asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on proposals made to him regarding the storage of gas underground in Great Britain.

My right hon. Friend has not received any proposals for the underground storage of gas.

As one of the proposals in the mind of the Gas Council is that gas should be stored underground in my constituency, in an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Cotswolds, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if a request is put to him, he will take fully into account the views of the local people, particularly as regards the superstructure above ground which need not be ugly if enough money is spent on it?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been close consultation already between the Gas Council and the local planning authority on this matter. Indeed, the Gas Council invited local authority members and, I think, the hon. Gentleman, to visit France where there are similar works. The Council has given an undertaking for the closest possible consultation before any moves are made in the matter.

asked the Minister of Power what was the date of the last strike of natural gas in the North Sea.

The latest public announcement of a strike of natural gas there was made by Mobil Producing North Sea Ltd., on 23rd January.

Would my right hon. Friend tell the exploration companies that if they get a reasonable price per therm for natural gas there should be no dragging of feet and that, if they are doing this out of pique at not getting the exhorbitant price which they are asking, this will not be tolerated?

There is no evidence at present that the delay in settling the price of North Sea Gas is having any effect on exploration. It is encouraging that we have had and are still having discoveries in the North Sea.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to information which I have received, the total discoveries of gas in the North Sea are about 50 per cent. larger than the published estimates of 3,000 million cu. ft. a day over the next 30 years? In view of the effect which these large discoveries may have on the final negotiated price, would he see that all future strikes are announced to the public and given to the Committee which is considering this matter?

No, the position is that all the companies submit their drilling logs in confidence to the Ministry. The fullest information is made available to the Ministry. There is a great element of doubt over some of the figures from time to time, and, indeed, there is a great deal of mythology about the whole exercise. But I am satisfied that we have enough information on the matter.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to regional electricity boards that they should not cut off supplies to consumers who are elderly or who have families with young children without notifying the local welfare authority of their intention.

No, Sir. Electricity boards generally treat such cases sympathetically and keep in touch where appropriate with welfare organisations.

Does my hon. Friend think it right for families in these categories to be living in unheated houses lit by candles because illness or some family misfortune has coincided with the arrival of an electricity bill, the timing and amount of which is quite unpredictable? Would he have further discussions with the boards to ensure that these cases do not occur without the welfare authorities knowing?

With respect to my hon. Friend, as I have indicated on previous occasions, I have had considerable discussions with area boards about this matter, and I am assured and convinced that there is the closest contact between the boards and the various local welfare authorities, as has been the case in my hon. Friend's constituency recently.

asked the Minister of Power (1) what consideration he has given to setting up an advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactor, or a modern thermal power station close to the steelworks of Sheffield with a view to supplying electricity at below average prices on the same basis as electricity offered to aluminium and ferro-alloy smelters;

asked the Minister of Power (1) what directions he has given to the Central Electricity Board regarding the supply of electric power to potential aluminium and ferroalloy smelters at special prices, and on what basis of charging;

asked the Minister of Power if he will give his approval to expenditure by the Central Electricity Generating Board on an advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactor or a modern thermal power station close to the chemical industry on the north-east coast with a view to supply electricity at below average prices on the same basis as has been offered to aluminium and ferro-alloy smelters.

My right hon. Friend has given no general directions to the Central Electricity Generating Board on these matters, nor would it be appropriate for him to do so. He is, however, willing to authorise the Board to negotiate special contracts for long-term supplies to selected large-scale new consumers, subject to the conditions set out in the Government statement of 4th October, 1967.

Is it not a fact that the cheapest coal is in the East Midlands and Yorkshire area and that the most modern electricity generating plant is there? Will the Minister take steps to see that these special terms are made available to the grey areas, particularly Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, so that they can benefit from the natural advantages that are there already?

I think the hon. Member should refer back to the statement which set out this policy, and which I have already mentioned. The position is that specific projects have been submitted for consideration. They will be studied by the Department and a Government decision made on them. It is not a question of general directions being issued in the matter.

What is the period of amortisation in mind in the case of A.G.R. and what is the element of subsidy in the case of the aluminium smelter?

I am afraid I do not understand the terms of the question. There is no A.G.R. in mind, so I cannot answer the question.

Why does the Minister confine this policy to new industries? What representations has he had, for instance, from the steel industry that it should be entitled to fuel at a low cost which represents the size of its demand?

