asked the Minister of Power what was aggregate coal production, respectively, during 1967 and 1968; what production is planned and forecast for 1969; and by how much the present level of employment in the coal industry is to be reduced by the end of 1969 consequent upon pit closures or otherwise.

Aggregate coal production in 1967 was 174·8 million tons and in 1968, 167·1 million tons. Year to year forecasts of coal production and employment are matters for the National Coal Board acting within the framework of Government policies.

The re-employment of displaced men is a matter for the Minister. Is it not a fact that coal mining labour will drop from 350,000 to fewer than 300,000 during 1969? Have the Government got jobs for all these displaced men?

That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity.

asked the Minister of Power what value of North Sea gas was utilised in 1968 expressed in £ million, correct to the nearest £ million; what are comparable figures planned for 1969 and 1970, respectively; and what impact, measured in millions of tons of coal equivalent, such North Sea gas consumption will have on the coal industry, notably in the matter of pit closures and diminution of coal mining labour.

The estimate for the financial year 1968–69 is £15 million and for the two following financial years, £36 million and £62 million, respectively. The greater part of the North Sea gas available to us in the next two years is likely to replace oil and the impact on the coal industry will be slight.

Will the Minister undertake to publish in a suitable form in the OFFICIAL REPORT the number of contracts he has made for North Sea gas, with whom the contracts have been made, what is the coal equivalent in millions of tons that this gas represents and when the balance of the contracts is expected to be completed?

If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on those points we will do our best to give him the details he requires.

asked the Minister of Power if there has now been revision of manpower estimates in the Scottish coalfield for the current year; and how many miners he estimates will be employed in Scottish pits at the end of 1969.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of the recent policy decision on the rate of pit closures in 1969, what he anticipates will be the number of closures in Scotland in 1969.

asked the Minister of Power what revision of manpower estimates he has made in the Scottish coalfield for 1969; and how many miners he estimates will be employed in Scottish pits by December 1969.

The National Coal Board expects the net manpower reduction in Scotland this year to be somewhat less than the 1968 figure of 5,800. This would mean end year manpower rather more than 26,000. As my hon. Friends know, colliery closures are a matter for the Board.

Is the Minister aware that in Scotland there is a crisis of confidence in the mining industry which is shared by miners? Would he agree that he has Ministerial responsibility to do something immediately about this position to avoid the nation being involved in very heavy cost resulting from further contraction this year?

My hon. Friend has no doubt noticed the speeches made of late by the Chairman of the N.C.B. and myself and the indication given in them that there will be a slower run-down in 1969 than in 1968. I will be able to judge morale for myself when I visit Scotland on Friday.

What discussions are taking place with other Ministerial Departments to ensure that alternative industry is brought to areas where pits are closing?

There is a continuing dialogue between the Board of Trade, the D.E.P. and my Department on this matter.

Is it not a fact that, thanks to Government policy such as the Redundancy Payments Act and development policy, closures such as that involving the Riddochhill Colliery have gone more smoothly and more satisfactorily than one would have conceived possible five years ago?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that comment, which is absolutely true. It is also noticeable in mining areas where the unemployment figures look relatively high, for one must take notice of the fact that some miners have been prematurely retired on redundancy pay while others are enjoying weekly take-home amounts of a high rate flowing from the over-55 scheme, which means that many men are taking home £15 to £20 a week although they are recorded in the figures of unemployed.

Are these miners likely to have increased confidence in the N.C.B. when the Board increases their rents?

That is a matter which my hon. Friend must take up with the N.C.B., although I am aware of the anxiety which it is causing in mining districts.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent the rate of net decline in manpower and in redundancy in the coal industry changed during 1968, comparing the first quarter with the final quarter.

Net decline in manpower fell from an annual rate of 67,800 in the first quarter of 1968 to one of 39,600 in the last quarter. Redundancy in the first quarter was at an annual rate of 27,300 and in the last quarter 16,200.

Are not the rundown figures still far too great? How many collieries have been closed in the two quarters concerned?

In the whole year of 1968, 70 pits closed and 25,133 men were made redundant. As I have said recently, this should be slowed down this year.

Does not my right hon. Friend's Answer prove beyond doubt that the estimates in the 1967 White Paper were hopelessly out? Has not the time arrived for an immediate review of the whole of our fuel policy?

