asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board to use British computers where such machines are available.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the policy of the National Coal Board in purchasing American computers; and if he will give a general direction in the public interest to the Board to use British computers.

The National Coal Board is a substantial customer of the British computer industry. I would not regard a general direction on this subject as appropriate.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recently the National Coal Board bought an I.B.M. machine for £150,000 and that British industry is facing intense competition in this field and is in danger of annihilation unless public bodies like the National Coal Board support British technology? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will have discussions with the Board regarding future policy?

I have no doubt that the Chairman of the National Coal Board will note what my hon. Friend has said. I think I should make it clear that my information is that all data processing equipment now used by the National Coal Board is, in fact, rented and not purchased, the bulk of which is British made.

Furthermore, is not my hon. Friend a ware, also within the scope of his Ministry, that the last orders placed by the Midlands, Eastern and South-Western Electricity Boards have all been for equipment supplied by United States companies and that the equipment could have been supplied on time and at competitive prices by British industry?

I do not think that that arises on this Question, though the Answer that I have given, that I do not regard this matter as one which is appropriate for a direction, would stand even here.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that American computers are now being built in Scotland, notably at Newhouse in Lanarkshire, and that they will, in fact, be built from the ground up? Will he do nothing to discourage the work of good American firms in this country?

I shall certainly do nothing to discourage the work of good American firms in this country, particularly in Lanarkshire.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give consideration to relieving the National Coal Board of the whole or part of the financial burden of compensation for mining subsidence damage.

No, Sir.

Is it not time that some consideration was given to this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are anxious that the legislation on compensation for subsidence damage should be extended to cover consequential damage caused by subsidence, but that we are not anxious to put additional financial burdens on the Board? Would not his Ministry, therefore, now consider, with relation to proposals for extending the coverage for compensation for subsidence damage, that it is time that the Board was relieved of some of this weighty responsibility for compensation?

I think it would be wrong to relieve the Board entirely of responsibility in this field. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the position of the surface owner was considerably improved by the 1957 Act, and I really do not see that things have changed to an extent which would warrant the upsetting of that settlement.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that if compensation for mining subsidence became a national Exchequer charge there would also be many very immediate demands on the Exchequer, including the much more deserving cost of coast protection work?

I do not think that I can be lured into coast protection work at the moment.

I do not propose that the National Coal Board should be entirely relieved of responsibility, but would not the hon. Gentleman go as far as to consider that, in further legislation, compensation for subsidence damage should become an Exchequer responsibility and not involve an additional burden on the National Coal Board? Can we not have that?

I must make it clear that there is no intention in the mind of the Government to introduce legislation altering the settlement reached in the 1957 Act.

There should be.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to increase the production of coke and smokeless fuels in Scotland.

Supplies of Gloco, Sunbrite, gas, electricity and oil are ade- quate, and a new plant producing premium fuel has just been opened in Fife. As regards the longer term, steps are being taken as set out in the White Paper of December, 1963.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in West Scotland at least, and certainly in the new town of Cumbernauld in my constituency, it is becoming almost impossible in the winter months to obtain coke and smokeless fuel? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in working-class homes people cannot stock up in the summer? They do not have the room and it is becoming almost impossible for those in smokeless zones to warm their houses in winter. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to given a general direction quickly?

I cannot undertake to give a general direction. Complaints about specific shortages must be addressed to the supplying industry. I should make it perfectly clear that coke is a by-product and it would be wrong to ask the gas industry to put down plant to make a fuel the production of which would be uneconomic.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board not to engage in the retail distribution of coal on its own lorries.

No, sir.

While appreciating my hon. Friend's difficulty in giving directions about this, that and the other, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that there is great anxiety in the retail trade lest the Board should take the opportunity of the reorganisation of British Railways to go into the retail trade in a much bigger way? Will my hon. Friend see that Lord Robens understands this?

I have no doubt that Lord Robens will take due note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I understand, if it is any comfort to my hon. Friend, that the National Coal Board has no immediate plans to extend retail activities to the Gloucester area.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whereas many small distributors mix coals of different grades and sell them at a high-grade price, when the National Coal Board retails coal it gives an honest deal to the consumer?

asked the Minister of Power if he will state the number of pits closed in the County of Durham since January, 1960, and the number of coalminers those closures caused to be unemployed.