The general purpose of the policy is to establish additional consumption and to establish prices in relation to this consumption in different industries and projects above marginal costs. However, the policy statement of October last year, to which I have referred, does not preclude absolutely the possibility, in certain circumstances, of existing industries receiving consideration.

asked the Minister of Power what is the increase in the cost of electricity to the National Coal Board since 1st September, 1960; and what is the difference in total consumption of electricity between then and now.

Between 1960 and 1967 total consumption by the National Coal Board rose by about 150 million kilowatt-hours and the cost of the electricity purchased by the Board increased by approximately one farthing per kilowatt-hour.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the date mentioned in the Question is the date of the last increase in the price of coal to the C.E.G.B. from the East Midlands coalfields? This coalfield supplies, on average, 20 million tons of coal at between 3d. and 3½d. per therm at the moment. Is my hon. Friend aware that to be able to do this, and to cover increasing costs, the East Midlands coal field has to increase its productivity by about 4 per cent. per annum? Does not my hon. Friend think that this is a tremendous achievement?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and he knows, from the visits that I have made to his part of the country and my meetings with him, how impressed I have been with the records which have been achieved by the industry there, but the details of this kind of costing are for the National Coal Board and the industry, and not for the Department.

asked the Minister of Power which new power station will be deferred as a result of the cutback in the electricity industry's investment programme following devaluation.

Final decisions have not yet been taken.

Does this affect the Seaton Carew station, and what other stations does it affect?

The final decisions on the power station programme have not been taken, so it affects the others which have previously been discussed.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the expected growth in United Kingdom power station capacity between now and 1971, and the related movement in the gross domestic product giving rise to the industrial and domestic demands that will be put on that capacity; and if he will make a statement.

Capacity is expected to increase by about 22,000 MW between the end of 1967 and the end of 1971 and should be fully adequate to meet demand.

Would the hon. Gentleman kindly address himself to the other part of the Question, which asks about the prospective movement of gross domestic product?

That is not a matter for the Ministry of Power.

Would my hon. Friend say that he is satisfied that, in the event of British productivity improving as it should in the next three or four years, there will be enough generating capacity to cope with it?

I am quite satisfied that that will be the case.

As the hon. Gentleman is answering questions relating to the power supply for the whole of the United Kingdom, is he aware that the electricity supply in Northern Ireland is very uneconomic because of the fragmented nature of the utilities in that part of the Kingdom? Will he take steps to see that there are amalgamations to increase the efficiency of supply in Northern Ireland?

The question is interesting, but it does not come within the purview of the Ministry of Power.

Would the hon. Gentleman go back to the original Question, part of which he has not answered? It asked him to relate capacity to the movement in the gross domestic product. We are not asking him to adjudicate on that, but certain figures have been given. On what basis is he working out his figures?

The forecasts will be presented as usual by the industry and we will make decisions in the light of them. I said that we do not expect capacity to be below the levels which we foresee.

asked the Minister of Power if he will arrange an early meeting with the Chairman of the National Coal Board and the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board in order to arrive at a decision on the relative costs of the fuels required by the electricity industry.

No, Sir. As a result of discussions which I had with the Chairmen, a study on nuclear costs was made with which both industries were associated. The results were published as Appendix 44 of the Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the United Kingdom Nuclear Reactor Programme. A separate study on coal costs is still in progress.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is rather disappointing in view of the fact that too much public controversy exists between the heads of the nationalised industries'? Is he aware that anything that can be done to alleviate this position would be beneficial to the industries concerned'? Can he expedite a meeting of this kind?

Many meetings have already taken place about this. The outstanding study at present is on coal costs, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will bear in mind what he has said.

asked the Minister of Power whether he has completed his examination of the effects of devaluation on oil prices; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what increases he now estimates will be caused by devaluation on the price of petrol or diesel oil for industry, for public transport and for the domestic user.

On 22nd December, 1967, I announced that a detailed examination had found that devaluation would raise the prices of petroleum products by an average over all products of Id. a gallon. The devaluation element varies for the different products. For petrol it is 1½d. a gallon and for diesel oil it is 1d. a gallon. I also announced that I had concluded that the temporary surcharge of 2d. per gallon on all products allowed since 29th June, 1967, could be reduced to the extent necessary to compensate for the devaluation increase. The schedule prices of the main petroleum products were therefore unchanged.