No, Sir. It was expected that the manageable rundown over four years would be 140,000. Although in 1968 57,000 men left the industry altogether, this year the figure should be less than 35,000. Therefore, overall in the four years we may well maintain the figure of 140,000.

Why are coal miners, who are traditionally the most loyal supporters of the Labour Party, so bitterly disappointed with the Labour Government's policy over the closure of coal mines? What can the Minister do to restore the confidence of these loyal supporters in his Government?

The facts do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman says. The fact that last year the industry lost less tonnage through disputes than has happened in the history of coal mining and the fact that output per man shift increased by 9·5 per cent. refute absolutely what the hon. Gentleman says.

Will my right hon. Friend tell hon. Members opposite that we on this side can disagree with my right hon. Friend without any interference or help from the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne)? However, it is not merely a question of redundancies. Will my right hon. Friend list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the periods for which those members of the industry who are made redundant remain unemployed, the industries in which they become re-employed, and what their earnings are on re-employment as compared with their earnings in the industry?

This would necessitate a major exercise. As I have tried to indicate, a number of people who are registered as unemployed in mining districts may have prematurely taken their retirement. Further, because of the very generous scheme under the Coal Industry Act, 1967, miners over 55 who cannot easily find work can take three years on up to 90 per cent. of their previous take-home pay; and they, too, are regarded as unemployed. So the total figure is false. Nevertheless, the miners greatly appreciate what this Government have done, as distinct from the previous Government, who closed 230 pits and never paid a penny to the miners or to the Board.

asked the Minister of Power how much coal was used in the Central Electricity Generating Board's power stations in 1968; and how this compares with the previous year.

67 million tons, compared with 62 million tons in 1967. This was a record level of consumption.

How much of the total tonnage is due to the 1967 Act? Will my right hon. Friend now start discussions with the National Coal Board to secure at least a continuation of, if not an improvement in, the 1967 Act beyond 1971?

Almost 6 million tons are attributable to assistance arising under the Coal Industry Act, 1967. This boosted the power station burn. We have not yet given the question of post-1971 assistance the detailed consideration that it requires.

asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the 9 per cent. increase in coal productivity in 1968, he will take steps to ensure consumption by coal consumers is increased in 1969.

This fine achievement will strengthen the coal industry's marketing position and the N.C.B. is already acting on this. The Government will continue to help increased coal consumption at power stations and gas works in 1969.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is futile to keep on increasing productivity without a corresponding increase in marketing opportunities? Does not he agree also that the former without the latter only accelerates closures?

It is axiomatic that, if one increases production levels and productivity, one must relate marketing possibilities to them. This is why the Government will continue in the coming year the increased consumption of coal at power stations.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in Warwickshire and the South Midlands area, output per man-shift is breaking new records? How is the Coal Board helping? Can it not offer more district heating schemes? Or will it cut back the increased production so that the miners will not work themselves out of jobs?

This sort of project can well be encouraged among local developers and others. There has been the excellent move by the National Union of Mineworkers itself recently. It will put cash into such schemes if local authorities and others seek investment for them.

Will my hon. Friend ask the N.C.B. to give wide publicity to the district heating scheme at the Kelvin block of flats in Sheffield in order that local authorities generally may see the value and efficiency of such schemes?

We can draw the attention of the National Coal Board to that suggestion but I am not aware that it is failing to publicise its interest in and the potential of such projects. These are developments which could also be followed up by others.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about his policy regarding the site for a new power station in the South-West of England.

C.E.G.B. has been making preliminary investigations in Devon and Cornwall and has consulted local planning authorities and the regional economic planning council. It has not made any application to me.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the decision on the siting of the power station will have very serious implications for the South-West development area? Can he assure the House that before a final decision is taken he will consult the regional economic planning council, the local authorities concerned and other Government Departments?

The C.E.G.B. has already surveyed several sites. The regional economic planning council and other planning authorities can, if they desire, make representations to the Ministry before any decisions are made.

As there is often criticism that this policy is dictated from Bristol without consultation with Devon and Cornwall, will the Minister ensure that the County Councils of Devon and Cornwall are directly consulted?

Whilst I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, I have no desire to get involved in an inter-district wrangle.

asked the Minister of Power upon what estimate of economic growth for the next five years are the forecasts of electricity demand based.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the capacity required by the electricity industry by 1973–74 on the basis that the national growth rate will be 2½ per cent. per annum.

asked the Minister of Power upon which of the assumptions of economic growth, postulated in his document submitted to the National Economic Development Council in December, 1968, are the electricity demand forecasts for the next five years based.

