of production in Great Britain. I am told, and the Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board tells me he agrees, that the balance of advantage is on the side of preventing a price cutting war which would be very dangerous indeed to producers generally in this country.

Are British steel prices much higher or lower than the European levels?

I do not think that I could give any direct or concise answer to that. Some are below and some are above.

Was not the Iron and Steel Act passed through this House, on the advice of a Conservative Government, with a view to breaking up a monopoly in this country? If that was the intention, why should the right hon. Gentleman now say that he is in favour not only of a monopoly, but of an international cartel?

Because the purpose of the arrangement is, in present circumstances, to prevent damage to the British iron and steel industry, which the producers believe would be the result of a serious price-cutting war. That is why they reached the agreement.

asked the Minister of Power what arrangements exist among the nationalised fuel and power industries to co-ordinate their production plans in the national interest.

I talk regularly and frequently about all important policy matters with the heads of the fuel and power industries, for which I am responsible. The industries also maintain close direct contacts with each other.

Does the Minister continually bear in mind that the national interest is not always served by concentrating on purely commercial interests? Does not he appreciate that the concentration on commercial interests is turning large parts of the country into mere desert? Would he see that the national interest is considered rather than purely commercial interests?

I can think of a number of examples where the pure wind of commerce is tempered by other considerations. I do not know exactly the consideration which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I can assure him that I certainly take the national interest into account in these matters.

Would not the Minister agree that this, apparently, is not operating in Scotland because of the manner in which the National Coal Board has smashed so many pits? Does he not agree that almost purely commercial interests apply there?

It must be not only to the commercial but to the national interest to try to produce the coal that the country needs as cheaply as it can be produced.

asked the Minister of Power how many of the 260 staff employed in the Gas Division of his Department are employed in Scotland; and how many are in the London area.

Twenty-two in Scotland and 100 in London, out of the present total of 250.

Can the Minister say where the balance of the staff is employed? Is it part of the policy of his Department to spread the staff throughout the country as much as possible?

The balance of the staff is round the country outside London. All staff are either gas examiners or meter examiners, and, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is an inescapable characteristic of gas examiners and meter examiners that they have to be where the gas and meters are if they are to examine them.

asked the Minister of Power how many of the 277 staff in his Establishments Division and Information Branch are employed in offices in Scotland; and how many are in London.

The total number at present is 271. None of these is in Scotland, 260 are in London.

Will the Minister strive to reverse the numbers, having regard to the fact that there are none at all in Scotland? Would not it really benefit all these people, and probably their work, if we took them out of the dreary, dull, depressing atmosphere of London? Would not there be consequential ancillary employment in respect, say, of the Information Branch in seeing that the printing was well done in Edinburgh, for example?

I think it important that the Information Branch should be in reasonably close touch with the Minister. In any event, I am being asked one or two further Questions on the general issue of the decentralisation of my Department and perhaps I can give a general answer on that occasion.

Are we to understand that all the information which we have obtained, or have not been able to get, in relation to the Questions we have asked in the past has been due to the proximity of these sources of information?

No. I have my roots and tentacles in all parts of the country and that is why I can produce such full information.

asked the Minister of Power if he will transfer the headquarters of his Department to an area of high unemployment.

asked the Minister of Power what consideration he has given to the suggestion that his Department should be moved to Scotland.

I am awaiting the result of the comprehensive review of the work of Departments in London which is being undertaken by Sir Gilbert Flemming.

I thank the Minister for that reply, and am hopeful for a good outcome of the review. Will he do what he can to hurry it up, so that the removal, when it does come, can be effected by rail?

I shall await the report and then take the necessary action. There will still be room for the movement of any necessary staff.

When he is considering this report, will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the very fact that the headquarters of various Government Departments are concentrated in London results in or contributes to the concentration of industries in London? Will he do what he can in this respect to see that industries as well as Government Departments are dispersed?

All these matters will be taken into account.

asked the Minister of Power how many of the 450 staff in his Chief Scientist's Division are employed in Scotland; and how many are in the London area.