I am asking the Chairman of the National Coal Board to write to the right hon. Member about this.

Pending this information, which no doubt will indicate a rather grave state of affairs, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman as a former President of the Board of Trade and with expert knowledge of what the North-East requires, to try to bring before the Coal Board and his colleagues in the Government the need to step up assistance to the industry?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive supplementary question. There is very close liaison between the National Coal Board and my former Department regarding pit closures and the need to bring in industries to take the place of pits which have been closed.

If Lord Robens writes to me as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, what am I expected to do?

That is very straightforward. The right hon. Gentleman should read the letter.

asked the Minister of Power when he last had consultations with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about coal prices; to what extent the reduction of certain coal prices in selected areas was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he had with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about the proposed reduction of 2s. 6d. per ton in the price of coking coal supplied to the steel industry; and, in view of the ability of the National Coal Board to make this price reduction, to what extent he discussed the possibility that the selective coal price increase of 10s. per ton imposed in Scotland two years ago should be discontinued.

asked the Minister of Power what discussion he held with the National Coal Board about the proposed reduction in the price of coking coal for the steel industry; what information he received as to the estimated total benefit of this concession to the steel industry, and as to whether the price reduction will be uniform in all parts of the country; and what other reductions in domestic or industrial coal prices were proposed.

asked the Minister of Power what recent discussions he has had with the National Coal Board on their selective coal price increases in Scotland and the effect of these on electricity costs and industrial costs generally.

The Chairman keeps me regularly informed of the Board's thinking on prices, and I understand that its proposals for reductions, which are being worked out, will be confined to coking coal. Although they will benefit the steel industry in Scotland as elsewhere, the Chairman has made it clear that he sees no early prospect of a general reduction in Scottish coal prices.

Does not the Minister consider that the 2s. 6d. per ton reduction in the price of coking coal announced by the Chancellor last week indicates a considerable improvement in the financial position of the Coal Board, but is he aware that the higher selective prices for coal in Scotland do not act as an incentive to industrialists to expand in the North? Will he, therefore, press the Chairman of the National Coal Board very soon to reconsider that decision and remove the 10s. increase in coal prices in Scotland?

There is no evidence to show that selective prices of coal in Scotland have deterred any industrialists from going north of the Border. The fact remains that the Scottish Division is still not paying its way. I am glad to endorse the views of the Chairman of the National Coal Board on his price policy.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman welcome this initiative of a nationalised industry in giving an example to private industry in the reduction of prices, but does he recognise nevertheless that, although there may be no firm evidence that industrialists are being discouraged from going to Scotland on this account, it may well be that in marginal decisions the selective price of coal is an influencing factor? Will he make further representations to the Board, particularly in view of representations made to him over a long period by industries in Fife and elsewhere, that the extra 10s. on industrial coal is having a deleterious effect already on industrial development in Scotland?

I can only repeat that I am not aware of what is suggested in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I shall certainly ensure that his views are brought to the notice of my successor at the Board of Trade.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the market for coal is declining quite frighteningly, and does not he agree that customers for the Coal Board are important in all parts of the country? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the discriminatory high prices in Scotland and the North-West are in fact chasing customers away, and has not he read even Press reports of industrialists having left those areas, quite apart from those who have not been attracted into them, because of high prices? In the south of Scotland, particularly, the Electricity Board has explained that the high price of industrial electricity, the highest in the country, is occasioned by the high price of Scottish coal. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise now that, if he is to protect the economy of Scotland and the North-West, something must be done to bring uniformity into coal prices?

The hon. Gentleman should realise that English coal fields are rather tired of subsidising Scottish coal fields.

That last reply in particular will cause a good deal of resentment in Scotland. Will not the right hon. Gentleman, at the very least, promise that he will keep in touch with the National Coal Board on this matter in view of the Government's policy to encourage industry to go to Scotland?

:I know that industry is going to Scotland. I also thought that Scotsmen were not afraid of the truth.

In my supplementary question I spoke of the Scottish Division and the North-West, which happens to be in England. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most economic and profitable pits in Britain are in Scotland?

I was talking of the Division as a whole in Scotland. Of course, there has been a selective price increase in the North-West as well, and for the same reason.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider very carefully what he has just said, having regard to the position in the coal mining industry? Does he realise that he makes no contribution to good feeling in the industry by setting one district against another? Will the right hon. Gentleman do at least one thing with regard to the 2s. 6d. reduction in the price of coking coal to the steel industry? Will he ensure that none of it is used by the steel companies for anti-nationalisation propaganda?

