asked the Minister of Power whether he has reached a decision on the method of firing Drax B Power Station; and whether he will give special consideration to the importance of Yorkshire coal in this enterprise.

The Central Electricity Generating Board already has statutory consent far a coal-fired extension to the station being built at Drax but it is not in its current capital development programme. The source of coal for power stations is a matter for agreement between the Generating Board and the National Coal Board.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of the Yorkshire coalfield is awaiting a decision and action on Drax B and that it will do much to allay the fears and suspicions there for the future if the knowledge is given generally throughout the coalfield that the future is secure?

I cannot give that assurance at the moment. The first stage of Drax 1 will not be complete until 1973. As regards the extension, which is really Drax 2, the start on that will depend on the demand for electricity at the time and the growth of competing fuels.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if coal is used at Drax, it will be warmly welcomed in Yorkshire, but will give rise to serious, problems of ash disposal? Could he assure us that no ash which results will be dumped near residential property?

I am aware of the interest in the first question. As regards ash disposal, my hon. Friend will be answering a later Question on that in due course.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the anomalies in different restrictive covenants and differing rent standards existing in connection with farmland held by the National Coal Board; and if he will introduce legislation to remove these anomalies.

The rents and conditions of tenure of National Coal Board farms are matters for the Board as managers of the industry. I see no reason to intervene.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply is extremely disappointing in view of the anomalies throughout the country, particularly in Northumberland, where one large tenant, Northumbria Farms Ltd., rents land at about 25s. an acre, while smaller farmers have to pay much more? Is he not aware that it is time these anomalies were ironed out?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that, in matters like this, tenancy agreements relating particularly to rents will depend largely on the negotiations over variations in the quality of land. If it is felt that there are particular points on which the Ministry might refer matters to the N.C.B. for consideration, we shall be only too glad to receive details.

asked the Minister of Power if he will undertake to examine the possibilities available of increasing the amount of coal to be used by the Central Electricity Generating Board in power stations throughout the country in order to slow down the contraction of the mining industry in areas of high unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Coal consumption in power stations and gas works has already been increased by about 6 million tons a year at a cost of nearly £10 million and these industries together take about half of coal output—81 million tons.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although this increase in consumption of coal for electricity and gas undertakings is very welcome, there is still room for about another £10 million to be consumed in this way? Will he undertake to make a study of this so as to help the areas of high unemployment in our coalfields?

My mind is always open to constructive ideas, but I should warn my hon. Friend that the present subsidy in extra coal burned at power staions is very expensive: £45 million is the cost now for the increase in coal burned at power stations and gasworks, but this alone keeps 15,000 jobs open in the coal fields.

Would the Minister agree that the extra coal take should be based only on the coal being properly priced? Is he aware that the Treasury has been giving anxious consideration to the pricing policies of the National Coal Board for a long time? When will something be done about the matter?

Consideration by Ministers of investment in industrial machinery sometimes should be tempered with compassion and understanding because of the effect on men's lives.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the National Coal Board regarding the closure of Riddochhill Colliery, West Lothian; and if he will make a state ment.

Individual colliery closures are a matter for the National Coal Board, but I was informed by the Board that Riddochhill Colliery would close on 7th December.

Is it satisfactory that face workers should be expected to take up alternative employment at 80 per cent. of their previous earnings?

That is a matter for the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that every pit closure means that men leave the mining industry for good? That has happened in this instance. Does he not think that that is a reason why there should be a complete review of the pit closure policy?

I would not base any decision on one decision of this kind. As a matter of information, there are 408 men at the colliery at present and alternative work within daily travelling distance is being offered to 299 of them.

asked the Minister of Power what is the practice of his Department regarding the length of time which journeys to alternative work at collieries must take before a worker qualifies for compensation under the Redundancy Payments Act as being unable to find alternative employment.

The suitability of the alternative employment offered to workers at closing collieries is for the National Coal Board in the first instance, not the Department. Any worker who thinks he has been wrongly refused a redundancy payment may ask for his case to go to an industrial tribunal.

In general terms, is travelling time of over an hour each way considered to be satisfactory in terms of the Redundancy Payments Act?

I must again tell my hon. Friend that this is not a matter for my Department. Questions of redundancy payment are dealt with by the Department of Employment and Productivity.

Surely my hon. Friend is aware that when these jobs are offered, some over 20 miles away, I understand, if the men do not accept them they do not receive redundancy pay? Does he not realise that this is a very serious matter in an area where there is so little alternative work? A considerable number of men, over 200, at Riddochhill Colliery and Kingshill No. 2 have no work at all.

I appreciate the point that is being made by my hon. Friend, but the fact remains that any question of appeal against a decision considered to be wrong regarding a redundancy payment is not for the Ministry of Power, it is for the industrial tribunals within the purview of the Department of Employment and Productivity.

asked the Minister of Power whether the payment arrears have now been cleared on the Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1968; and on what basis, since the payments to date have been a little over £1⅓ million, some £28 million has been estimated as being the total cost to the Exchequer between 18th July, 1967 and 18th July, 1971.