The number at present is 435. None of these is in Scotland, and 40 are in London.

Can the Minister give any indication of how many of these persons employed in London were educated in Scotland? Can he further say whether he has any future intention of establishing a part of his division somewhere in Scotland?

If the hon. Member will put down a Question about the education of my advisers I will do my best to answer it.

Will the Minister reply to the second part of my supplementary question, concerning the future establishment of part of his division in Scotland?

The bulk of the staff of my Chief Scientist's Division are, as the hon. Member will have noted, outside London. That is largely for historical reasons. I do not think that any further decentralisation of this division will be possible.

asked the Minister of Power how many of the 303 staff employed in the Safety and Health (Mines) Division of his Department are working in Scotland, and have their offices there; and how many are in offices in the London area.

Out of the present total of 296, 29 are in Scotland and 65 in London.

How many mines are there in London?

There are no mines in London, but there are mines, as the hon. Gentleman may have noticed, in other places than London and Scotland. That is why the Mines Inspectorate, whose characteristic is that it has to be near the mines, is spread around the country.

Can the Minister say why some are in London and not in the country?

Some of those in London are in the Safety and Health Division, which advises me, and the others are in the headquarters of the Mines Inspectorate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues in order to let the House have a statement making it clear whether the Government are serious about decentralising their offices? If they are serious, when will their intentions be made known to the House?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was listening to one of my recent answers, in which I said that these matters were being investigated by Sir Gilbert Flemming, who would be reporting, and that the Government would let the House have a full statement.

asked the Minister of Power why there has been a reduction from 25 to 23 in the numbers employed in his Scottish and Welsh offices in the last year, whilst the overall increase in staff has been from 1,699 to 1,723; and what steps he intends to take to increase the numbers employed in the regions outside London, and especially in Scotland.

The changes were due to a small reorganisation of the work in Scotland, but the hon. Member is omitting the staffs of the Mines Inspectorate, gas examiners, examiners of gas and electricity meters and their supporting staff. I am now awaiting the comprehensive review Sir Gilbert Flemming is making of the work of all Government Departments in London.

Even in relation to the departments that are to be taken into consideration in this question is it not rather fantastic that, as the office work of the offices in these areas appears to decrease, the head office staff increases? Should not the opposite be the case? When are we likely to know the result of this consideration about the office establishments of the right hon. Gentleman's departments, and the proposals they intend to make?

On the last part of the supplementary question, Sir Gilbert Flemming has been asked to report as soon as possible. I cannot give the hon. Member a definite date. The saving in respect of the reduction in Scotland amounted to two—a full-time shorthand writer and two part-time telephonists. The increase in London is due to the extra work created by the formation of the organisation known as the National Economic Development Council—which has the hon. Member's support—and the work on pipelines, with which the hon. Member will be very familiar.

I hesitate to interfere in Scottish affairs, but since the Question also refers to Wales, will the Minister tell us how many reductions there were in the Welsh office?

There were no reductions in the Welsh office.

asked the Minister of Power how many of the 1,723 staff in his Department are employed in the London area.

Eight hundred and fifty-one are employed in London, out of the present total of 1,684.

Can the Minister tell us whether this office force is housed in one block of offices, or is broken up and housed in different blocks around the London area? If they are in separate blocks, in view of the heavy charges now imposed by the Post Office, under his right hon. Friend, in respect of telecommunications, can the Minister bring all this force into one Department, and possibly move them out of the Landon area?

There are technical difficulties about bringing all of them under one roof, but the main body is under one roof already, so that the difficulty he has mentioned does not arise.

asked the Minister of Power whether he has considered the Memorandum on Europe's energy requirements, prepared by the National Coal Board and the West European Coal Producers and submitted to him by the Board; and whether, in view of the main conclusions regarding the necessity for a policy of coal conservation through continuous production and for an expansion of output during the next decade and beyond, he will make the necessary changes in Government policy.

I have considered the memorandum, but I see no reason to depart from the policies which I announced last July after I had reviewed with the Board the prospects for coal in this country.

