asked the Minister of Power how many miners were employed in coal extraction in Scotland at the end of 1966; and how many are expected to be employed there at the end of 1967 and 1968.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) on 21st February this year.—[Vol. 741, c. 235.]

Are the Government satisfied that enough alternative employment will be available for those men who are made redundant and that adequate arrangements have been made for retraining?

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate this matter is not primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Power. We are, however, very much concerned about this, and other Government Departments are continuing to stimulate industrial development not only in Scotland but in other parts of the country which are affected.

asked the Minister of Power what arrangements he makes to meet miners' trade union representatives when he officially visits collieries.

I always meet local union representatives when visiting pits.

Is the Minister aware that on his last visit to Scotland some miners' leaders were not impressed by the offhand way in which he treated them?

My hon. Friend has developed rather a habit of asking offensive supplementaries at Question Time. I can only say that on every visit to any pit that I have made, and on any visit to any pit which has been made by any Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, deliberate arrangements have been made to meet local miners' leaders. Whatever the third-hand gossip my hon. Friend may be passing on, this has not been represented to me.

On a point of order—

rose—

rose—

Order. Mr. Taylor.

Can the Minister make time available to discuss with Scottish mining trade unionists their offer to run a coal mine at Lochshirmoch, which the Coal Board intends to close down?

I do not know about that offer, but I shall be willing to meet the S.T.U.C. or any other group of union officials at any time.

When my right hon. Friend meets some of the miners' leaders on the occasions when he visits collieries—and no doubt he does meet them—does he take note of the comments of the miners' leaders and of miners generally about Government policy—the number of closures taking place and redundancies? Is he aware that the mining community is almost in revolt against the Government?

My right hon. Friend raises a very real point. I make every effort to meet union members and officials at every opportunity—and the opportunities are fairly frequent in this job—precisely to keep in touch with the problems which they have, which I know are very real ones. I agree that there is a great deal of worry about the position. We do what we can to meet this worry.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that many miners' branch leaders treat the present problem with some emotion in trying to safeguard the future of their men, and if on occasions they feel a little dogmatic, will my right hon. Friend take that into account when answering their questions?

I have met many miners' leaders and have dealt with them very closely at local and national levels, and I have received nothing but courtesy from them. I am in no doubt about the worries they have, and I have nothing but admiration for the constructive way in which they have met the problem.

On a point of order. Further to the statement made by the Minister of Power on the question of my continual offensive remarks in supplementaries, would he care to tell the House about these remarks and, secondly—

Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.

asked the Minister of Power what was the output per manshift, in hundredweights, in the coal mining industry for the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966, respectively; and what percentage increase these figures represent over the previous year.

With permission, I will circulate the detailed figures in the Official Report, but output per manshift increased from 28·03 cwt. in 1960 to 36·35 cwt. in 1966. The highest increase (7·8 per cent.) was in 1962 and the lowest (1·3 per cent) in 1966.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures would have been higher if the morale of the men inside the industry had not been allowed to deteriorate? Is he further aware that the present attitude of himself and his right hon. Friend gives the impression that they are indifferent about the future welfare of the men in the industry?

I am sorry if my hon. Friend is under the impression that either my right hon. Friend or myself are indifferent. It is not the occasion, in answering Questions, to go into detail about the kind of discussions that we have had, both in London and in visiting various areas of the country, with the people directly involved. We are very concerned about the present state of the coal industry and its future prospects. So far as any lowering of morale is concerned, this again is a factor of which we are very much aware. There is a real possibility of this if we do not control what is happening in the industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the hostility of many of these Questions he has had stems from the fact that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction and apprehension in the coalfields? Promises have been given and those promises have not yet been carried out. Is he aware that until that is done much more hostility will be shown in this House on this extremely difficult problem?

I certainly understand the fears and apprehensions with regard to the future of the industry among these men. I would add that during the visits I have made to different parts of the country which are affected, or are likely to be affected, the kind of hostility to which my right hon. Friend has referred has not been shown to me—[Interruption.]—and I do not believe that it has been shown to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Palmer, No. 12.

On a point of order. I understand that an objection was made from the Front Bench about myself. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say in an outspoken way what he has said.

I am sorry for any misunderstanding. What I said was that during my visits to different parts of the country, I had not experienced any hostility directed against myself nor has there been such hostility shown to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Power how much nuisance and damage to property is caused by open-cast coal contractors when using explosives; and what representations he has received calling for an end to this method of coal extraction.