Arrears accumulated by the time payments began in August have now been cleared, apart from a few cases where rr.en have not replied to letters. Expenditure will rise steeply as men enter their second year of redundancy and become entitled to an increase in Scheme benefit equivalent to exhausted flat rate unemployment benefit.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern, in areas where pits have closed since this Order was introduced, about the way in which it has been applied by the Board, which has shown anything but the humane and generous attitude envisaged by this House?

I am not aware that there is any general feeling of anxiety on that score. My impression is that the Scheme is working well. But, as I have said, machinery for appeals is being set up, and I believe that there is a later Question on the Order Paper in this connection.

asked the Minister of Power when he estimates local committees will come into operation to examine disputed applications for redundancy payments by coal miners; and what instructions the committees will have with regard to dealing with borderline cases.

The reconstituted local committees will operate from 1st January, 1969. They will consider cases according to the provisions of the Redundant Mineworkers' (Payments Scheme) Order, 1968, and submit their findings to my right hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend make sure that these Committees deal with borderline cases not only on the strict basis of this Order but preferably with some degree of liberality, because this will have an important effect on the morale of the industry generally

We have considered it best, in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, to establish the use of the personnel of the industrial tribunals to examine and advise on difficult cases which are not settled by local committees, and, ultimately, there can be references to my right hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend tell us the composition of these committees and when they will really get to work? At the moment, January seems to be irrelevant to the problems arising in the coalfields.

I cannot, off the cuff, give the actual membership of these committees. But 1st January is not too far distant; it is only a matter of weeks now. I think that the committees will be able to handle the problem.

asked the Minister of Power what are the existing stocks of smokeless fuels; and if he will tabulate the current stocks of each type and in total, stating where they are located, comparing the position with this time last year, and indicating the current rates of production and consumption of each and in total.

Latest estimates of stocks of solid smokless fuel suitable for domestic use are about 2 million tons, compared with 2· 2 million tons at the corresponding period last year. The annual rate of supply and demand of these fuels is about 8 million tons generally. The availability of particular grades in particular places is a matter for the trade.

What is the position likely to be this winter with stocks of anthracite nut and Phurnacite? Will the Parliamentary Secretary comment on the fact that the increasing use of natural gas will reduce the output from gas works of cheap gas coke, and say what will be the position in years to come?

In reply to the last part of the Question, gas coke will eventually go out of existence. This will take some time. The trade is fully aware of this, and there is contact between the gas industry, the retailers and the distributors on the matter. With regard to the coming winter, while there was serious anxiety in some parts of the country in the South about two months ago, it seems, on the latest information, that the matter will be resolved, so that there will not be overall difficulties during the coming winter.

Is the Minister aware that there is still great anxiety in many parts of Southern England whether there will be adequate supplies of smokeless fuel this winter? Will the Minister tell us what representation he has had on this point from the main coal distributors in the area?

In terms of representations, in the plural, the answer is none, but in terms of contact with particular distributors the Department has been in touch with them as well as with the National Coal Board, and it is on the basis of these discussions and the information we have obtained during the last two months that I was able to make the statement which I made a few moments ago about the anxieties which were threatened for this winter not being realised. There will be supplies adequate for the time being.

Since the Minister himself has said that there is likely to be a slight shortage this winter, what will be the effect of this on schools and hospitals in London and the South-East? Surely the run-down in gas coke should have been foreseen and planned for a much longer time ago.

On the latter point, there is notification by the gas industry which varies from one Board to another as the process of switching over from the coal supplied gas to natural gas takes place in different parts of the country. There has been contact between the gas industry on the one hand and the trade on the other. There is no reason to believe that schools and hospitals in the South will run short of supplies. What I said earlier was not that there will be an overall shortage, but that there could be shortages of particular fuels which may be made up by supplies from other sources.

Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

asked the Minister of Power what is the current output of National Coal Board deep-mined coal, opencast coal and licensed mines; and how this compares with respective outputs in 1967, 1966 and 1965.

Deep-mined coal output in the first 47 weeks of 1965 was 161 million tons; in the same period in 1966 it was 149 million tons; in 1967 146 million tons, and in 1968 140 million tons. Coal output from licensed mines fell from 1· 2 million tons in 1965 to 09 million tons in 1968. The output of opencast coal declined from 6· 7 million tons in 1965 to 6· 2 million tons in 1968.

Can my right hon. Friend say how those figures compare with productivity and stocks over the same years?

In 1965, productivity was 35· 9 cwts output per man shift. In November, 1968, it was 44· 97 cwts., which represents an excellent increase in productivity of 9 per cent. But stocks in 1965 were 21· 5 million tons, and last November they were 29 million tons. The problem, therefore, obviously is a marketing and sales one.

Can the Minister confirm that it is still his current policy that only in very exceptional circumstances will he authorise new opencast sites?

I will only authorise new opencast sites if they are not in conflict with deep-mined coal production. That applies especially to some anthracite opencast sites that I might authorise.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while it is right to give attention to the production of coal, it may be that too little attention has been given to the needs of the distributive industry? Is this not a case for the I.R.C., the Industrial Investment Corporation and all the other bodies of Government to look at, giving special attention to distribution costs rather than production costs of the industry?