Many factors besides the economic growth rates enter into the forecasts of electricity demand and there is no exact correlation between demand and economic growth. However, the Electricity Council's forecast last year was regarded as consistent with an average annual rate of economic growth of 3 to 3¼ per cent. during the next five years. Future forecasts of electricity demand will have regard to the Government's latest views on prospects for economic growth.

Is the Minister aware that the annual growth in demand has averaged 3·7 per cent. over the past five years? Why, then, is the Electricity Council planning to spend more thousands of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money to meet demand based on the rate of 8·2 per cent., which is what the present estimates represent?

The electricity industry makes the most careful calculation possible on the growth of electricity consumption expected. It is on that basis that investment policies are made.

Is not it true that the present over-capacity has partly arisen because of the 1965 forecast in the growth of G.N.P. of 4¼ per cent.? Would not it be more realistic to scale down the estimates for future years?

The investment which is being provided should be sufficient to allow for a somewhat higher economic growth rate than we have been experiencing.

Is it not a fact that the likely surplus in capacity results from the fact that the Government's forecast of growth rate in the past have been so wildly wrong? What assurance have we that in the new document which has been presented to the economic development council a similar mistake will not be repeated?

I do not know why so much astonishment is being expressed. For some time there has been in the industry and in Government an attempt to reach a 17 per cent. capacity margin. We have now moved into the period when we are achieving the 17 per cent.

Will the Minister tell the House that that margin of capacity has been exceeded? Can he say what the forecast is for the years ahead? Is it not likely to be a substantial excess margin of capacity, and does not that represent a gross waste of resources?

I think that the hon. Gentleman did not clearly hear what I said earlier in reply to a previous supplementary question, which is that capacity should be sufficient to allow for a somewhat higher growth rate than has been experienced in the past to be sure that when that growth rate expands to a given degree the capacity is there.

Is my hon. Friend aware that forecasting in this field has been described as the graveyard for forecasters, never more so than when one is forecasting the cost per unit sent out in electricity production? Instead of repeating their errors, will the Government make calculations which facts will support, and not theory?

I believe that there are other Questions on unit costs later in the Order Paper.

Does my hon. Friend agree that because many of the new generating sets coming into commission are not available the excess of capacity is probably not as large as it should be?

There have been teething troubles in a number of the larger units, and at the points in time when these troubles occur the margin drops. As they are put into full commission, the margin goes up again.

asked the Minister of Power if he will reduce the planned future excess of electricity generating capacity on maximum cold-spell demand to 14 per cent.

No change is envisaged at present, but the planning margin is kept under review.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has overshot the 17 per cent. included in the plans made so far, might it not be better to aim for 14 per cent. in the hope of coming a little nearer to the target he now has in mind?

I wish hon. Members opposite would listen carefully to the Answers which are given. In a previous Answer I said that we were running in the area of 17 per cent. but that it would vary from time to time according to the teething troubles experienced in the larger units. That is the present position. It is inaccurate to suggest that there is a massive excess of capacity.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that at present it is 21 per cent.? As he says that electricity capacity will allow of higher growth in future than has been experienced in the past, will he say upon what higher rate of growth it will be based?

On the last point, I must ask hon. Members to await the planning document which will be published as a Green Paper in the near future. On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

asked the Minister of Power what is the outcome of his inquiry into the comparative fuel costs in electricity generation; and whether he will make a statement.

Comparative fuel costs are kept under continuing review. Recent studies have confirmed the basis of present policies.

Would there not be value in having a further independent investigation into comparative fuel costs? If not, why not?

No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman must know, I told the Select Committee recently that this would be a heavy task for an outside body which would not yield commensurate benefits.

asked the Minister of Power what was the growth of the peak demand upon the electricity supply system over the three winters 1965–66 to 1967–68.

The maximum demand on the Central Electricity Generating Board's system, adjusted to average cold spell weather conditions, rose by 3·7 per cent. between the 1965–66 and 1967–68 winters.

Will the Minister say whether those figures relate to demand actually made, or demand if there had been no voltage reduction? Are not his plans for growth in capacity in coming years greater than would be justified by recent trends in demand? Is it not a fact that every 1,000 megawatt extra surplus capacity costs the nation £50 million?