Does the Minister agree that the prices of individual oil products ought to be free to move down or up in the time ahead in response to market pressures?

This is a very wide-ranging subject and I think it would create real difficulties at the moment. We have a very friendly relationship with the companies, and since, after full and fruitful discussions, we were able to reach an amicable agreement. it would be a pity to spoil it all.

Has not the Minister anything further to add than merely repeat the statement that he made in December? Has he not taken into consideration the effect that a lowering of rebate may well have on the purchase of oil in the industrial and public transport sectors?

It is very difficult. I am asked what the effect of devaluation was. There has only been the one devaluation. I cannot be expected to change the answer as weeks go past.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a more prudent estimate of the increase in the cost to the country of the effects of devaluation, coupled with the natural forecast increase in oil, is about £275 million?

I regard that as a somewhat large figure. The effect of devaluation on this is about £75 million per annum.

How does the Minister square his decision on oil prices with his oft-repeated assertion that devaluation would improve the competitive position of coal with relation to oil?

There are other devaluation Questions on the Order Paper later which may be discussed. The devaluation position improves the position of coal in terms of exports. The whole point that I have made is that the increase in fuel oil prices in relation to coal is so small as not to affect internal demand.

asked the Minister of Power what is to be the curtailment in the capital expenditure programmes of each of the three nationalised industries under his control, as announced on 18th November, 1967.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the Questions by the hon. Members for Honiton, (Mr. Emery), Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on 30th January.—[Vol. 757, c. 252.]

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that if, in the long term, the level of investment in the nationalised industries as a whole is considered excessive, the proper course would be to adjust the test discount rate?

The hon. Gentleman's Question is a clear one,

"To ask…what is to be the curtailment in the capital expenditure programmes of each of the three nationalised industries …"

asked the Minister of Power when and how he will announce the outcome of his revision of the Fuel White Paper.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent the revision of energy potential brought about as a consequence of devaluation has affected the indigenous fuel industries for 1968.

asked the Minister of Power in what respects, after completing his study of the consequences of devaluation, he intends to alter the assumptions underlying the Government's Fuel Policy White Paper.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give an assurance that, before he comes to a decision on the reconsideration of fuel policy due to devaluation, he will consult the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

asked the Minister of Power if he will now publish his reassessment of national fuel policy consequent on devaluation and accompanying measures.

As I explained in the debate on 22nd January and in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on 23rd January [Vol. 757, c. 77] the consequences of devaluation are not sufficient to affect materially the policy guide-lines in the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438). The White Paper is not being revised. Paragraph 6 of the White Paper makes it clear that policy will be kept under continuing review.

The reply that the Minister has given appears to be slightly different from what we have been led to believe before. The White Paper was taken back for revision as far as the coal aspects were concerned. It appears that the Minister has said nothing new on that. Is it not shocking that a matter of months after the Government have produced this White Paper we still do not know their final views on the matter?

I find it difficult to understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The White Paper has never been withdrawn. An idea got around in the Press and on the B.B.C., for reasons I have never understood, that it had, but it has not. What I said was that we would go away and work out how far devaluation impinged on the policy. It does not.

Can the Minister tell us when the White Paper will be returning to this House for further discussion and approval?

That is a matter for the wisdom of those who determine the business of this House. It is not for me. The White Paper is published as Government policy.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is highly desirable that consultations should take place with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to obtain an economic and objective survey of the mining industry in the review? Would he not also agree that such consultations would ensure that the nation would gain tremendous potential from coal which would be cheap enough to challenge other competitors?

As I was saying, there is no review in progress. The White Paper is based on the assumption that the coal industry will be viable, as I think it will, in the 1970s. That is why this House has unanimously agreed to make financial provision on a very big scale to hold it together. I am in no doubt that once the industry gets down to this level it will be competitive, but only if it gets to the right viable level.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there have been new factors in addition to devaluation since November, namely, the offer of aluminium smelting companies to fire their power stations with coal? This being the case, will my right hon. Friend either withdraw the White Paper and issue a new one, or make representations to the Leader of the House for a debate, which we were promised in the first place?