That is an interesting point, but it does not arise out of the original Question.

asked the Minister of Power, following his review of trends in coal, what plans he has for the deferment of pit closures over the winter months.

All closures proposed by the National Coal Board are being examined against the background of local employment prospects, and where necessary the Government will ask the Board to defer closures.

Can the Minister say what progress has been made with retraining and alternative employment opportunities for those areas where pits have already been closed?

That is not a matter for me. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Board of Trade, the Department of Employment and Productivity and the Department of Economic Affairs have jointly been working on special training schemes for miners, and they have been successful.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, the National Coal Board is advertising for miners, and it is hardly likely to get them from West Bournemouth? In view of the fact that there is so much uncertainty about pit closures, should he not call a halt so that there might be some degree of rationalisation to keep in mind the future of manpower?

I am aware of the problems of manpower, but I could not call a halt to all pit closures. Some have run out of coal. Others, as a result of bad geological conditions, are uneconomic. Hope springs eternal in my hon. Friend's breast if he imagines that we can get some Southerners to move to Scotland.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has received from the National Coal Board for pit closures in the South Derbyshire coal fields.

Individual colliery closures E.re a matter for the National Coal Board, in consultation with the Unions concerned. I know of no plans for the closure of any of the collieries in the South Derbyshire and Leicester-shire coalfields, but I have been informed that the results at Cadley Hill have been such as to place its future in jeopardy.

Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance as far as possible that there will be no further closures in the South Derbyshire area? Would he bear in mind that South Derbyshire miners have acheved higher productivity despite great difficulties, and what is now required is a period of stability to maintain morale in their productive effort?

As I have said, I am not aware of pending closures there. But I can reiterate what my hon. Friend has said. This part of the British coalfield has done extremely well, and productivity has been very good.

asked the Minister of Power when he expects to announce an increase in the coal production target for 1975.

Production in 1975 will depend on demand which will in turn depend on the N.C.B.'s success in reducing costs and increasing productivity.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that in a recent statement he said that in 1975 the coal industry would be half as big again as nuclear power and natural gas put together? Does he agree that to get a proper picture of the coal industry in 1975 we should know what part oil is to play?

Yes, but we have to rely on estimates of demand. As I indicated earlier, demand for coal is falling. Therefore, the problem is one of marketing and sales.

asked the Minister of Power what figures are available of the amounts spent in recent years by the Electricity Boards and Council, Gas Board and Council, and National Coal Board, on advertising and the general sales promotion for heating, lighting, and cooking appliances; and if he will take steps to reduce wasteful competition and consider introducing some integration between the selling sides of these organisations.

Following a request by my right hon. Friend's predecessor the industries held their promotional expenditure in 1966–67 within a limit of £3 million each, and this restraint was continued in 1967–68. We are also considering ways of improving co-operation between the industries.

Would my hon. Friend not accept that co-operation in this matter requires some urgency, since the present competitive set-up is costing the public money? Would he not agree that one of the most stupid aspects of private enterprise is the unnecessary competition between substitutable products, sometimes made by the same company?

No, I would not accept that generally. There is a large area of valuable competition between the nationalised industries coming within my Department's purview which has had a good impact on the results to the consumer over past years. I agree, however, that there are areas in which there could be valuable co-operation for the future; we are looking at this.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give an estimate of the probable fiancial savings, where appropriate, from the use of one meter reader for both gas and electricity; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to the Gas and Electricity Boards to co-operate in the reading of meters for the convenience of consumers and in the interests of economy.

No useful estimate of savings can be made until the results of the current feasibility studies have been assessed. If these show that worth-while savings are possible, field trials will be necessary to determine economies and other benefits to the industries and consumers. A general direction would not therefore be appropriate.

Such feasibility studies should have been conducted a long time ago. Should not the convenience of the consumer, apart from the question of finance, be taken into account? Could my hon. Friend give some of the savings to the meter readers as a result of increased productivity? Is it not about time that the gas and electricity undertakings got together on this matter?

The answer to the number of points put by my hon. Friend lies in the last point. In fact, the industries have got together in establishing these joint studies. It may well be that they should have been started a long time ago, but my hon. Friend will recall that under the previous Administration there was a special committee of inquiry which went into precisely this matter about 10 years ago which came down against such techniques. It is in the last year or so that the feasibility studies have been arranged jointly between two boards in different parts of the country.

I tabled a similar Question in 1966. Why has it taken so long to come to a decision?

The hon. Gentleman was not listening. The decision was made some time ago. I do not recall offhand his Question in 1966 because I was not in this post at that time. But I know that a decision was taken in the last 12 months for such feasibility studies to be undertaken. They have proceeded. They are now being assessed, and on the basis of that assessment we shall be able to see whether field trials can be undertaken in the areas concerned.

Why take so long?

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the progress made in the exploration for oil and natural gas in the Irish Sea; and what agreements similar to that in existence between countries adjoining the North Sea are planned between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Several geographical surveys have been carried out and a geological bore-hole to test strata is being drilled by the Institute of Geological Science on the shore of Cardigan Bay. The National Coal Board and the Gulf oil company, who are joint licensees of a five block licence between Lancashire and the Isle of Man, have conducted detailed survey work and are now assessing the results. An agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the dividing line is expected in due course.