The conditions my right hon. Friend imposes when authorising an open-cast site include restrictions on blasting. No recent representations about nuisance or damage from this cause have been received, but if the hon. Member has any particular site in mind I will ask the Chairman of the National Coal Board to look into the matter and write to him.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has now made of the landed cost of American coal in this country as a possible alternative to Middle East fuel oil; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. We have ample supplies of British coal available.

Does the Minister not agree that the importation of American coal would help the industry in the long run by stimulating coal utilisation?

No, Sir. I think that it would be a mistake to change the policy in this field at the moment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the miners in Fife, and particularly in East Fife, will not welcome the hon. Member's suggestion?

My own researches confirm my hon. Friend's view.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the landed cost of this coal compares with the cost of a similar grade of coal mined in this coun- try? is there any demand for this coal from the steel industry?

I could not give the figures off hand. United States coal is landed in Antwerp at around 98s. a ton, which is roughly the average British pithead price.

asked the Minister of Power how much of the £30 million grants in connection with pit closures was paid in the year 1966–67; and what is the estimated payment for the year 1967–68.

asked the Minister of Power how much of the £30 million allocated by the Coal Industry Act, 1965, for the purpose of assisting the National Coal Board to meet the social costs of the contraction of the coal industry has been spent; and what proportion, expressed as a percentage, this represents of the total amount spent by the National Coal Board on social costs since the passing of the Act; and if he will make a statement.

The sum of £1·3 million was paid to the Board in 1966–67. This represented 20 per cent. of the Board's total expenditure of £6·4 million in that year. The estimated payment for 1967–68 is £3 million, which would be the proportion payable under existing statutory provisions towards expenditure by the Board of £9·8 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Coal Industry Act, 1965, is not working as intended, and could it be looked at again with a view to cutting the strings attached to the £30 million?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Act is working as intended. My hon. Friend's second point refers to a matter which will be considered as part of our general fuel policy review. It is being considered now.

While I am pleased to hear that the fuel policy is to be reviewed, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that there is need now to speed this up and not have a five-year period? Could we not get rid of it much more quickly?

My hon. Friend has a fair point there. This is one of the aspects that we are looking at.

Would my hon. Friend agree that, in the context of achieving a coal industry of the right size, the question of adequately meeting social costs and social reconstruction in the mining areas is of supreme importance? Will he bring forward a plan which recognises this fact and treat the miners generously?

I would only say, first of all, that as has been put in a number of Questions and Answers I agree that this is one of the key problems that face us in this field. As to my hon. Friend's second point, my right hon. Friend will be consulting his colleagues on this matter. There will be inter-departmental discussions. We are very much concerned to produce the right answers.

asked the Minister of Power how much coal is being displaced from power station use by the present nuclear power stations, and at what extra cost to the consumer of electricity.

Nuclear power accounted for just under 8 million tons of coal equivalent in 1966. I cannot estimate how much of this would have been replaced by coal if the nuclear power stations had not been built. In 1969, when the first nuclear power programme is completed, the additional annual cost may be about 2 per cent. of total revenue from electricity sales.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many experts—and I mean experts—are dubious about the costing of nuclear power stations? In view of this, will he reconsider whether to build any more nuclear power stations until the costings are revealed, and particularly until the Select Committee on Science and Technology has reported?

The expert knowledge available in the Department does not lead to the conclusion reflected in my hon. Friend's question.

It should do.

It should be borne in mind that no matter what the position may be with future nuclear power stations, no effect of any developments will be felt in the coal industry between now and 1970.

Would not the cost of nuclear power be more realistic if power stations were amortised at 30 years, as is the normal practice with electric power stations?

This might make the nuclear power stations even more competitive.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will, before taking a decision to allow the Central Electricity Generating Board to build a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew, require the Board to submit alternative proposals for a coal-fired station so that the estimated operating costs for the two fuels can he compared accurately.

asked the Minister of Power if the proposed power station at Seaton Carew will be based on coal.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate has been submitted to him by the Central Electricity Generating Board of the cost competitiveness of coal against nuclear power as the proposed generating fuel for the new power station at Seaton Carew; and what would be the comparative cost of the two fuels in price per therm.

asked the Minister of Power what estimates have been made of the effect on neighbouring coalfields of the proposal to build a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew.