I do not think that they could afford to do so.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the shortage of smokeless fuels in the Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley area; and what action he proposes to take to ensure adequate supplies.

I am not aware of any general shortage of suitable fuels in these areas.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a shortage, certainly a shortage of good fuel. Is he aware that many people in these coal mining areas have a built-in resistance to the use of any fuel other than coal, and the shortage and poor quality of these fuels add to the difficulty? Can he give an assurance that there will be an adequate supply of top quality fuels, particularly those which will give a satisfactory fire in an adapted grate?

I am assured that Phimax, which is a reactive premium fuel, can be delivered without any delay. The same applies to gas coke for burning in an open fire. I understand that there was some delay in deliveries of Sunbrite a short time ago, but this has now been put right.

Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries about how much damage is being caused by the spitting of Phimax? This is not a satisfactory fuel in an old grate. Will he look into it?

Certainly, and I do not doubt that the gas board particularly concerned will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that unless his Ministry takes a much more positive attitude in trying to raise the standard not only of Phimax but of other fuels required in smoke control areas, the whole smokeless zone policy will be held up?

This whole problem was dealt with very fully, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the White Paper issued at the end of last year. The crux of the present situation is that there is ample solid fuel to maintain supplies in existing smoke control areas. As regards the future, there must be consultation between the local authorities and fuel suppliers. This is really very important. But I stress what I said before, that it would be wholly wrong to ask the gas industry to install uneconomic plant.

asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps, similar to those he has taken in north-east England, to ensure that main contractors for coal-gas plant in Scotland subcontract only to Scottish firms, in view of the unemployment situation; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's aim of supporting employment in the development areas is well known to the Boards, but my right hon. Friend does not intervene in the placing of particular contracts. The Scottish Gas Board does give preference to local firms, and asks its main contractors to do the same for sub-contracts.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently a very reputable firm in Coatbridge was refused the right to tender for manufacturer's supplies for a public contract in the north-east of England on the ground that the Minister had issued a direction that employment had to be confined to that area? I am not quarrelling with that decision, but cannot Scottish firms be given exactly the same treatment? When they can undertake work in Scotland should not these contracts be given to Scottish firms?

The manufacture of the light distillate reforming plant now being installed does not take place in Scotland but nevertheless it is a fact that nearly half of the value of the Board's major contracts is placed in Scotland and much of the remainder goes to other development areas.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter in my possession in which the Minister outlines his policy in this respect? Does he not think that if Scotland can supply 100 per cent. of the requirements, Scottish firms should have the opportunity of doing so just as firms in the north-east of England have at present?

My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the South of Scotland Electricity Board, but the Scottish Gas Board, for which he can answer, is very anxious to place as much work as possible in Scotland.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce legislation in this session to provide for the underground storage of gas.

I am anxious to introduce the Bill as soon as possible, but it will be a long and complicated Measure and I doubt that it would be possible to find Parliamentary time in this Session.

As the Government have practically nothing to do till the end of this Parliament, and as this matter has been under consideration in the Department for about three years now, could not the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and get his view, since he had something to do with reporting on this matter when he was a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries?

My Department has had a good ration this Session. Two Bills are already Acts. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should address his questions about the allocation of time for the remainder of the Session to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

Is the Minister afraid that the underground storage of gas beneath Winchester might have a harmful effect upon the by-election?

No; we are considering attractive anticlines at Huyton.

asked the Minister of Power what is the current cost of coal shipments to power stations in Great Britain and what are the relative costs per ton between shipments made by Central Electricity Generating Board colliers and other ships.

I am not prepared to answer questions about the confidential day-to-day business of the boards for which I am responsible.

Is the Minister aware that the Generating Board is operating very efficiently and effectively in this field? Will he do nothing in future to curtail this trade and will he undertake additionally to look at the question of its expansion?

The future operations of the Board in this field are, of course, a matter for its commercial judgment.

asked the Minister of Power what financial guarantees are being provided for the three nuclear power consortia to enable them to prepare plans and tenders for the nuclear power types envisaged in the White Paper.