If any discoveries are made in the Irish Sea, would it not be appropriate to go a little further and consider a joint public enterprise involving this country and the Republic of Ireland to exploit these resources?

I suppose that we are always open to suggestions of that kind, but it is early yet because we are only in the initial stages of exploration. The Institute of Geological Science is doing most of it.

What survey has been conducted in the northern part of the Irish Sea and what discussions have taken place with the Government of Northern Ireland, which has a considerable joint interest in this project?

As I indicated, an agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland is expected in due course. Concerning exploration in the Irish Sea, in 1967 a seismic survey between the coast of Lancashire and Cumberland and the Isle of Man took place. Another survey of the southern Irish Sea has taken place this year. More work is planned for early next year by the Institute of Geological Science.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals have now been put to him by the British Steel Corporation for a revision of their prices; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement concerning his discussions with the British Steel Corporation on the revision of prices.

I have just received the conclusions of the Corporation's major price review, which include proposals for a major price increase. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and I are referring them to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect this will have on industry's costs generally, and will he give an assurance that he will not approve any major price review which will result in the steel industry, like other nationalised industries, charging considerably more for its products in Scotland, bearing in mind the catastrophic effect which this would have on shipbuilding and heavy engineering in Scotland?

In the case of an industry whose end product contained about 25 per cent. of steel, the increase would be about 2 per cent.

Would the Minister give an undertaking that he will personally ensure that the industrial situation in Scotland is not made worse by these price increases and that there will be no repetition of the tragic closure of the steel plant in my constituency which has shaken everyone's faith in the Govern ment?

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman's criticisms. Obviously he does not keep abreast of affairs. In the past two years, the British Steel Corporation has announced five new plants in Scotland alone.

Are we to understand from the Minister that the proposed price increase averages about 8 per cent.? Is he aware that private business must consider costs as well as prices? When will the House be hearing proposals for rationalisation, which has been given as the main reason for nationalising the steel industry?

The average increase is just over 7 per cent.—7· 3 per cent., if I remember aright. I expect to receive the further development proposals of the British Steel Corporation at the beginning of next year.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a very serious recession in steel construction work in Scotland? Bearing in mind the differentials which prevail in other nationalised industries, will he ensure that the price in Scotland is the same as in the South?

I cannot give that assurance, and I would not want to tie the National Board for Prices and Incomes when it makes an inquiry into this matter.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Power what is the expected capital expenditure by the British Steel Corporation for the current year; and how this compares with the corresponding figures for last year.

As I said in my reply on 15th July, 1968 [Vol. 768, c. 181] the programme which I had approved provided for capital expenditure this year up to £100 million. At this stage I cannot predict the exact outturn. The British Steel Corporation's capital expenditure in the eight months from vesting date to March, 1968, was £54 million.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say if this somewhat low figure has been influenced by the low level of retained earnings of the British Steel Corporation and if in his view this points to the commercial realism of allowing the Steel Corporation to increase its prices?

No, I was referring to the £54 million which was for eight months of 1968. This represented an annual rate of about £81 million, and it is with that in mind that the approval of up to £100 million in 1968–69 should be compared.

Will my right hon. Friend say when further information is likely to be given on the longer-term capital programme for the steel industry?

Yes, my hon. Friend should await the answer to the next Question.

asked the Minister of Power if he will publish the estimated capital requirements of the British Steel Corporation for the period 1969 to 1975 and indicate the extent to which such capital will increase new capacity and modernise existing capacity, respectively.

The Corporation has not yet submitted to me a capital development programme covering this period. The nature of its expenditure will be determined in the light of its plans for long-term development, work on which is still in progress.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that he will encourage and sustain the British Steel Corporation, that in their policy of siting new investment they will be governed by economic considerations and not by politically motivated regional lobbying?

Cmnd. 3437, A Review of Economic and Financial Objectives of the Nationalised Industries governs that, and the British Steel Corporation is well aware of it.

Will my right hon. Friend compare the advice which he has received this afternoon from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) with previous advice from hon. Gentlemen opposite and will he say which advice he is most likely to follow?

I have already said to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry that Cmnd. Paper 3437 on financial objectives governs the operation of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Minister of Power how many persons are employed in the headquarters of the British Steel Corporation in London.

This is a matter for the Corporation but I am advised by the B.S.C. that it has reduced headquarters staff by about 350.

Is it not madness for a Government that advertises on the London Underground that firms should move outside London, to concentrate so much decision making there? Will it not be the final insult to Scotland if this should impose a higher price for steel in Scotland for the first time since the war?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman listened to the Answer. He should congratulate the British Steel Corporation on reducing staff since the industry was vested in it last July. He asked a specific question about the number employed. The number now is, I think, 1,370, which is a reduction of 350 during the months since the B.S.C. took over.

Is the Minister aware that there is a fear of over-centralisation in the steel industry with the gravitation away from Scotland? Can he give an assurance that the Scottish division will retain autonomy and the right to make its own decisions on matters affecting it?