My right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision on the C.E.G.B.'s application to build a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew. Before doing so, he will take account of the prospects of all the alternative fuels for electricity generation in the context of fuel policy as a whole.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Coal Board has gone into great detail on the costs of such a project? In view of the serious unemployment expected from the forthcoming run-down in certain parts of the North-East coalfield, does not he agree that the Coal Board should be given the opportunity to present its case, even if merely for the sake of national economic advantage?

The Coal Board is presenting its case, but I repeat, on the general point raised by my hon. Friend about unemployment—and I am not saying this to belittle the fears and concern expressed in a number of quarters in mining communities—that whatever decisions are made by my right hon. Friend with regard to the future nuclear power station programme, they cannot affect the position in the coal industry for the next four or five years.

Before a decision is reached, will my hon. Friend's right hon. Friend take account of the social consequences which are likely to ensue? Secondly, is he aware of the effect of the construction of a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew on the pits for which I am politically responsible in South-East Durham?

On the last point, I cannot go much further than what I have just said in answer to the previous supplementary question concerning the effects of any programme now embarked upon for the mid and late 1970s in relation to the run-down and contraction of the coal industry between now and 1970. What I can say about any nuclear power station is that during the period in which construction is undertaken there will be an injection of many thousands of job opportunities into not merely this area but all the areas concerned. On my hon. Friend's first point, I stress that we are very much aware of the social consequences for the coal industry and mining areas of the present situation and are giving a great deal of attention to it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as far as the proposed station is concerned, there are six large modern collieries in close proximity—three of them in my constituencey—which could literally pour in coal at a cost per therm estimated by the N.C.B. to be highly competitive? In view of the fact that the Dungeness costing is highly suspect, is there not a case for treating this proposition on a basis of conventional firing?

I cannot give an answer different from that which I gave in the first instance. All possible alternatives will be considered by my right hon. Friend in coming to a decision on the matter. Whatever decision is come to it will affect more than the area in which the siting takes place; it will affect the generation of power nationally and not merely in the area concerned.

Is it not a fact that the present technological uncertainties and enormous investment involved in the development of the A.G.R. system will prove to be out of all proportion to the technical knowledge required to move to the fast-breeder reactor type of station?

This is not the opinion of the electricity industry, and we must bear in mind that any decision it takes is based on the desire to get the cheapest possible and most effective kind of fuel for generating power in this country.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will refuse to authorise the building of an advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power station at Seaton Carew until the first of the advanced gas-cooled reactors has been operating for some time and he has further evidence as to the running costs.

No, Sir. Technological progress would be intolerably slow if we waited for operating results of one station before starting the next.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the country is being asked to invest huge sums of money in a process that will take at least three years to prove? Does not he, therefore, agree that the project should be postponed until much more precise information is available on the costs?

In coming to its decision—as I indicated earlier—my right hon. Friend will take account of all available information in this field.

What account has been taken of the published cost results of the boiling water reactor established in the United States of America?

This is being considered.

asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from the National Coal Board regarding the proposal to provide a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew.

My right hon. Friend received a letter on this subject from the Chairman of the Board yesterday afternoon.

I am quite sure that there must have been some very important things in this letter. Has the Coal Board made any representations to my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend on the desirability of utilising the full resources of coal produced in the industry, bearing in mind that in the north of England at the end of this year there will be 2 million tons stockpiled and that this would in itself be sufficient to fire a power station for one year as opposed to the proposal for nuclear power?

While it is not for me to discuss the contents of the letter this afternoon, the answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question involves the contents of the letter. When representations have been received, they will be considered by my right hon. Friend.

As there appears to be a conflict on this important issue as between the National Coal Board and the Ministry of Power, how are we to judge who is right? Does not my hon. Friend think it desirable that the representations made to the Ministry should be made available, not only to hon. Members who are concerned in the matter but to the mineworkers?

I am not unaware that there has been a good deal of discussion internally in the industry, and publicly. All I can say on the particular question is that it will be considered by my right hon. Friend in the same way as any other application.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on his discussion with the oil companies on the price for North Sea gas.

asked the Minister of Power when he expects to make a statement on the price of North Sea gas.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a further statement on the result of discusions with the North Sea producers on a reasonable price for North Sea gas.

I cannot at present add to the statement I made in the House on 7th June.—[Vol. 747, c. 980–2.]

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the oil crisis in the Middle East has given the matter more urgency? When does he expect a decision to be arrived at, and when will the consumer get some benefit?