The hon. Member would be quite right if the margin went too high—the margin at present is just over 17 per cent. Although hon. Members opposite would blame the present Government because economic growth is not coming along fast enough to justify that plant margin, many of the stations coming into stream this year and next were ordered and commissioned when they were in office.

Are not hon. Members opposite tempting my right hon. Friend to cut back on capacity so that the first time there is a power cut they can scream their heads off at him?

I think it better to have a planned margin and that the forecast should be on the high side, when one considers the seriousness of underestimation.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the progress of work at Dungeness B Nuclear Power Station.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the progress of the Dungeness B power station.

asked the Minister of Power what progress has been made on the Dungeness B nuclear power station contract; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what effect he expects the need to redesign the boilers at the Dungeness B nuclear power station will have on the capital and operating costs of the Seaton Carew station.

Work is in hand to remake the upper part of the metal liners of the pressure vessels which were distorted during welding. The first reactor may be delayed by at least 18 months and the second by a year. This was a defect in mechanical engineering, not in the technology of the A.G.R. It therefore carries no implications for later A.G.R. stations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the difficulties at Dungeness B have been aggravated by the slowness of the Government in undertaking the reorganisation of the nuclear power industry, and thus pinning down responsibility?

Whatever hon. Members may feel about the history of that industry, questions on the subject should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, and not to me.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether management matters have been resolved with the companies concerned? In view of the great potential for exports of nuclear systems and components, would he not agree that it is very urgent to press ahead with this as rapidly as possible?

I certainly agree that it is important to smooth out this kind of problem as rapidly as possible, but, as I indicated in my main Answer, there are no indications of these problems in the technology of the A.G.R. stations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the continued delay in sorting this matter out at Dungeness is giving great concern to the firms and the workers employed in the two consortia in the project? What help can be given? What assurances can be given to the workers in this vital industry?

As I indicated earlier, Questions about the position of people and resources inside the production industries are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and not for us.

Who is going to pay?

The matter will in due course be sorted out between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the private companies concerned.

asked the Minister of Power what decision has been reached as a result of his consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the Scottish Electricity Board's proposal for a new generating station after 1970; and what estimates the National Coal Board have submitted to him of coal production in Ayrshire to enable him to reach a decision.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for electricity generation in Scotland, and I have nothing to add to the Answer he gave to a Question by my hon. Friend on 20th January.—[Vol. 776, c. 30.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a body of opinion in Scotland believes that coal has not been given proper consideration in any decision which may arise on how the new power station should be fuelled?

I am sorry to hear that but I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will not let the case for coal go by default.

asked the Minister of Power (1) whether he is satisfied that the salary structure for the boards of the nationalised industries for which he is responsible, when compared with corresponding salaries in the private sector of industry, is adequate for the attraction of persons of suitable calibre to those industries; and if he will make a statement;

asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that the present salary structure of the National Coal Board is adequate for the appointment of persons of the necessary calibre as members; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that the salaries of board members of the nationalised industries for which he is responsible compare favourably with the salaries of board members in other nationalised industries; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has for changing the salary structure of Board members in the electricity industry; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has for changing the salary structure of the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement.

We should wait for the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Does not the Minister agree that one of his main responsibilities is to create a salary structure that will enable him to recruit and retain staff of the right calibre? Why does he shrug this off to Mr. Aubrey Jones? He is the Minister responsible. Why does not he have the courage to increase salaries for nationalised industries, or is he the obedient slave of his Left wing?

There are a number of Ministers responsible for nationalised industries. I am aware that major British nationalised industries should be regarded as first rate, and that we cannot do with second raters to ran them. I am aware of the salary problem, which may cause difficulties in recruitment as well as retention of staff, but the N.B.P.I. is examining all of this.

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the size and importance still of the National Coal Board. Is not he aware of the difficulty he had early this year in finding three recruits for that Board? Is not there something wrong with its salary structure? Will he do something to put it right?

I am not aware that I had any difficulties in finding staff at that time. The Chairman of the National Coal Board has let his views be known to the Chairman of the N.B.P.I. already.

Will the Minister accept that the present illogical structure of these top level salaries is the worst possible advertisement for the nationalised industries in attracting new recruits at all levels? Will he assure the House that as soon as the report of the N.B.P.I. is received the Government will act on it with absolute urgency?