I am always willing to convey views to my right hon. Friend. As far as the aluminium smelters are concerned there is an offer to set up a smelter based on coal, but this will not be producing until the early 1970s. It will use only half a million tons of coal a year anyhow. It will not really have any effect on the figure of 155 million, given the margin of error which there must be on such questions.

Is my right hon. Friend trying to say that the White Paper on fuel policy was withdrawn without any idea of reviewing it in the light not only of devaluation, but of the coal commitment factors which ensued therefrom? I understand that an increase in capital expenditure in certain industries is not desirable in the present economic situation.

We must get this clear. The White Paper was never withdrawn. What happened was that between the White Paper being presented to the House and any debate, there was devaluation. At the request of many people I agreed to go away and produce different figures which resulted from devaluation. There is no increase in capital expenditure. It is merely a question of seeing how far the position of oil has changed vis-à-vis coal.

Referring to the Minister's previous answers about the aluminium smelter, will he give an assurance that the future of aluminium smelting will be determined in relation to the commercial future of aluminium here, and will not get tied up with the coal versus nuclear battle?

The question of aluminium smelting is quite separate from the question of an overall fuel policy. We are talking here of about one-third of 1 per cent. of the nation's energy requirements, and that does not have very much effect on fuel policy.

asked the Minister of Power whether negotiations have yet been concluded on the price of shipbuilding steel; and with what result.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland; North (Mr. Willey) on 31st January.— [Vol. 757, c. 366.]

The right hon. Gentleman talked about a further statement. Is he aware of the urgency of this problem? The shipbuilding industry has received many inquiries. It is necessary for it to quote fixed prices, taking into account the price of steel. This is urgent.

Of course, it is urgent. This is why the Steel Corporation entered into immediate discussions, and the Press announcement after its December meeting, which was agreed by both the shipowners and the Steel Corporation. said that

"both sides found the meeting constructive and looked forward to continuing discussions."

asked the Minister of Power how many requests for increases in prices have been notified to his Department under the voluntary arrangements of the prices and incomes policy since devaluation; how many of these requests have been agreed entirely or partially; how many have not been agreed; in how many instances price increases have been proceeded with despite non-agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Under the voluntary early warning procedure my right hon. Friend has received five notifications of proposed price increases since devaluation, four of which were attributable to cost increases resulting from devaluation. No comments were made on the proposals in three cases; one case is still under consideration; and in the case of petroleum products devaluation increases were allowed but offset by reductions in the temporary surcharge introduced after the Middle East War.

In view of the considerable range of industrial products which are covered by the presumptive price control of the Ministry of Power, and in view of the importance which the Government attach to the maintenance of stable prices by the Government in the post-devaluation situation, by what numbers has the hon. Gentleman increased the staff dealing with these inquiries?

That is quite a separate question.

asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from steel users about the decision of the British Steel Corporation to adopt a system of centralising orders; and what reply he has sent.

My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.

In the event of the decision being put into effect or being threatened to be put into effect, if the Consumer Council for Steel made strong objections, as appears likely, to the centralisation of orders, will the hon. Gentleman give the maximum weight to those representations so as to ensure that there is no elimination of competition between the various operating groups?

Any such views would be taken fully into account, and if, for any reasons, the objections to such proposals were not accepted, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Minister is required to lay a statement before Parliament.

asked the Minister of Power what is the result of his Department's study of the question of joint meter reading and billing in this country, having regard to French experience, details of which have been sent to him; and whether he now proposes to recommend to the gas and electricity boards that they combine their meter readings.

The study of the advantages and disadvantages of joint gas and electricity meter reading and billing as well as other related matters is continu- ing. Full account is being taken of French practice and experience in this field.

How long will the inquiry take and when can we have a decision on the matter?

I am not in a position to say how long it will take. One reason is because, unlike the position eight or nine years ago, there have been major developments in the computer field which complicate the relationship between meter reading, billing and accounting and other matters of management control.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I tabled a similar Question about 18 months ago on this very subject and received precisely the same answer—that there would not be any saving? Is he aware that I saw this system working in France? Cannot we hurry this up, for if it can work in France, why cannot it work here?

The basis of the industries concerned in France is radically different from that applying in this country. In that country there is a unified industrial management, whereas we have two separate industries. However, the position is being studied closely. As I said, it is much more complicated than it was eight or nine years ago.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that major savings could be made in this sphere? Is he further aware that if he considers that a computer cannot overcome some of these difficulties, his thinking is very far behind normal managerial practice?