The current negotiations are having no effect on the development of the fields, and there is no evidence that bringing gas ashore is being held up. The negotiations will be concluded as soon as everybody is convinced that the price being offered is a fair one.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the price which he ultimately endorses should not yield more than 15 per cent. to the private oil companies who are investing in this development?

I think that it is much more complicated than that. A number of factors are involved. I cannot look at this exercise as if it were an aircraft contract, or something of that sort. This is a question of exploration. I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we are very concerned to ensure that public shareholders are as much protected as private ones.

asked the Minister of Power what is the estimated total costs of conversions and new pipelines connected with the utilisation of North Sea gas.

About £400 million for conversion, and about £200 million for the Gas Council transmission system up to 1970. There will also be expenditure on area boards' pipeline systems, but these will be required for distribution of town gas as well as natural gas until full conversion has taken place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figure of £2,000 million has been quoted for conversion and pipelines? Does not he agree that this is a substantial capital sum and that the prospects of cheap gas for the consumer must be seriously questioned?

I do not know that the figure of £2,000 million is in any way a contradiction of the information that I have given. It may be that whoever has quoted this figure is concerning himself or herself with a longer period of development, for the pipeline transmission system. I was referring to developments up to 1970. Developments will continue well beyond that period.

Can the Minister say how much of this cost will be borne from Exchequer funds, and whether it will be necessary to go to the open market?

As the hon. Member knows, as a general practice it is not the policy of the nationalised industries to obtain their funds on the open market.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he will now take to accelerate supplies of natural gas from the North Sea to the Gas Council; and how much will now be supplied in the current year.

The rate at which this gas can be made available depends on the construction of pipelines and other works, which is being pressed forward with all speed. Deliveries to the Gas Council in 1967 should be well over 100 million therms.

When will the price be increased?

As soon as he settlement has been reached.

In view of the relationship between the price of supply and the fact that the Minister has said that the yield from the capital involved will be more than 15 per cent., will he tell the House that he is not prepared to endorse agreements which will give the investors more than 30 per cent. return on their capital?

I do not think that I should be placed in a position in which one side to the negotiations is negotiating in public while the other side can negotiate in private. I have given no information about the minimum return. That is being negotiated between the Gas Council and the companies.

asked the Minister of Power if he will include in the licences which he gives to persons and companies to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea a direction that the relevant oil refinery and conduit pipes be built and laid in the part of Great Britain nearest to the source of oil and gas so found.

No, Sir. Decisions on these matters must take account of the circumstances of the individual case, and are properly the responsibility of the licensee, subject to normal planning controls.

Does not the answer to this Question and the answer to the previous Question show that the drilling for oil in the North Sea has got into a very disorganised state? Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the repairs to pipes and drills are being sent to Europe instead of to British workshops? Will the Minister rectify that?

I am not aware that there is any disorganisation. On the second point, I have answered a previous Question about this from my hon. and learned Friend, and the answer today must be the same—that the repairs are done at the most convenient place.

asked the Minister of Power what was the average revenue per therm received by the Scottish Gas Board during the latest annual period for which figures are available; and what was the average revenue per therm received by the gas boards in England during the same period.

I cannot yet add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 23rd January this year.—[Vol. 739, c. 195.]

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his Answer on 23rd January was in respect of information relating to 1965? Why cannot we have more up-to-date information available, particularly when the Answer he gave showed that people in Scotland were paying about 18 per cent. more for gas than people in the rest of the country?

For figures for 1966–67 I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Board's annual report for that year. This will, as usual, be in the autumn.

asked the Minister of Power what proportion of the 10 per cent. increase in revenue sought by the electricity supply industry was due to the provision of capacity 9 per cent. in excess of 1965–66 for this year, in accordance with the National Plan, instead of the 2·6 per cent. by which the demand actually rose.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 6th June, it is not possible to quantify all the factors involved.—[Vol. 747, c. 178.]

In a case like this where faulty national planning has resulted in a very heavy increase of costs, is the Minister prepared to suggest that the Electricity Board should be compensated for this mistake? Can he say who is responsible? Is it the responsibility of the Electricity Council?