Does the Minister's reply mean that he rejects the main general conclusion of this memorandum—that the coal industries of this country and Western Europe, far from looking forward to a contraction during the next two decades, should plan for an expansion of output above the existing level? Does he accept or reject that conclusion? If he accepts it, what steps is he taking to ensure that there are revised plans for coal output in the coming years?

If the hon. Member considers the memorandum carefully, he will appreciate that no separate forecast is made of the size of the coal industry in Great Britain. The arguments within the memorandum, very important arguments, were taken into account and were very much in my mind when I agreed coal policies with the National Coal Board last year. I do not believe, therefore, that the memorandum requires any redefinition of these policies or, as the hon. Member suggests, any changes in Government policy on this matter.

asked the Minister of Power whether, in conformity with the policy of dispersion of office accommodation out of London, he will issue a general direction to the National Coal Board to remove its headquarters to the Scottish coal field.

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what reason there is for not accepting this suggestion? Is it not the case that over the last few years there have been more closures in Scotland than anywhere else, so that it would seem singularly appropriate for the Coal Board to open something in Scotland? In view of the enormous depth of despair in Rothes when the new pit was closed, would it not be highly appropriate for the Coal Board to open up there?

The hon. Member asks whether I will give a general direction. This is not a suitable matter for a general direction because it is primarily the responsibility of the Coal Board. A very high proportion of the Board's non-manual staff is already decentralised from London, including a number in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware. Apart from the divisional staff, there are a number of national establishments outside London and I think that the Coal Board has already decentralised itself to a considerable extent.

Has the right hon. Gentleman approached Lord Robens on this issue? Can he tell the House how many of the Coal Board stall are currently employed in London? Can he say how their continued employment in London links up with the declared policy of the Government to get as many office workers out of London as they can?

I have discussed this with Lord Robens. There are 2,000 Coal Board employees working in London. I know that Lord Robens is continually considering this matter and seeing whether he may decide of his own volition that more should be moved out of London into other parts of Scotland, England, or Wales.

asked the Minister of Power what investigations are being conducted into the production of acetylene from high temperature treatment of coal.

The National Coal Board is carrying out research into this matter.

Would it not be more economic to continue the production of acetylene from calcium carbide?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would put down a Question about that.

asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that a sufficient supply of smokeless fuel is now available at a reasonable price in smokeless zones; and if he will make a statement.

Supplies are generally adequate though shortages of particular types of solid fuel may occur from time to time. My right hon. Friend does not control fuel prices but I have no reason to think that they are unreasonable.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is serious dissatisfaction with the price of 12s. 7d. per cwt. bag of Phimax? Is he further aware that local authorities are being supplied at half the price—6s. 7d. per cwt. for No. 4 Phimax? While there is a certain difference in quality, does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is an extraordinary discrepancy?

I have no doubt that the Gas Board will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he has raised the question of bagged supplies, I should like to make this point because it is frequently alleged that excessive charges are made for fuel sold in paper bags. It should be remembered, first, that these bags are expensive, and, secondly, that the people who put fuel into the bags have to be paid for doing so.

As the hon. Gentleman says that supplies of smokeless fuel are now adequate, can he tell me where they are, so that I can get the ton of smokeless fuel which I ordered eight weeks ago and which has not yet been delivered?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to let me know which type of smokeless fuel he ordered, when he ordered it, and where from, and I shall be glad to draw the attention of the appropriate body to his order.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware of dissatisfaction with the quality of solid smokeless fuel available to domestic consumers in Glasgow; and if he will take steps to ensure an adequate supply of better quality solid smokeless fuel in this area.

Much of the dissatisfaction is caused by attempts either to burn smokeless fuels in unsuitable appliances or to burn unsuitable fuels. I am informed that while premium smokeless fuels have been scarce in recent months, supplies of Gloco have been adequate.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the quality of the fuel. Does he realise that the further we expand the smokeless zones the greater will be the dissatisfaction among housewives? Can he give an indication now when a start will be made at the new smokeless fuel plant promised to Scotland recently?