I do not believe that there would be major savings, any more than the Weir Committee did eight or nine years ago. I was not suggesting that computers could not overcome the difficulties that are involved, but that other problems also arise.

asked the Minister of Power when he expects to introduce legislation to alter the organisation of the electricity and gas industries.

I am examining whether there is a need for changes in the structure and organisation of the gas and electricity industries. I have no proposals for legislation at this moment.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the detailed reports which have appeared on this matter in the Economist, the Financial Times and other newspapers? is he aware that speculation of this kind is unsettling to the staffs in the electricity and gas industries? Will he make a statement soon?

I cannot be held responsible for what appears in, for example, the Economist. If I were, that would indeed be taking something on hand. On the general point of the organisation of these industries, I would remind my hon. Friend that these are very big industries and that it is important that the study should be comprehensive. Certainly no steps will be taken which would lead to a loss of savings which could otherwise be made.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the arrangement proposed between the National Coal Board and Alcan relating to the aluminium smelter.

This matter was debated at length only last week and I have nothing further to add at present.

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the N.C.B. of its statutory duty not to give preference to one customer against another? Will he, moreover, point out to the N.C.B. that the excuse of marginal tonnage is not sufficient in respect of an agreement covering a period of 25 years?

The N.C.B. is fully aware of its statutory position in this matter. I do not believe that it requires any reminder from me.

asked the Minister of Power whether the Government is prepared to relax its present requirement that nuclear stations must be built in remote areas; and if he will make a statement.

With permission, I will answer this Question at the end of Question Time.

asked the Minister of Power how many pence per therm coal costs to mine in the United Kingdom at present on average.

In the year 1966–67 the average cost of production, including interest, of all N.C.B. deep-mined coal was 4·6 pence per therm.

How then can the Coal Board make offers of 3d. or 3¼d. a therm, as has been reported, or are those offers not true?

I stated in the debate last week the position of the Department concerning the offers that have been reported in the Press. I have nothing further to add to what I said then.

My hon. Friend has referred to average prices. Surely he knows that there are great variations in the quality of coal. If we take into account the kind of coal that is used for the generation of electricity, the therm cost is very much below the figure he gave.

Not only that, but, as the years go by and the industry modernises itself, the average cost will come down even further. This is the intention of the N.C.B., and there is every reason to believe that it will achieve its objective.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Coal Board's recent offer to supply coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board at 3¼d. a therm for a power station at Seaton Carew was based on the likelihood of coal being highly competitive in the 1970s? Is he further aware that the recent rebuff by the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board should be challenged either by his right hon. Friend or by the Government? The Government are supposed to be the real gaffers. What is at stake is the livelihood of thousands of people in the 1970s.

I think my hon. Friend is mistaken when he describes the reaction of the C.E.G.B. to the National Coal Board's offer in this case as a rebuff. There was a counter offer referring to supplies in connection with the whole of the requirements of the C.E.G.B.—not a rebuff.

asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the current level of stocks of smokeless solid fuel; and if he will make a statement.

Overall stocks of solid smokeless fuel together with expected production should be adequate to meet demand during the remainder of the winter.

Can my hon. Friend say what effect the decline in the production of gas coke has had on stocks, and can he say what increase is being made in the development of solid smokeless fuels, using the softer kind of coal?

The latter part of the question is a matter for detailed consideration by the National Coal Board itself. There is a problem here with the reduction in the supply of gas coke, but already alternative fuels are on the market to replace them, and the demand in future will depend on the economics of producing new types of fuel.

asked the Minister of Power (1) if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board, in the national interest, to divert further capital resources to the promotion of exports;

The National Coal Board is fully conscious of its export opportunities and the action necessary to exploit them. My right hon. Friend has recently informed the Chairman that the Board's proposed development at Immingham, which will serve both home and export markets, is acceptable on financial and fuel policy grounds.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the original Treasury veto on the expenditure of £7 million has been lifted? As the National Plan for Coal abolished a firm figure for coal exports, can he say what the new revised firm figure is in the light of devaluation?

I am not sure why there is this emphasis on the word "firm" in the context of coal exports. One achieves what exports one can. If they are higher than originally estimated, one offers congratulations to the industry. The industry has reviewed its figures upwards, and it is expected that there will be a somewhat higher export figure than originally visualised.