There are a number of factors involved. The increased costs since the last price increases more than outweigh the amount which could be raised by the increased charges. On overcapacity as a result of planning estimates, any over-capacity which arose in the next two or three years will result primarily not from the National Plan but from the 4 per cent. growth assumption of the National Economic Development Council.

asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from the Electricity Council proposing borrowing on the market to meet interest charges on temporarily unremunerative capital investment, in order to avoid or modify the proposed 10 per cent. average increase in electricity tariffs; and what answer he has given.

When tariff increases for electricity were under consideration, the Electricity Council proposed, as one of a number of possibilities, that the industry might be permitted to raise funds on the market without Government guarantee. It was not considered appropriate at that time to pursue this suggestion.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that an increase of 2s. in the £ in electricity charges is bound to have the most serious repercussions throughout the whole of the country? Should not proposals to spread the cost over longer periods have received much more serious consideration from the Government?

There has been a lot of consideration on the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. It is a very real possibility, borrowing on the open market, as he knows. [Interruption.] Very well, there are a lot of difficulties and objections to it. I do not think that anyone would believe that this particular device would be sufficient to raise funds of the order that we are talking about here, of £100 million.

The Minister has just said that there is a very real possibiilty of borrowing on the open market. Will he stop being—[Interruption.] Yes, he said it. Would he stop being so doctrinaire about this and realise that the price of electricity over a long period will be much cheaper? Will he help the consumer by letting the nationalised industry borrow on the open market?

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has got the impression that I said that there was a very real possibility of borrowing on the open market. He must have misunderstood me, or I must have misunderstood myself. This particular device has been discussed many times. It is a very and real interesting point, but I do not think that anyone believes that with this sort of borrowing in this industry one could raise money on this scale.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Miniser of Power what representations he has received from the Electricity Council asking that the expected rate of return on net capital assets should be equalised in respect of the gas and electricity industries; and what answer he has given.

asked the Minister of Power why the electricity industry is required to show a higher return on capital employed than the gas industry; and if he will take steps to reduce it.

The Electricity Council has from time to time raised the differing levels of the two industries' financial objectives. The Government's policy of progressive alignment of these objectives was announced in the 1965 White Paper on Fuel Policy (Cmnd. 2798). I am currently discussing with the Gas Council the objective towards which the gas industry should work in 1968–69 and I hope to make a statement on this before very long.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter has been under discussion for a very long time and that until these rates of return are based on a rational basis one cannot talk about a competitive fuel policy?

There are a lot of factors involved. It is a question of the investment, the gas industry and North Sea gas. The financial objectives of the gas boards for 1962–63 and 1966–67 were agreed for the industry in 1962, by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were only continued in 1967–68 because of the present prices and incomes policy.

asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the unstable situation in the Middle East and the action of the Arab countries in cutting off oil supplies to the United Kingdom, he will now give a general direction to the National Coal Board not to close any more pits; and if he will take steps to ensure that there is no further running-down of the coal mining industry.

asked the Minister of Power what reassessment he has made of the future levels of coal production in the light of current and possible future interruption of oil supplies from overseas.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent the Government's future fuel policy has been re-examined in view of the uncertainty at present surrounding Middle Eastern oil supplies.

In my review of fuel policy I am taking full account of all relevant considerations, including the adequacy and security of supplies and the pattern of primary fuel use at power stations.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the present restrictions upon oil supplies from the Middle East could either continue indefinitely or recur from time to time? Would he bear this in mind when he decides the part that coal could play in his energy policy for the future?

Again, harking back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, there is nothing in the short period that one could do which would affect coal production, because oil-fired stations and other methods of burning are already in existence. As for dependence on the Middle East for security and supply, this is something which is always in the minds of people looking at this problem. It could not last indefinitely, if only because of the effect on the economies of those countries taking part. To give an example of the extent to which we are already diversifying our sources of supply, the Middle East used to supply three-quarters of our total in the 1950s, and it now supplies one half.

To what extent has the supply of natural gas from North Africa been interrupted, and how is the Minister bearing this in mind with a view to the gas industry contributing in the near future?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper with regard to that.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the lesson to be drawn from this is that our power stations, if they were to depend on oil, would jeopardise the economic prosperity of the country? Will he see that coal indigenously takes care of this, and that we do not depend upon foreign supplies when we can use our own?

The problem here is that the bulk of our oil imports are for non-fuel uses, and in future the big increase in oil consumption will be in non-fuel uses, because there are so many parts of industry which are economically completely dependent on oil.