I think—without notice—that it will be in operation next winter. As to the general dissatisfaction to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I do not believe that this exists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that in making these allegations the hon. Gentleman is very largely failing to have proper regard, first, to the difficulties, and, secondly, to the progress that is being made in clean air.

asked the Minister of Power what supplies of smokeless fuel are now available at a reasonable price in smokeless zones, particularly in the London area.

Coke supplies are adequate, including Gloco. Various premium fuels are also available in the area though they are dearer and some users may not always be able to get the kind they prefer.

Where does the Parliamentary Secretary get that information? We should like to know, because no one in the area would agree with it. Is he aware that, quite apart from the recent cold spell, stocks of smokeless fuel in London have been inadequate for many months past? Who is responsible for seeing that there are adequate supplies of smokeless fuel, particularly in view of the growing extent of smokeless zones?

I have no doubt that the various fuel manufacturers and the distributing trade will note with care what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has challenged the sources of my information. Perhaps it would be fair if I were to remark that I have been wondering about the sources of his information for many years.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House when the newly-developed smokeless fuel will become available, as preliminary reports seem to indicate that it is extremely good?

I think it is a very good new fuel. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will give him more information. Limited quantities will start to become available this autumn. Thereafter, it is a question for the Coal Board to decide whether it intends to develop new plants.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of coal to support the rate of economic growth proposed by the National Economic Development Council.

Supplies of coal should be adequate to support economic growth at the proposed rate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what part the Scottish coal industry can play in this? He will know that in the pits in Scotland in the last five years we have lost 25,000 jobs, and the Chairman of the Scottish Coal Board is on record as saying that unless we can get a new coal-fired power station, at the Barony coal pit a large number of men will be unemployed. Would he advise the Coal Board to cut the selective price in Scotland so that the Scottish Division can be more competitive for a new coal-fired power station?

The hon. Gentleman originally asked me whether there would be sufficient coal to support an economic growth of 4 per cent. and my answer was that these supplies would be adequate. In fact, the Report points out that the industry already has physical capacity in excess of its target requirements of 200 million tons. Clearly, the level of coal production in Scotland will depend on the extent to which it can be economic, and I am glad to say that recent signs have been very much more encouraging than past performance.

Will not the right non. Gentleman accept the Mackenzie Committee's Report, which indicates quite clearly that unless we have more power stations in Scotland we shall be short of fuel?

I told the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the question of a further power station in Scotland is now being considered, and I do not know what the answer from that consideration will be.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to the Gas Council to ensure that the terms on which Gas Boards hire gas meters to landlords for use by tenants, including variable rates of hiring, are made known to such tenants, so that the value of gas paid for by insertion of coins in the meter may also be known.

Each area gas board has published a maximum resale price for gas as the Statute requires. Meter rents are not usually published, but particulars would be given to inquirers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many tenants do not have the remotest idea of the value they receive in gas when they put a shilling in the slot, assuming that when they put in a shilling, a shilling's worth of gas comes out, which is not the fact? In the interests of consumer protection, will he now consider giving as much publicity as possible to the facts so that tenants can find out from landlords who install these meters how much gas they get?

I do not doubt that what my hon. Friend has just said will command the widest attention. If he will give me any instances of abuses. I will be perfectly willing to discuss them with the Gas Council, if that should be necessary.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the complaint is of long standing, that many old people are being milched by having to pay far too great a price for a supply of gas—or electricity—taken in this way?

I am here concerned with gas, and the position with gas is rather different from that with electricity. The boards publish a maximum resale price, as they are required to do under the Act. If the hon. Member has any constructive suggestions to make, I will be glad to consider them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons and Borstal institutions oil-fired heating systems have been installed during the last two years and in which others it is planned to install oil systems during the next two years.

As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Presumably that means that it is a very long list. Could not the hon. Lady say why gas, electricity or coal could not be used in these prisons? Surely it is in the national interest to use these indigenous sources of fuel instead of using oil?