As Immingham is in my constituency, may I ask whether this proposed development for coal exports has been cleared with the local authorities, in view of the fact that there are enormous developments in the district for petro-chemicals? Will one development clash with the other?

I shall certainly pursue the query which the hon. Gentleman has raised in so far as it concerns my Department, but I have no reason to believe that the plans for this development at Immingham have not been worked out in full consultation with the local planning authority.

asked the Minister of Power what are his proposals about coal derivatives in the light of devaluation.

My right hon. Friend is sure the National Coal Board will take full advantage of any opportunities arising.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to the country if there were a re-examination of the question of coal deliveries? Would not he further agree that the Report of the Committee which considered this subject some years ago is now out of date?

This is a matter for the National Coal Board. It is in close contact with whatever is going on in this respect, not only in this country, but in others, and I think that we must leave it to the Board to put forward proposals.

Can the hon Gentleman say whether research is continuing into the production of oil from coal'?

Research is going on all the time, particularly in countries where there are cheaper coal supplies, and the National Coal Board is in touch with this.

asked the Minister of Power what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the National Coal Board's practice of charging regional prices reflecting the price of winning coal.

The Board's policy is that the prices of coal should broadly reflect the costs of production in the individual coalfields. This policy is supported by the Government and was endorsed by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in their 1966 Report on Coal Prices (Cmnd. 2919).

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this policy imposes an intolerable burden on areas like Scotland, where prices are so high, and where the position is becoming worse in smokeless areas? Smokeless fuel in Glasgow costs 18s. 3d. a bag, 3d. more than in the North of England.

There is no question of unfair discrimination in this industry against Scottish coalfields. The fact is that here, as anywhere else in the country, it is not possible to sustain a price level which allows for continuing huge losses in particular collieries.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that industry in Scotland is prohibited from importing cheaper coal, if it can get it? It is one thing to charge regional prices. It is another to uphold them with the power of the State.

I am not aware that there is any restriction on the N.C.B. bringing in coal from other parts of the country should it be necessary to do so as part of its commercial negotiations with industry.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is at least an essential part of public accountability that these regional prices should be published, so that the world knows what they are?

I am not aware that any part of industry is short of information on the price which it is being charged for coal.

asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to prevent the National Coal Board from entering into contracts to supply coal at a price which would increase the annual deficit of the Board.

My right hon. Friend is not prepared to base policy guidance of the Board upon the premise that the industry should incur continuing deficits. Its agreed financial objective is to make a profit of £10 million a year.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that that is a very welcome Answer? However, will he also realise that the low price offered to Alcan must mean either that other consumers will pay more or that the deficit will increase? Will he continue with a policy of honesty in this regard?

I do not accept either of the two points in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary.

As the hon. Gentleman said in a previous debate that he expected that the deficit of the National Coal Board this year would be £10 million, does he still stick by that estimate?

That estimate has no connection with the supplementary question, which asked whether this specific proposal meant an increase in the deficit of the Coal Board. When it comes into operation—should it come into operation—it will not be until the 1970s.

Mr. Concannon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are already mines mining coal at a price of 2·3d.—

Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask Question No. 24.

asked the Minister of Power what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the level of return to be earned by the National Coal Board on the capital invested.

The National Coal Board's financial objective is to break even after interest and depreciation including £10 million a year to cover the difference between depreciation at historic cost and replacement cost.

Is this the immediate target, or only for the early 1970s?

This is the target which was set out in the White Paper on financial objectives. It is a net return of about 6 per cent.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on his plans for the reorganisation of the capital liabilities of the National Coal Board.

No such plans are under consideration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the reorganisation of the liabilities of the coal industry in the 1965 Act was done on the assumption that the industry would be mining 180 million tons in the early 1970s? Would he not look again at this, since the £450 million which was transferred to the reserve fund will be used this year, and this will put an increased burden on the units which are already becoming capital-intensified?

It would be far too early, only two years later, to undertake a further major capital reconstruction of the kind which my hon. Friend suggests.

asked the Minister of Power what is the estimated number of mineworkers in the county of Durham who will qualify for redundancy payments in 1968 according to the provisions in the coal borrowing powers Act.