Having regard to the fact that 75 per cent. of our oil imports are now in peril by the Arab oil cut-off and by the situation in Nigeria, and the fact that the Ministry is taking powers to ration oil in this country, would the right hon. Gentleman not now present his fuel policy before the House rises for the Recess at the end of this month so that we can judge the necessity for oil rationing?

I do not think that anyone can draw a long-term fuel policy on the basis of a short-term interruption. What has happened in the Middle East is something which anyone who is interested in fuel always took into account. We are not at the present time short of oil. Rationing plans have only been introduced as a possible long-stop on this question. Our stocks are very high and we are constantly diversifying our sources of supply.

asked the Minister of Power what percentage of the natural gas imported into this country now comes from the Middle East or North Africa.

asked the Minister of Power what discussions he has had with natural gas suppliers outside the Middle East and North Africa, to ensure continuity of supplies to the Natural Gas Council until such time as those requirements can be met from the North Sea or Europe.

All imports are obtained from Algeria. There are other sources of natural gas outside North Africa and the Middle East, but in view of the time and capital investment required to provide plant to liquefy the gas for transport to the U.K., they cannot at present be regarded as an alternative to Algerian supplies.

Are the Press reports true that shipments are still being held up? Are the Press reports true that the liquefaction plant at Arzew is closed down? Can the Minister assure us that there are sufficient supplies to carry us over a number of months before the North Sea supply becomes available?

There are no problems in terms of shortage of supply at the moment. We have stocks, as well. There are clearly difficulties in this field, though some supplies have reached us. I do not want to pursue the matter further at this stage.

What impediment has been placed on the import of natural gas from Algeria and what percentage of the contracted amount for the last month has been imported?

Supplies have been continuing subject to some minor dislocation, but the position at the moment is still too uncertain for me to be able to give any detailed reply.

As this costs twice as much, as reflected in the London price, as does gas from the North Sea, and as the arrangements were made under a Tory Government, what does my right hon. Friend intend to do to cancel the contract if it is not accepted officially by the Algerian Government?

This is not a contract between the Algerian Government and this Government. It is between a commercial company and the Gas Council. There are clauses in the contract which would make it difficult to review, even if we wanted to do so. The main point is that the amount of Algerian methane is a very small proportion of the total gas feed-stocks, and so far there is no evidence that it is not a valuable contract.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to evaluate the possible uses of natural gas for non-fuel purposes.

Studies on absorption of natural gas have included non-fuel uses which are mainly in chemical processes. The scope for using natural gas for this or any other non-fuel purposes will depend upon comparative costs and other conditions of supply.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the tremendous import savings and the job generation which can be brought about by chemical and metallurgical firms if the gas is made available for feedstock and on-site total enegry generation? Will he make sure that no obstacle is placed in the way of such development?

Certainly.

asked the Minister of Power what progress has been made on agreeing steel prices with the European Coal and Steel Community; and what discussions have been held with steel manufacturers from countries outside Europe with a view to stabilising international prices.

Discussions are continuing with the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community about problems arising from the world surplus of steel-making capacity, but no conclusions have yet been reached. The discussions can be widened later to include other countries if it appears that this would be helpful.

How many meetings have been held, and when will there be an outcome?

I cannot answer the last part of the question. There have been two meetings, one in March and one in May.

asked the Minister of Power what conversations he has had since war started in the Middle East with the persons and companies drilling for oil in the North Sea under licence from him, with a view to giving Government assistance to them in order to increase and accelerate oil supplies to Great Britain from those North Sea oil wells in order to make up a shortage of oil in Great Britain caused by that war.

None, Sir. As I have previously explained to my hon. and learned Friend, there are no oil wells in the North Sea.

Would it not be a useful and constructive move, and would it not save time and energy, for the Minister to include it in his Bill to control liquid fuel, which he proposes to introduce this afternoon and which has not yet reached the Vote Office?

The problem is that we have no oil there to control. We are all very hopeful, as I know is my hon. and learned Friend, that possibilities may arise in the future, but they are certainly not with us at the moment.

asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to ensure that area gas boards increase the number of apprentice gasfitters in order that they may be in a position to deal with the steady increase in sales of domestic appliances.

It is for the area boards to ensure that they have sufficient trained personnel to meet their needs. They are already planning to increase the number of fitters.

Would my hon. Friend accept that it is fairly well known in the trade unions in the industry that there is a great shortage of gasfitters up and down the country and that when conversions start this shortage will be accelerated by private firms filching the men who have already been trained by the board?