It is a long list, but in all cases all alternative sources of fuel have been investigated, as the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will ask for an assurance from the President of the United States of America that every detail relevant to the production of the Polaris submarine and its firing mechanism will be communicated to the British Government before production of any part of the submarine begins in the United Kingdom.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance, in his own wording, that we shall have the transmission of every technical detail before we start the production of the Polaris submarine in this country?

Yes, Sir. I understand that the transmission referred to by my noble Friend will be of the most detailed character. As I say, this is being worked out and will be published.

Is it not of vital importance that we should be furnished with every possible technical detail in order to avoid a recurrence of what happened over the Skybolt missile? May we have a definite assurance that the House will be informed before any production occurs in respect of the Polaris submarine that we are wholly satisfied—that the Government are wholly satisfied—that we can proceed?

Yes, Sir. I think it vital to have the full information and, as this is to be published, I think it will be available to the House.

asked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the activities of those members of Her Majesty's Government who are seeing the Chinese official visitors, so that they do not com- mit themselves to anything which will cause offence to India or any other Commonwealth country, and do not allow the sale to China of anything, particulary aircraft, which would help her in her as yet unsettled dispute with India.

I have been asked to reply.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us a little more, in view of the fact that India must be very worried that some weeks ago this mission was postponed because of a possible invasion of India and, now it is threatened again, why are we still having the mission here?

It is not a buying mission. It has come here to talk about the possibilities of future trade, and I cannot see that it can cause undue alarm.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that more than one Commonwealth country is doing extensive trade with the People's Republic of China. Is he aware that there will be support in many quarters for the initiative of the Government in inviting the Vice-Minister of International Trade to this country, and that we hope this will enable the domestic economy of that country to be improved, thereby reducing international tension?

Yes. It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the expansion of trade with the People's Republic of China.

In view of the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House to do everything possible to reduce unemployment in this country, will my right hon. Friend see that no unnecessary barriers are put up against British traders who wish to trade with China, especially in view of the fact that at the moment America refuses to trade, the Soviet Union is not trading and there is a grand opportunity for us to trade?

I will discuss this with my right hon. Friend principally concerned.

Will the Minister advise us why it is that when another country, for example, Egypt, buys planes from the Soviet Union, we persuade ourselves that this is the first step to making that country a vassal of the Soviet Union because of its dependence on the Soviet Union for spare parts, electrical equipment and so on, but when we are to supply planes to a Communist country it does not have the same effect?

That raises considerations rather wider than the question of trade with China.

asked the Prime Minister whether the agreement he concluded with President Kennedy at Nassau about the formation of a multinational nuclear force in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation provides for incorporating his agreement with the President that neither will decide to resort to nuclear weapons anywhere in the world without first consulting the other, in the proposed international system of control over the use of this force.

I have been asked to reply.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he elucidate the matter a little further by saying whether his Answer means—as I believe it does—that even if and when the international control proposals which are being discussed are worked out, if ever, thanks to General de Gaulle, they will leave entirely unaffected the use by the United States Administration of its own nuclear forces? Will the United States Administration remain as unfettered as it is today, or as it was at the time of Cuba?

I cannot answer for the United States Administration, but I can say that the understanding reached between my right hon. Friend and the President of the United States will prevail. If there are any doubts about this matter, the whole subject is to be discussed in May, at the next meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council.

If the Government were one of the supporters of this move to have N.A.T.O. nuclear weapons, is it not curious that they apparently have no proposals of their own as to how those weapons are to be controlled? Would it not be better to have some agreement about political and diplomatic consultations in N.A.T.O. before we begin running this hare of N.A.T.O. nuclear weapons, about which we apparently have no clear idea, and for the control of which we have no proposals?

The right hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made a statement on this matter on 26th March. We then discussed and described what sort of control there might be, in relation to the future discussion which is to take place in May. This indicates that Her Majesty's Government have ideas on this matter and will put them forward at the N.A.T.O. meeting.

In view of the fact that this N.A.T.O. nuclear force has to consist of many nations, would it not be fair to consider all the nations in the force, rather than just two of them?

Yes, certainly. There is the multinational force to consider, with all the complications of the mixed-manned force, or the multilateral force, as it is sometimes called.