The National Coal Board are unable as yet to give an estimate, as the number will depend on how many are able to be transferred to pits remaining open as others close.

In that case, why did the Government initiate this new scheme without having any idea of how many men would be made redundant? Is the inability—either of the Government or of the National Coal Board—to furnish a figure due to the fact that there is a continuing process of closing mines, which is adding to the insecurity which now exists in the North-East?

On the second point, of course, the answer is, "Yes". This is a continuing process and it was not started recently. On the first point, the Scheme introduced under the Coal Industry Act relates to the period up to March, 1971 and not just to this particular year. Therefore, it would not be possible to give a full estimate of the number of men who will be affected by the Act.

asked the Minister of Power how many miners' jobs he estimates would be saved in County Durham if the proposed new power station at Seaton Carew were coal-fired instead of nuclear-powered; how much would be saved on the capital costs; and in reaching his decision, what account he will take of the cost to public funds of paying unemployment benefit and redundancy compensation payments to 7,000 miners.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) on 17th January—[Vol. 756, Col. 620]—the Government are examining the many factors affecting a decision on the method of firing the power station and we will make a full statement on the main points relevant to the decision later.

asked the Minister of Power what discussions he has held with the Northern Regional Economic Planning Council about the proposed power station at Seaton Carew.

None so far.

Will my right hon. Friend rectify this as soon as he can? Is he aware that the Chairman and Council have complained repeatedly that Ministers do not sufficiently consult with them? Will he reassure the North-East on this score, in view of our feeling that there should be better consultation between the Minister and the Council?

Yes, Sir, and my right hon. Friend will no doubt agree that of first importance is the question of getting clear what we should consult. As soon as we have taken a decision on that, I see no reason why we should not then go ahead with the consultation. Obviously the Regional Council has a right to be consulted.

Will the Minister make public the price at which the N.C.B. has offered coal for Seaton Carew and other power stations of this sort?

I have learnt from bitter experience that the nationalised industries may suffer from many things, but certainly not from an inability to put their case across in public.

asked the Minister of Health what are the numbers of non-urgent cases awaiting hospital accom

asked the Prime Minister following devaluation and his subsequent discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress, what estimate he has made of the amount of the likely national dividend for 1968 and 1969; and if he will make a statement.

:As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his action in closing down the Moseley Hall Hospital, Birmingham, has seriously aggravated the position?

During the last 10 years the population has increased overall by 7·6 per cent. During those 10 years—a large proportion of which came under Conservative Administration—the number of in-patient cases treated increased by 31 per cent., and the hon. Gentleman's party could have taken action in view of that tendency.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 21st November, 1967, to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and to my speech in the debate on Government expenditure on 18th January.—[Vol. 754, c. 1136 and Vol. 756, c. 1973.]

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the key to increasing the national dividend is economic expansion and that, in this light, Government restrictive measures on the economy —and on industrial development in the South-East in particular—are quite absurd?

No, Sir. My hon. Friend will be well aware that the key to increased production is export-led expansion; and the measures we have taken are designed to see that, with the new opportunities for export, an export-led boom rather than a consumer-led boom is given a chance to develop.

Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer say last night that there would be virtually no increase in private consumption in these two years, in which case what is the relevance of either the Question or the Answer?

I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the original Question or my hon. Friend's supplementary question. However, in our discussions with the T.U.C. we have told them—and I have informed the House, and they have issued their reports on this—what will be available for wages in this year and probably right up to 1969. Nothing that my right hon. Friend said last night was in any way incompatible with what I have told the House.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has regarding the celebration of Human Rights Year.

Her Majesty's Government have made a grant of £10,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for Human Rights Year, a non-governmental body which is organising a programme of activities. We have also invited the United Nations Secretary-General to hold a seminar in London next June on freedom of association and we intend to participate fully in the International Conference on Human Rights in Tehran in April.

Since human rights really begin at home, does the right hon. Gentleman expect any of that to be regarded as an adequate substitute for a General Election?

Democracy in this country, unlike that in some countries supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite—[lnterruption.]—is based on a Parliamentary majority returned at a General Election, which was held at the proper time—indeed, ahead of the proper time.

Would my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made in implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work and in respect of discrimination against women?