If I may say so, that question is not particularly helpful to the future steel industry. The Question to which I replied was about the number employed at headquarters in London, not whether there was to be a reduction of the steel industry in Scotland of which there is no intention by the industry.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) was asking about ths centralisation of decision-making in the steel industry. Is not this question extremely relevant, and is there not grave concern at the proposals put forward by the British Steel Corporation for centralising affairs in London?

I am unaware of any grave concern, except perhaps among irresponsible hon. Members opposite.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who served on the Committee are fully aware of the circumstances and that we in Scotland recognise that we have to have central Government? On that basis, is he prepared to tell the House that, if any future expansion of the steel industry is to take place, it will be in Scotland?

There is bound to be rationalisation and expansion in various sectors of the industry. We are awaiting the proposals which the Corporation will make to the Government on the matter. But my hon. Friend will be aware of the proposals from within the industry for major expansions in certain parts of Scotland which were announced in the Press recently.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will take steps to amend the relevant statutes governing the construction and testing of gas and electricity meters to bring them within the scope of the weights and measures legislation.

Electricity and gas meters already have effective statutory controls and tests by independent Ministry examiners. The Hodgson Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation considered that a change would not justify the disturbance, because a special category of weights and measures inspectors would be needed. The Molony Committee saw no reason to change the arrangements.

I know that my hon. Friend has a close interest in these matters. Would he not accept that the cost of gas and electricity to the consumer is even more important than the areas of activity already covered by weights and measures inspectors employed by local authorities? Will he not reconsider this, in view of the growth of experience of local authority inspectors?

I do not think that the growth of experience of local authority inspectors would meet this point. They would need special training. I should have thought that the expansion of consumer protection on the part of local councils would have stretched the work of the weights and measures inspectors quite enough without adding further to their load.

asked the Minister of Power if he still estimates that in 1975 North Sea gas and nuclear power will be making the contribution to fuel supplies published in the White Paper last November.

I have nothing to add at this stage to the information published in the White Paper on Fuel Policy (Cmnd. 3438) and the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 12th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 247.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister is on record as having made the statement that by 1975 there will be only 3,000 million cubic feet of gas landed per day? This is a difference of 1,000 million cubic feet compared with the White Paper. Furthermore, nuclear power is 18 months behind schedule. Does my hon. Friend think that there will be an opportunity, as we are talking about 12½ million tons, to make a statement to the miners and their sons to give them some confidence to remain in the mining industry?

The statement to which my hon. Friend has referred has not, to my knowledge, been made by my right hon. Friend. The impact of natural gas is more likely to be felt by the oil industry than the coal industry. This has been said before, and I repeat it again today.

Would not this be a suitable subject for discussion by a Select Committee of this House? Will the Minister give his support to the proposal by the Select Committee on Science and Technology that there should now be established a Select Committee on Energy Policy?

This matter is being dealt with by correspondence between my right hon. Friend and the Chairman of the Committee concerned. I must leave it with him.

asked the Minister of Power when he expects to announce the conclusions of the working parties set up as a result of his Sunningdale Conference with the chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries.

The work put in hand at Sunningdale is part of the normal continuing work on energy problems undertaken jointly by my Department and the industries. I will inform the House at once if this work should lead to any change in policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many employees of the National Coal Board at all levels are anxious to get some report of this conference? Will he facilitate the report to enable this to be done?

I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says. I am anxious that the Coal Board should keep abreast of my studies in this respect and its co-operation is required to the full.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in June this year he said that he was taking his first retrospective look at the fuel policy? To many people it appears that these working parties are just further delaying tactics?

I will disabuse the hon. Gentleman's mind immediately. A special examination of coal trends is taking place because of our discussions at Sunningdale. It was noticed that the manpower rundown was pretty fast, and we are examining that to see whether it necessitates any change in fuel policy.

As a year has now elapsed since the White Paper on Fuel Policy of November, 1967, would it not be a good idea to have the estimates updated so that they are carried forward a further year up to 1976? What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had on this matter with the chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries at the recent conference?

We have always said that these are estimates, not standing figures of fact. If some of the forecasts do not correlate with the actual outturn, there is no reason why the figures should not be moved. This is why there is a continuing look at fuel policy.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the exploitation of North Sea gas.

139 exploration and appraisal wells and 35 production wells have been drilled to date. Four major gas fields have been found. Ten fixed production platforms and four undersea pipelines have been laid.

As at least eight new finds have taken place since the White Paper on Fuel Policy was published, when does the Minister expect to be able to announce the new total of reserves; and were they taken into account at the Sunningdale conference?

No. There are several other small discoveries which could turn out to be exploitable, but further evaluations are necessary to establish whether they are a commercial proposition. The reserves so far evaluated in the four gas fields amount to 25 trillion cubic feet.

Would the Minister commenton the fact that the Chairman of Shell recently indicated that the newly agreed price was not sufficient to encourage further exploitation?

No agreement has yet been reached on the Leman Bank and Indefatigable fields, but I hope that it will not be long before there is final agreement.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the oil industry and North Sea gas operating companies about the preservation of continuing supplies of natural gas to consumers, in the event of war and undersea attack on the source of normal supplies.

The continuity of supplies in the event of war is being studied by the Gas Council, and there are arrangements for regular consultation on defence matters between my Department and the oil industry.