This is a commercial matter for the C.E.G.B. and the consortia.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has published a White Paper, and that this Question is designed to try to resolve some of the ambiguity in paragraph 6? Are these tenders and designs to be negotiated? Are the three bodies involved going to take part in the general design? As there is a three-to-one chance of the consortia having their tenders rejected, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to get results from the method suggested in paragraph 6?

The consortia will doubtless have been studying the White Paper. The inquiries for tenders were sent out on 20th April, and I am sure they will consider how they should tender.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we started off with five consortia, and that we are now down to three? One of those has been wound up, and this is the field in which there is the greatest brain drain in the country. When are the Government going to exercise some authority in the matter?

I think it is for the consortia themselves and for their constituent members to decide for themselves the appropriate form of organisation for the submission of tenders for the next stage in the nuclear power programme.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that the amount of work allocated to the three nuclear power consortia is adequate to maintain the continued existence of these consortia.

The policy of the C.E.G.B. is to award contracts on the basis of competitive tenders. I am satisfied that the new programme is large enough to provide adequate experience and to sustain facilities for rapid expansion in later years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in paragraph 7 of the White Paper it is proposed by the Government to keep these consortia in being? As one of them is now being wound up, are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that some work is to be given to them in the immediate future, especially if these designs are going to take two years and there will be no development work done during that period?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. In fact, the inquiry for tenders has gone out and it is for the consortia themselves to decide on their own form of organisation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other question? Are these to be negotiated designs and tenders? The right hon. Gentleman has given no answer to that.

They are to be competitive tenders.

asked the Minister of Power what research into the reduction of the cost of underground cables in place of overhead pylons has been settled by his Department with the electricity industry.

Since the reply is a long one, I am writing to my hon. Friend.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the countryside is being gradually ruined by the extension of these overhead pylons and that this is making a farce of town and country planning? Is he further aware that the public would probably be prepared to pay slightly more for having these cables put underground, and could he say whether the price differential between the two systems is now being gradually reduced?

In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, the price differential is being gradually reduced, but it is still very big. The additional cost of laying underground cables to carry the 400 Kv. supply is really prohibitive in most circumstances. The Central Electricity Generating Board takes immense trouble to ensure that routes for overhead pylons shall not affect amenities, and the public should be grateful to the board for the good work that it does in this respect.

Has my right hon. Friend investigated the situation in Ger- many where I believe they have managed to reduce the financial differential considerably?

I have had reports of what has been done in Germany. These are under examination, but I think that British industry in this field is every bit as good as, if not better than, German industry.

Could my right hon. Friend give some indication of what the ultimate price to the consumer will be by using the underground system? What will be the percentage?

I do not think it is possible to produce an estimate of this sort, because it depends on how much voltage is to be undergrounded and whether the additional charges should be levied on all consumers or only on those who are likely to benefit.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will now publish as an appendix to Command Paper No. 2335 a mole detailed summary of the technical and economic arguments used by the Power Committee in its Report on the Future of the Nuclear Power Programme.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will publish as an appendix to Command Paper No. 2335, a more detailed explanation of the technical, social and economic arguments used by the Powell Committee in its Report on the Future of the Nuclear Power Programme.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) on 21st April.

While recognising that there are private and semi-private methods by which Members can obtain information, may I ask whether the Minister does not think that, in an issue as complicated as this, the House of Commons ought to be given some of the economic, statistical and technical information on which this Report was based? Otherwise, how does he think the House can have any reasonable debate about these extremely complicated processes?

I have had very much in mind the desirability of making as much information as possible available to the House of Commons. In looking at the draft of the White Paper I wondered whether any more could usefully be said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I just wanted the House to know that I had this point very much in mind. If I had thought that a longer White Paper would be generally beneficial, it would have been so drafted. The fact is that until tenders are submitted, we will not have the essential information on which to make a comparative study of the different systems. The White Paper announces a stage in the development of the second programme for nuclear energy, and I think we have given the House of Commons all the information that it is possible and useful to give at the present time.

Did the Powell Committee come to any conclusion on the siting of the fast breeder reactor?

The question of the siting of an individual nuclear station will be a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board which is considering siting questions now and for the future.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who have waited patiently for the White Paper and the Powell Report could not have been more disappointed? The White Paper as we read it could not possibly have given us less information. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has a duty to give the House of Commons rather more information than has been made available to us so far, so that Members in all quarters of the House may make a more intelligent appreciation of where we are going or where we ought to go in this field of nuclear power generation?