My hon. Friend will be aware that I answered that on the last occasion we had supplementaries on Human Rights Year. He will also, no doubt, have seen the statement in the T.U.C. 's report following its discussions with us.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in Anglo-Soviet relations since Mr. Kosygin's discussions with him on his official visit to Great Britain a year ago today.

In addition to the Answers I gave to Questions on 25th January, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the bilateral measures agreed between the Soviet Union and Great Britain since Mr. Kosygin's visit last year.

Would the Prime Minister mark the first anniversary of Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country by stating clearly when he goes to America today or tomorrow that the British people and Her Majesty's Government fully support the United States and its allies in their support of the South Vietnamese fight for freedom?

That does not seem to arise in any sense out of the Question. However, I can inform the hon. Gentleman, in the context of the Question, that what I shall say in Washington is exactly what I said in Moscow in regard to our position over Vietnam and in regard to the basis on which peace can be found in Vietnam following the San Antonio speech.

Is the Prime Minister saying that what he told Mr. Kosygin is that the British Government stand by the approach of President Johnson in his San Antonio speech on the question of a settlement?

Yes, of course I dc. That is exactly what I told Mr. Kosygin. The purpose of our discussions in the Soviet Union was to see how far the relatively narrow gap between public statements, the San Antonio speech and the State of the Union Message on the one hand, and the statement by Mr. Trinh on the other, can be bridged. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the events of last week have made these things much more difficult.

While he is in Washington, will the Prime Minister remind not only President Johnson but the people of the United States of the text of the resolution carried at the Labour Party conference, which asked not only for the stopping of bombing but for our dissociation from the American aggression in Vietnam?

We are wandering from the Question on the Order Paper.

Why does the Prime Minister, by way of a change, not try a nice long visit to Chairman Mao Tse Tung whose aims in South-East Asia the Government are doing so much to help?

That is even more remote from the Question on the Order Paper.

Will the Prime Minister make clear that there can be no improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations so long as the Soviet Union persists in fomenting trouble in the Middle East by training and arming Egypt for a renewal of the war against Israel?

In my talks in Moscow we discussed Middle East questions, including the Suez Canal question, at great length. Their position is, of course, basically different from ours, but both sides have supported the resolution put forward in the Security Council by the British Government.

asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to a letter sent to him by the National Federation of Building Trade Employers regarding the effect of devaluation on the building programme; and if he will make a statement.

If the hon. Member is referring to the letter sent to me by the Federation shortly after devaluation, my reply noted a difference between their and the Government's estimates of the effect of devaluation on building costs and drew attention to the importance of maintaining a policy of firm prices in the building industry in view of the stabilising effect of such a policy on the economy as a whole. Since then, of course, the Federation and other organisations connected with the building and civil engineering industries have been discussing these matters with those of my right hon. Friends concerned.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the price of a three bedroomed house will go up by £350 in 1968 as a result of devaluation, S.E.T. and the Land Commission?

The hon. Member will be aware of the Answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works. He estimated that the effect of devaluation on imported materials would be to increase the cost of building an average house by about 1½ per cent. I am aware that the building employers contest this figure. They can discuss it, of course, with my right hon. Friend.

Has the Prime Minister yet decided which local authorities are to have their programmes cut as a result of devaluation?

I have nothing to add to my statement of 16th January and to what was said on this subject by my right hon. Friends in the debate which followed.

Is there not a case for stricter control of unnecessary imports for the building industry and the substitution of home-produced materials?

Wherever this can be done, of course, it is now much more financially worth while to do it. I am sure that those in the building materials industry and the building industry will do all they can in that respect, but there is a limit to substitution by British produced materials—timber, for example—for those which are imported. In other cases, there is an incentive to substitute British produced materials.

asked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the case for British entry into the European Common Market is adequately conveyed to the French public.

I am satisfied that public opinion in France, as in the rest of Europe, understands our point of view, and that the efforts we have made and will continue to make have contributed to this.

As I am sure the Prime Minister would agree, no Government lasts for ever. [Interruption.] Would he therefore look ahead to the time when in France a new and more progressive regime will replace that of General de Gaulle and which probably would look with favour on British entry to the Common Market?

Yes, Sir. I think it is possible, even in this country round about the turn of the century, that there may be a change of Government, but so far as the position in France and the rest of Europe is concerned, we are determined to push our application for entry now without waiting for a change of Government in France.