I am aware that there are difficulties in this field, but it is as well to keep them in perspective. The intake of apprentices into the industry has doubled in the last five years and the proportion of apprentices to qualified craftsmen is higher than in many other industries.

asked the Minister of Power if he will list the percentage of appliance fixing jobs allocated to private firms by each area gas board.

This is a matter for the boards, who do not publish such statistics.

Would my hon. Friend not accept that there is an undesirably high percentage of the work of appliance fixing being allocated to private firms? Does he want in this country the situation which exists in the United States where gas companies are responsible simply for manufacture and distribution while private industry is responsible for the rest? If he wants that, let him come clean and say so.

As I understand the position, the boards are seeking to maintain a proper balance in this connection bearing very much in mind the point which my hon. Friend made a little earlier—the conversion programme over the years to come. There will be allocations of fitting work to private enterprise and also work undertaken by the boards by direct labour. The area boards sold upwards of two million appliances, other than central heating units, in the year ended 31st March, 1967.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the importance of preventing pressure from being brought to bear on staff in the steel industry not to join trade unions; and what directions he will issue to the National Steel Corporation in this matter.

The Corporation is already under a statutory obligation to establish adequate conciliation and consultation machinery for all the employees of the nationalised steel industry and is now discussing with the T.U.C. how to give effect to this obligation. It has never advised staff not to join unions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that circulars and letters have been sent to the staff of Stewarts and Lloyds advising them not to join trade unions? Will he look into the circumstances and suggest to the management that this action is not in the spirit of or in keeping with the Act?

I have seen the letter to which my hon. Friend refers. It certainly does not advise staff not to join trade unions. I should like to make it quite clear that neither I nor the Corporation would tolerate any anti-trade union activity in the nationalised steel industry.

asked the Minister of Power what extra revenue is expected to be raised by the increase in electricity tariffs of 10 per cent. on average.

About £110 million in a full year.

Now that the Socialist Government have control of the com- manding heights of the economy are they proud of imposing £110 million of extra taxation, a lot of it falling on the poorest members of the community, after a year of great difficulty?

I start by saying that I am not particularly impressed by the hon. Gentleman's new-found concern for the poorest members of the community. [Interruption.] On the question at issue, there have been previous statements by my right hon. Friend as to the reasons for the tariff increases being announced. We must await to see their detailed application by the various boards.

Is it not the fact that 97 per cent. of the population are now required to pay this onerous additional tax of £110 million, including all those on National Assistance and all those at subsistence level? Why, therefore, does he deride my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for his very accurate question?

I am always interested to hear and enjoy listening—

The Minister should enjoy answering.

—to the hon. Gentleman. It will be interesting to hear from him how he maintains—

Answer.

Order.

—how he maintains his case that there should not be increased borrowing for the industry while, at the same time arguing in the fashion he does about tariff increases.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a junior ministerial committee charged with the responsibility for integrating European scientific and technological collaborative projects; and if he will announce the composition and chairmanship of the committee.

No, Sir. Our present arrangements for considering these matters are, I think, adequate.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to produce concrete proposals for specific collaborative projects, if his own idea of a scientific and technological community is to maintain its momentum in Europe?

I entirely agree, and this is being done. In my recent discussions with President de Gaulle I outlined quite a number of specific projects of a technological character both inside and outside the peaceful use of atomic energy field which could be the basis of technical co-operation in Europe.

Are not the more generalised statements in favour of specific scientific and technological projects in the same category of futility as the statement "I am against sin"? Will the Prime Minister resist adding to the already long list of plausible idealisms under which his Government attempt to bury the main issues?

That is a very weighty philosophical pronouncement, but on technical co-operation I agree that in Europe, as in this country, it must be based on a large number of specific hard projects. It is these individual physical projects that we have been discussing with President de Gaulle and more recently with the Italian Prime Minister during his visit to this country.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make one Minister responsible for co-ordination of regional development, and progress towards the more even distribution of employment and unemployment.

The hon. Member will know of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

In view of the upward trend of unemployment confirmed by the recent Government publication "Economic Trends", will the Prime Minister take action to ensure full co- ordination this winter, including a close watch on the anomalies of the Selective Employment Tax?