I think that one thing which the White Paper did was to make quite clear where we have not got any information, namely about the comparative economic merits of different systems.

Is not the siting of the prototype fast breeder reactor surely a national problem to be in the hands of the Generating Board?

I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to the siting of reactors in general—

The fast breeder reactor.

and was referring in his supplementary to the one at Dounreay. I think it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would put a Question down on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he had about the second nuclear power programme.

The electricity supply industry and the Atomic Energy Authority were fully consulted and I had the views of the consortia before me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the White Paper he devotes only one sentence to Scottish interests in the second nuclear power programme? Does he realise that that has created great disappointment in Scotland? Therefore, could he tell us now what is happening or what may happen to the Hunterston "B" project, to which many of us have been looking forward? Secondly, in view of the wonderful success of the experimental nuclear reactor at Dounreay, can we now look forward to the right hon. Gentleman squashing the rumours that the prototype fast reactor may not come to Caithness?

I cannot spend all my time squashing rumours. The statement in the White Paper is quite clear. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman and Scotland are offended by the fact that there is only one sentence about Scotland in the White Paper, but I thought it was a very clear sentence.

asked the Minister of Power on the basis of what ground rules he draws the conclusion that nuclear power is likely to have an economic place in the British electricity system by the early 1970s.

This is a broad assessment accepted by both the electricity supply industry and the A.E.A., and reached after considering a number of studies.

What use is a broad assessment, bearing in mind the large difference in calculating costs which arises from taking different ground rules? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difference of opinion which has existed for some time between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board on this matter? How can one possibly make such a judgment unless one first decides what the ground rules should be?

Inevitably, there was a good deal of discussion on how to make such an assessment. Indeed, this was part of the work of the Powell Committee. But the heads of both the C.E.G.B. and the A.E.A. have stated publicly that they agree with the findings of the White Paper, and I think, therefore, that it is a fair inference that they agree on what the hon. Gentleman chooses to call ground rules.

Could the right hon. Gentleman answer just one question on this ground rule: will the depreciation period of the advanced gas-cooled reactor he 20 or 30 years?

The rates of depreciation and return on capital were, of course, two of what the hon. Gentleman calls ground rules which were taken into account.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of the new evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, regarding the problem of compensation for money stolen from gas and electricity meters, what further consideration he has given to taking action to enable consumers to be relieved of the responsibility for such losses.

I have asked the boards concerned to examine these cases and I will write to the hon. Member about them but my right hon. Friend is still convinced that this should remain a matter within the discretion of the boards.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise from the memorandum which I submitted that a very large number of widows and old-age pensioners have, had their meters robbed and that this is not their responsibility? Why should they be presented with bills which are far' beyond their capacity to pay? Could not the hon. Gentleman ask the boards to exercise more reasonable discretion in a matter of this kind?

This matter was gone into fairly fully recently and I tried to make clear then that a considerable burden would be placed on the boards if the preset position was changed. I believe that the boards take a sympathetic view in cases of hardship, but it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to give them a direction on this subject.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the boards endeavour and often succeed in getting the best of both worlds in these matters? When the money is in the meter they regard it as their money and sometimes bring prosecutions for theft against the householder. When the money is lost they regard the money as belonging to the householder so that the householder becomes responsible for the loss. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not the way in which a powerful statutory authority should treat helpless individuals?

No, Sir. The boards always regard the money in meters as belonging to them. The point is that the occupier of the house is responsible for the safe custody of the money.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many local authorities arrange for meters to be placed outside the property and that there have been a number of cases of theft from such meters? If the boards cannot be elastic in these matters, could my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to persuade local authorities to have these meters installed in places of safety?

I will certainly look at that point.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great lack of uniformity among different boards in the way in which they treat these unfortunate householders whose meters are broken into? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern about the widespread hardship that is suffered by householders whose meters are broken into? Will he undertake to have this matter fully examined to see whether there is some solution which can be offered centrally by his Ministry?

I could not accept that there is lack of sympathy by the boards and it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to seek to dictate to them how they should act in this matter. They are much nearer, being local boards, to the circumstances of these cases and the matter must be left to their discretion.

asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the proposed reduction in the price of coking coal for the steel industry, he will now direct the Iron and Steel Board to reconsider the maximum prices chargeable for heavy steel used in the shipbuilding industry.