Will the Minister comment on whether or not there have been submarines in the North Sea while drilling has taken place and pipelines have been laid? What would be the situation if wells and pipelines were to be blown up, how long would it take to repair them, what facilities have we for storage of natural gas underground, and what is the security of our supplies?

The hon. Gentleman is frighteningly pessimistic. There has been one unconfirmed report of an unidentified submarine. The position of the gas pipelines has been published in the technical Press. Everyone who takes an interesl in these matters knows exactly where they are, and there is no secret about them.

Will my right hon. Frierd take this issue seriously? Is he not aware that we have coal under our feet and, as we allow pits to go out of production, we have to rely more and more upon fuel from the North Sea, and upon oil from other countries. Therefore if we allow the run-down of production in the mines we shall be in serious trouble in the near future.

Yes, I am aware of that, but, as I have said many times in answering previous Questions, I am keeping my eye on the manpower run-down in the coal industry and watching particularly the coal trends.

In view of the importance of increasing our insurance against this kind of risk by widening as far as possible the areas of successful search in the North Sea, is the Minister satisfied with the number of rigs at present at work there, since I believe that the number is substantially lower than it was only a year ago?

This is noticeable and it is understandable, because it is an exploitation of rig shortage. Once there has been drilling and possibly a scent. an appraisal takes place while the rig moves over to Norwegian waters and carries out drilling there. It is just a sensible use of the rigs.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the planned reorganisation of the electricity industry.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) on 5th November.—[Vol. 772, c. 41.]

Since the study began 10 months ago, could the Minister not give us an interim statement, and would he, in particular, confirm that he is planning to end the separation of the production and marketing functions?

On that latter point, I cannot make any statement because we have not yet come to any conclusions. In any event, it is not true that we started 10 months ago. It was five months ago. I hope to be able to come to some conclusions in the early spring.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable speculation within the electricity supply industry about the names of his advisers in this matter? Could he dispel the air of mystery by publishing those names?

I will consider that request, but I did not think that it was necessary, because a number of my officials work with some people both within the industry and without it who have experience of the industry. The area board chairmen have let me know their views, and I have been in touch with the unions about their views. They have submitted memoranda. I do not think that it is necessary to print a list of the advisers responsible.

asked the Minister of Power what is the starting date and what are the estimated completion dates, for the building of the second nuclear power station at Sizewell, and the estimated date when the station will generate electricity for the public.

I am still considering the Central Electricity Generating Board's application for consent for this station.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the original station was built, is was designed to have a second one there and that this is rather expected, provided it is a sound financial proposition?

I have two requests before me for stations, but I have not yet decided where they will be built and what type of fuel will fire them.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has received from the Central Electricity Generating Board for the erecting of new pylons to carry the extra lines for electricity to be generated at the second power station at Sizewell; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has received from Commonwealth Governments for the establishment of a Commonwealth training programme for Rhodesian Africans at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference; and what action he proposes to take.

The United Kingdom already makes a major contribution to the special Commonwealth Programme for training Rhodesian Africans, which was introduced in July, 1966, in accordance with the decision taken by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at Lagos earlier that year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this complex situation, to get an increased commitment from the Commonwealth next month for this practical programme to support the principle of African majority rule would be a good thing?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we took the initiative in the matter in 1966. Since that time we have approved 100 awards to Rhodesian Africans and, in addition, over 100 have been placed in other Commonwealth countries either under the special programme or by other means. This is obviously the kind of co-operation we could discuss at the Commonwealth Conference.

Since the Government's latest and welcome proposals for helping African education are conditional upon acceptance of the "Fearless" proposals, can the Prime Minister say whether any judgment has been passed on them by the African Nationalist leaders? Indeed, is the Prime Minister satisfied that, from their respective places of imprisonment, they are free to make known their views to Her Majesty's Government?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on the point recently. There is some doubt about the conditions in which, at any rate, one of the African Nationalist leaders is held at present. I do not think that this affects the position concerning our offer on education. The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that our proposals for advanced training, which is the subject of the Question, go on regardless of what may happen in Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to provide that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be bound by the rules of political objectivity and balance by which the Independent Television Authority is bound under the terms of the Television Act, 1964.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to subject the British Broadcasting Corporation to the same restrictions imposed upon the independent companies by the Television Act, 1964.

No, Sir. At the time of the renewal of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Royal Charter in 1964, the B.B.C. gave assurances which in effect place it under the same obligation to treat controversial subjects with impartiality as that imposed on the Independent Television Authority by the Television Act, 1964. I think that we must rely on the Chairman and Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation to see that these assurances are fulfilled.

Has the Prime Minister yet received from the Leader of the Opposition any indication about his offer that each should consult and inform the other and exchange views on any pressure or representation made between the two broadcasting authorities?

My proposal, made to the right hon. Gentleman publicly, was not that we should consult one another, but that, since it was known that all parties from time to time made complaints, it would be a useful check on the complaints if each national party were to inform the others of complaints that it had made. The answer is, no, I have had no response at all.