I am aware also that if there is a depressed level of salaries at the top it causes a log-jam beneath, but the Chairman of the N.B.P.I. will be aware of this.

Since two deputy chairmen of the National Steel Corporation are paid over £20,000 a year, how can the Minister justify waiting for Aubrey Jones to report? Surely it is time he made up his mind and put up the salaries on his own account?

I do not see any reason why we should not wait. We are to get a report before long, in April.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will resist the pressure from hon. Members opposite to increase public expenditure, and give an undertaking that any increases suggested by Aubrey Jones or anyone else come within the 3½ per cent. of the prices and incomes policy?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the latter assurance, but as a spending Minister I am aware of the belly-aches about public spending.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that hon. Members opposite are very active on behalf of the underpaid workers in nationalised industry, with a view to embarrassing us politically? Will he assure the House that he will consult his right hon. Friends with responsibility for the matter to make sure that we can also participate in this discussion?

I am sure that there will be a lot of participation before any new salary scales are agreed.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's own phrase about "first class" and "second class", does he regard the present chairmen of the nationalised power industries as being first-class? If so, why does not he pay them accordingly?

My chairmen are first rate.

asked the Minister of Power whether, in order to assist the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its current investigation of salaries in nationalised industries, he will make a Statement of his policy on ministerial control of these industries.

The Board is free to approach me for any information it requires.

Does the Minister agree that in view of the recent fiasco in recruiting three new members to the National Coal Board, the time has come for him to give proper pay and conditions of works for such members?

I must refute absolutely that comment of the hon. Gentleman, both in a previous supplementary question and now. There was no fiasco. There was no difficulty, and we recruited on time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chairman of the National Coal Board accepted a job and the attendant salary under a Tory Government, and made no complaints at the time? Is he aware that the miners feel that the National Coal Board Chairman is adequately paid in comparison with the wages of the lower-paid workers?

I am sure that the Chairman of the National Coal Board will take full cognisance of what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking with a view to further exploration for gas and hydrocarbons in the North Sea, Irish Sea and British Channel; and how many exploration wells he estimates will be drilled during 1969, 1970 and 1971.

Substantial further exploration of the Continental Shelf areas under licence is assured until 1970–71 by the terms and conditions of the licences. The basis on which exploration of new and surrendered areas should be undertaken is being considered.

Current licence work programmes call for a minimum of 65 further exploration wells during the period 1969–71.

Would it not be a great encouragement to further exploration of new areas in these offshore parts of the Continental Shelf if the Parliamentary Secretary were to say plainly that he does not necessarily regard the price contracts so far agreed as precedents for any future contracts for either gas or oil?

It is for the Gas Council to negotiate the best possible results on behalf of the nation and the industry.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that since the last application for licences was received a considerable amount of new information has been obtained? Therefore, there might be great advantage in allowing some of those areas which have not at present been licensed to be claimed for licence, thus encouraging the best use of drilling in this period?

As I have said, the basis upon which further exploration licences are to be granted is now being considered.

What progress is being made towards the setting up of a National Hydrocarbons Corporation, as recommended by the Labour Party Conference in 1968?

This matter is being very seriously considered by my Department.

asked the Minister of Power what is the present number of applications, and by whom, for licences to drill for oil and gas in the Irish Sea, indicating the locations and names of applicants.

No applications are outstanding. When applications were last invited in 1965, one licence in the Irish Sea comprising five blocks was issued to Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd.

Are the terms and conditions of the licences granted for drilling for oil and gas on the Scottish shelf of the North Sea the same as those contained in the licences granted for drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea? What steps are taken to protect British trade, industry and commerce and to ensure that they get a fair share of the oil and gas from the Irish Sea?

On the question of oil coming forward, no commercial exploitations have been shown up yet. On the position as between one part of the North Sea and another, or between the North Sea and the Irish Sea, the regulations are common to all the companies which are operating.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary throw any light on a Press report last Friday that the Irish Government are willing for a price of well over 4½d. per therm to be paid for any gas discovered in the Irish half of the North Sea? Is it true, or is it just Irish?

I am not responsible for Press speculation, and certainly not for activities which are the concern of the Irish Government.

asked the Minister of Power what arrangements have been made to enable his Department to draw upon overseas experience in its work on energy policy.

My Department plays a full part in the work of the Energy and related Committees of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; in the work of the fuel committees of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; and maintains close contact with the European Commission notably through the Council of Association with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to drawing on overseas experience we should be encouraging the nationalised fuel industry to visit consultancy services abroad?