No, Sir. When the date of the forthcoming coal price reduction has been settled by the National Coal Board, the Iron and Steel Board will take account of this and of any other changes in costs, in keeping maximum steel prices under review.

In view of the fact that, from time to time, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends countenance the passing on of increased costs in increased prices, will he now, being responsible for pricing in the steel industry, give a general direction to the Iron and Steel Board that the economies brought about by the Coal Board's reduction of the price of coking coal by 2s. 6d. a ton will be passed on to consumers, particularly the shipbuilding industry which is now paying much more for its steel than Continental shipbuilders?

Maximum prices are a matter for the Iron and Steel Board, and I cannot consider using my powers to require the Board to vary maximum prices until the Board has been able to make its own decisions.

asked the Minister of Power if he will state the percentage increase since 1951 in the price of coal, oil, electricity, gas and steel, respectively.

In the most recent 12 year period for which figures are available the average pithead proceeds per ton of coal have increased by about 92 per cent.; the published price of minimum bulk load of medium fuel oil, by about 43 per cent.; the published price of minimum bulk load of domestic paraffin (premier grade) by about 38 per cent.; the average revenue per unit of electricity by about 33 per cent.; the average revenue per them of gas, by about 74 per cent.; and the published wholesale price index of iron and steel by about 67 per cent.

Is it not remarkable how well the electricity industry has done in these circumstances? Is it not an example to the electricity industries in virtually all the countries of the world? Will the Minister, who is responsible or answerable to this House for the electricity industry, now rise and tell us how well this nationalised industry has done?

I am glad to rise and say how well British technicians and engineers, particularly, in the manufacturing industries have reduced the costs of generation by designing modern large-scale plant which was not dreamt of 10 years ago.

Is my recollection correct that one of the ideas of nationalisation was to reduce costs to the consumer? What has happened to this idea?

If my hon. Friend will study the figures, she will see that costs have risen a good deal; but there is some variation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development (1) whether he is aware that discriminatory practices exist among some insurance companies against non-European and other minority groups; and whether, in order to ensure that all insured persons pay premiums based upon genuine commercial risk and actuarial assessments, he will seek to amend the Insurance Act, 1958, so as to provide that no insurance company may conduct business if it refuses insurance cover or requires extra premiums solely because of the race of a party seeking to be insured;

My right hon. Friend has made inquiries and is assured that all premiums are fixed on the basis of genuine commercial risk and, where appropriate, actuarial assessment. In these circumstances, he does not propose to amend the Insurance Companies Act or to conduct an inquiry.

In the course of these inquiries, has the hon. Gentleman seen private and confidential circulars which have been distributed to branch managers throughout the country by some of the leading insurance companies? Is he aware that within those circulars there are instructions to branch managers that they must do everything that they possibly can not to take premiums from coloured people, or, as they describe them, Asiatics or immigrants, and that if they are forced to take them they must be heavily weighted and must exclude certain risks? Is it not clear that there are, unfortunately, extreme prejudices ranging within the insurance world which can act with severe detriment to the whole community? Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at this matter again if I give him some evidence on it?

I shall be happy to look at any evidence which the hon. Member cares to let me have. However, he is not being strictly fair to insurance companies. If they find actuarially that there is a far higher accident rate among certain types of citizen rather than others, it is not unreasonable that they charge a higher premium, as one found when, as a student, one tried to get one's car insured.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether, in his regional studies, special consideration will be given to so called market towns, many of which have lost or are losing their markets and other economic activities on which they depended, in some cases the barracks of the county regiment, owing to amalgamations; and what plan, he has to re-establish the prosperity of these towns.

Yes, sir. As I explained in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) on 12th March, the prosperity of these towns depends on the economic circumstances of the areas surrounding them and plans for their future development will be considered in that context.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Report on the South-East is very disappointing in this respect? Will he endeavour to ensure that the other reports pay more attention to this problem and less to the spread of suburbia, or whatever one cares to call it?

The Report on the South-East was concerned, in particular, with the great growth in population and the problems of London. But the Joint Committee on the economy of the South-West is considering the scope of the studies, in economic development which it wishes to carry out and which we have offered to support.