Would not this legislation have the double advantage of making it unnecessary for the Prime Minister to continue his campaign to indoctrinate the gnomes of Broadcasting House and also help him to avoid such political blunders as the notorious "£ in your pocket has not been devalued" which he is rumoured to have made?

On the first question, there is no such campaign. I said to the House on the last occasion that the circumstances in which in 1966 I felt it right to exercise the inalienable freedom of not going on television if you do not want to were that the B.B.C. was doing deals with the Opposition about election programmes without informing the Government. I thought that was reasonable, and my charge has not been denied since I said it in the House.

Concerning the second statement, I think that this has been fairly adequately ventilated despite the confusion caused by the Leader of the Opposition falsifying the words used. We have now had the further gaiety of the Leader of the Opposition below the Gangway showing his total inability to distinguish between the past tense and the future, between the words "will be" and "has been"—though no one should understand the words "has been" better than he.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not, apparently, aware of the exchanges which have passed through the usual channels, but we, in writing, have said that we are prepared to accept any public pronouncement about complaints made either to the B.B.C. or the programme authorities and we are prepared to publish them.

I am pleased to hear that. I was asked what reply I had had from the right hon. Gentleman. All that I have had is to read in the Press the right hon. Gentleman's briefing that no such offer was ever made. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that this was made publicly on 2nd November, 1965, in HANSARD at columns 874–5. If the right hon. Gentleman has now responded, I shall be delighted to hear the details.

I am sorry, but the Prime Minister cannot get away with it like that. Since he raised this across the Floor of the House there has been an exchange of letters between the usual channels of the three parties concerned in which, speaking for my party, we have made it clear that we fully accept the publication of any complaints, and we expect the Government to do the same.

We shall certainly be ready to do the same. Having just consulted the usual channels on my side, I am bound to say that they are as mystified as I am at this very welcome news.

Is the Prime Minister aware that since this matter was first raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about 2½ years ago there has been correspondence between the usual channels, and that at my suggestion it has been agreed by the Chief Whips of the Government and the Opposition that all these representations should be published, and is the Prime Minister aware that in default of any formal agreement the Liberal Party has decided to issue to the Press any letters that it sends to the B.B.C. or the Independent Television Authority?

I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. So far as we are concerned, the original proposal was made as long ago as November, 1965. I do not know whether that was before or after the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. I have just consulted my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. He will be prepared to look into this. If he has received the letter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—I think I am entitled to ask my right hon. Friend about that. If the letter is there, then certainly a statement will be made to the House.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there has long been collusion between the Labour and Conservative Parties about the implementation of a fair and balanced policy of party political broadcasts in Wales and in Scotland? Until recently there was an absolute veto on broadcasts by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, which even now have only four minutes and forty seconds per annum to put their policies before the people of Wales and Scotland.

I was concerned in many of these discussions, as any Leader of the Opposition is, until 1964. In those days there was no collusion between any parties to deny reasonable rights to anyone to have freedom of the air. I am certain that in any discussions between the three parties now there is still no collusion of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing.

rose —[Interruption.]

Order. This is a place where minorities are heard. Mrs. Ewing.

Whatever legislation applies, will the Prime Minister repeat the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Scotland in a recent debate that in 1969 the time ration of minority parties will be reviewed sympathetically, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in a position today to say whether the ration of four minutes forty seconds on television and radio will be increased to reflect a balanced political view of the present situation in Scotland?

This is a matter for discussion between the principal parties and the broadcasting authorities. I should like notice of the hon. Lady's question to see whether it is possible to reply to it, but it does not arise out of the original Question, which relates to questions of complaint and balance.

On a point of order. During the exchanges in Question Time, the Prime Minister said that certain correspondence which was alleged to have passed between the Opposition Chief Whip of the Conservative Party and my hon. Friend the Whip for the Liberal Party had not, to his knowledge, been received. Having seen the copies of those letters which were sent to the right hon. Gentleman, may we ask the Prime Minister whether, if upon subsequent reflection he finds that the position as he described it is not what it happens to be, he will take an early opportunity to make a statement to the House clarifying the position and thereby setting the record right?

Further to that point of order. I said that I would make a statement if I had any chance of checking on this. The answer which I gave earlier was based on a quick consultation with my right hon. Friends who are in touch with the Opposition on this matter. I said that, when I had had a chance to check on it, I would make a statement in the House. I have now, with the same speed that the right hon. Gentleman is able to command, had the statement. I confirm the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that they have said that they have no objection to publishing and registering any complaints which we may make and he—that is, the Opposition Chief Whip—went on to say, if he does not mind my quoting his letter, that they have

"… considerable doubt as to the practical value of such a register … the whole question will have to be discussed with the broadcasting authorities before any final decision can be made."

The answer which I gave was based on the situation as I saw it and on consultation with my right hon. Friends. I have consulted my right hon. Friend and I am very glad—I do not think that much time has been lost—to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which was made in good faith by himself in the House 10 minutes ago, and answered in equally good faith by myself—[Interruption.]—I am accepting the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I expressed my regret at the long delay earlier, but I accept what he said. I have now seen the correspondence for myself for the first time. The answer I gave earlier was on the information fairly supplied to me, and I think that it is right—

Monstrous!

Order. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen come to the House in this way, the House usually accepts their good faith.