The hon. Gentleman will know of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the general question of growth and the further action needed to be taken. As to the hon. Gentleman's concern for regional employment, as is shown in his Question, he will know also of the Government's announcement of a very major programme of regional employment premia, as well as the recent increases made in investment grants for development areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the Ministries, especially those providing social services, do not seem to be acting in conformity with the Government's regional policy?

If my hon. Friend will send me particulars, I will be very glad to go into the matter.

Can the Prime Minister deny that under his Administration there will be an increase of unemployment this winter above the seasonal increases?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. My right hon. Friend said that if the growth rate slipped behind schedule other action would be taken to deal with the very question the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. The Leader of the Opposition will be glad to know, however, that in Scotland, for example, about which the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) put down this Question, unemployment at the present time is about 18,000 less than it was in the same month of 1963, after the right hon. Gentleman's party had been in power for 12 years.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement relating to the progress made with Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is today making a statement at a meeting of the Council of Western European Union in The Hague. The text will be published in a White Paper later today.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, not being in the Common Market, Great Britain has nevertheless in the last couple of years made remarkable recovery to economic stability—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that this recovery is upsetting hon. Members opposite. Will my right hon. Friend, further, agree that the Government, supported by both Opposition parties, in their efforts to get into the E.E.C. are now reaching the equivalent stage of applying the kiss of life to a dead duck?

I rather take issue with my hon. Friend because I know that all hon. Members opposite are delighted that we are now in balance of payments surplus, even if they do not say so, but it has never been our view that if we failed to get into the Common Market it would not be passible for Britain to survive and prosper. It is, provided our efforts are adequate. As we see it, we shall have a better chance to expand and to contribute to a meaningful Europe if we can be accepted into membership.

Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to reach a transitional associate status for Britain?

I do not think that is an idea which we should be contemplating. We have made an application to join. This was discussed by the Council of Ministers last week and resulted in the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should address the W.E.U. today. He is making a major speech on the application, which will be available to hon. Members some time this afternoon.

Will the Prime Minister say whether the statement by the Foreign Secretary gives any indication of what the next Government move will be, and when it will be carried out?

The Government's move has been made in the form of the application which went at the beginning of May to the three Communities. It was thought last week desirable to make progress with the basic statement of our position in relation to an application such as the one made by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) on, I believe, 10th October, 1961, and that this should now be made at W.E.U., and it is being made today. As soon as my right hon. Friend has sat down, copies of his speech will be available in the Library and a White Paper with the full text will also be available later this evening.

Can my right hon. Friend say what further White Papers the House can expect to receive? When shall we, for example, be receiving a White Paper on means for ensuring strong and binding safeguards for the trade and other interests of Commonwealth countries? Will there be a White Paper on technology giving the information which General de Gaulle has already had?

I should like notice on the question of White Papers. On the first suggestion, the question of Commonwealth interests and matters which were so fully debated here in May will, of course, feature in my right hon. Friend's speech. He will also have something to say about technology in his speech.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will move to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into means of perpetuating, as a great British sporting institution, the Grand National steeplechase at Aintree, having regard to the threats to its future.

No, Sir, I know that the future of the Grand National and of the racecourse at Aintree is a matter of great public interest but I do not think that a Royal Commission would be an appropriate way of tackling the problem.

As this is the first Question to the Prime Minister on the future of Aintree and the National, and although a Royal Commission may not be the correct body to report, will he say what alternative recourse he would have to save this great British sporting institution for Liverpool and for the whole country in which, free of party, we all have a very real interest?

Yes, Sir, indeed. Since the Aintree Racecourse is in my former constituency—

That is why I asked the question.

—and as a Merseyside Member, I agree with the hon. Member that probably all of us, regardless of party, recognise the very important place which the Grand National holds in the sporting life of the country. All of us, or most of us, would, I think, desire to see it continued—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—well, I said most—but of course the responsibility at the moment is primarily a local and turf matter, with Lancashire County Council holding the key position. Until the change in government in Lancashire County Council plans were advanced for a sports centre on the Grand National racecourse, but I understand that the newly set up council has other ideas.

In the discussions taking place between the City of Liverpool and other interested parties, will the right hon. Gentleman give my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) pleasure by saying that the Government will help the City of Liverpool by giving it a grant to purchase this racecourse?

The racecourse is in the area of Lancashire County Council and we had high hopes from the discussions with Lancashire County Council and Liverpool City Council that this problem would be solved. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has had a series of discussions with Lancashire County Council, Mrs. Topham and others. We must see what is the next move by the county council before deciding on the next step.