I was saying that I thought it right to make a statement at the earliest opportunity. I do not think that I have been very slow. The letter of the Conservative Chief Whip to the Liberal Chief Whip, of which we have a copy, is what I have just read out.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now reduce the number of Ministers concerned with economic and industrial matters.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will restructure the appropriate: Government Departments so as to enable them to deal more effectively with the unemployment situation.

I would refer hon. Members to what I said on the machinery of government in the debate on the Fulton Report on 21st November.—[Vol. 773, c. 1557–60.]

Will the Prime Minister give more thought to this so that we can have less confusion in economic policy, and less interference with in dustry?

It is the need for consultation with industry—and I have recently had discussions with the C.B.I. about the need for still further consultation—which makes necessary the work done by various economic Departments. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said in any sense represents the views of either side of industry.

Is the Prime Minister aware that 16 Ministers are concerned with economic affairs, and that none of them appears to be capable of giving a straight answer to a simple question about the level of unemployment which is acceptable to the Government in line with their election pledge of full employment? Can the Prime Minister say what it is?

I answered that question as long as 20th July, 1966. The hon. Gentleman can look at that answer. I am sure he will rejoice in the fact that the underlying trend, seasonally corrected, for employment has been falling quite sharply in recent months.

Will my right hon. Friend give one of the economic Ministers the task of counteracting the malicious, politically-motivated activities of rumour mongers who so recently have had such a bad effect on our balance of payments?

I hope that my hon. Friend will not take this situation too seriously. It is a fact that a minority of people who are able to affect the holding of national assets are extremely amateurish in the political rumours in which they believe, which no hon. Member would be likely to accept, but, even having allowed for that, and such degree of political slant as my hon. Friend finds in some of them, I think that what happened last Friday was totally unpredictable so far as the belief in these stupid rumours is concerned. What was totally predictable was that the right hon. Gentleman, seeing trouble for sterling, would seek to make capital out of it.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether, if pressure continues on sterling, and the nation finds itself with a badly depreciated currency, that will bring about crisis decisions whereby Parliament will have to act as a Council of State?

I think I was right in my assessment about who the senior Conservative was who titillated the interest of The Times. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, which is entirely hypothetical, I should say that one of the qualifications of hon. Members is that they are sufficiently wise and experienced not to believe some of the silly rumours which were circulated last Friday, or some of the silly red herrings which have been started since then. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the strength of sterling basically depends on the progress we are making with our balance of payments and the relation between exports and imports, and on that my right hon. Friend, in the last economic debate, and again on Saturday, made quite clear what the very strong upward trend in exports was. I think that a Council of State might spend more time putting these facts across to the country, and even to the most naive speculators, and it may be led in that respect by the Leader of the Opposition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not so much the gnomes of Zurich or the leprechauns of Thread-needle Street who disturb me, but rather the pixies and bambies on the other side of the House who never hesitate to make unpatriotic statements if they think they will give them a party advantage?

I would have thought that that was so self-evident that it was not necessary for me to confirm it. What I think does cause serious trouble is that certain people abroad who are free to speculate in the British nation's reserve assets believe that a great deal could be done by reduction of Government expenditure, as we are repeatedly told by the party opposite, yet for the last three days the Leader of the Opposition and their spokesmen have been pressing for large increases in local authority expenditure.

Reverting to the actual Question which the right hon. Gentleman was asked, could I know when the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs is going to issue his National Plan Mark II, and how much it has been delayed by the events of the last two months?

The right hon. Gentleman whose interest in these matters is well known, will be delighted to know that tomorrow morning the document on future planning will be considered by the National Economic Development Council, under my chairmanship, and that it has not been delayed. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual fairness, will, I am sure, join me in expressing the deep regret of the House at the pretty serious illness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the fact that he will not be able to play a part in the discussions tomorrow.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House and the country that Britain is very much a creditor nation, that our overseas assets vastly exceed our liabilities, and that the balance of payments deficit over the past four years is more than accounted for by the foreign exchange costs of overseas military spending and the private outflow of capital to advanced countries?

If I were so to remind them, I would further point out that the overseas military expenditure, which grew out of all proportion from the early 1960s onwards, has now been cut back and will be cut back very severely over the next four years, despite the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are committed to vast increases in that expenditure. What my hon. Friend says is right as to the facts, but, in a neurotic situation, people are not so interested in facts as in rumours. The fact on which they should base themselves is the progress of this country in relation to the trade balance, of which my right hon. Friend gave figures a few days ago.

Referring to the unemployment situation mentioned in Question No. Q4, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to promise the country that, in the coming year, the present half a million totally unemployed will be cut by a half?

That would be so completely opposed to the policy always advocated by the Opposition that I would not give such an assurance because their whole prices and incomes policy depends on keeping the labour market in such a state that wage claims would not be pressed at all. It would mean further unemployment. Unemployment is at the moment falling, although it is too high, as we have said, but what is of paramount importance is that employment opportunities should be spread more evenly. In this context the whole House will have noticed the serious attacks on our development area policy ard expenditure by the Leader of the Opposition in the last economic debate.

rose —

Order. We are well past Question Time.