Yes, Sir. I am not aware of the extent to which this ought to go, but I am willing to look at it.

Do all these things lead to cheaper electricity, which is what we all want, and improvement in electricity load factor, which is the only way by which greater efficiency can be achieved?

If I were generalising I would say, yes, because it enables our Department and the fuel industries to draw on the widest possible experience, especially of European nations who have similar problems to ours.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Gas Board is being consulted by the Greek Government and others in regard to its experience?

I was not, but I thank my right hon. Friend for the information.

asked the Minister of Power what recent discussions he has had with the European Economic Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Together with my noble Friend, the Minister of State at the Board of Trade, I attended a meeting of the Council of Association with the Commission of the European Communities only 12 days ago. I have placed a copy of the communiqué issued after that meeting in the Library.

Is there anything useful to learn for United Kingdom policies from these energy proposals put to the E.E.C.?

Yes, Sir. One in particular is whether there should be joint examination by the coal and steel groups of whether there is likely to be a serious shortage of coking supplies in future to the steel industries of Britain and Europe. This will be helpful to the N.C.B. to the British Steel Corporation and the Government.

Is this likely to lead to changes in the rate of pit closures'?

We shall have to await the outcome of the examination.

asked the Minister of Power what complaints he has received from users of natural gas that it is less efficient in its working than the former town gas; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

Twenty-four complaints since last April which my right hon. Friend has referred to the Area Boards to investigate. While natural gas gives rise to problems of adaption for consumers and appliances, these are due to its different calorific value and composition, and not to any technical inferiority to town gas.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that this gas presents very difficult ignition problems and as a result many people are now unable to use the pilot light on their equipment? Will he encourage extra research into this aspect?

This is one matter among a number which the gas industry is taking into close account and I am quite sure it is capable of handling it.

Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent case where the inadvertent use of facilities, possibly by negligence of the consumer, led to the escape of this type of gas which has very severe lethal qualities compared with other kinds of gas? Is that taken into account and proper warnings given and precautions taken about its use?

The gas boards and the Gas Council are investigating this fault and others which have developed during the introduction of the conversion programmes. If there are particular points my hon. Friend would like looked at I or the industry will do so. If he writes to us, I shall certainly arrange that.

asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the standards and techniques being applied by the gas boards in the natural gas conversion programme in various parts of the country; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power how many representations he has received on the conversion of domestic appliances for the use of North Sea gas; what number and percentage of the conversions have initially worked unsatisfactorily and necessitated further maintenance; and what is the percentage increase set against the estimated unit cost for each conversion.

My right hon. Friend has received 45 representations since the programme began last April. Standards and methods are continually improved by the boards in the light of experience and research but some further servicing, at present about 25 per cent. of conversions must be expected. Costs per consumer in these early stages, have averaged £34–£35, but they are estimated at about £30 for the whole 10-year programme in real terms.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that thousands of conversion mistakes have been made purely because the workmen concerned were inefficiently trained, and as a result many of my constituents have been without water or heating for three weeks or a month? As only 5 per cent. of the country so far has been converted, will the hon. Gentleman ask the boards to give special attention to the training of workmen involved?

This point has been raised by my Department with the gas boards and by the gas boards with the contractors they are employing. I have spent some time visiting some of the conversion areas to see what was being done, to pick up on the mistakes and difficulties initially experienced. I am confident that the gas industry will get over them.

Does not the Minister realise that, particularly in North London, there have been major outcries against the unsatisfactory nature of the conversions? What steps is he taking to ensure that a conversion can be done in one visit and not by having workmen returning a number of times to readjust the sets? Is he concerned that the cost of this conversion is running at about one-seventh greater than was estimated?

I am not over-anxious at this stage about the increased cost in the early stages of the programme because in real terms it will adjust along the lines originally estimated. As to having no return calls or visits, this is impossible. The industry expects that there will be further servicing required, bearing in mind the tremendous range of equipment to be put in hand for these conversion programmes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that people in a number of places where conversion programmes have been started feel deeply resentful that they have been chosen as guinea-pigs for what is apparently an unprepared scheme, so that there has to be recourse to private firms to do the installation, and many of those private firms do not come up to the standard requisite and obtainable?

I am aware of the anxiety my hon. Friend has expressed and the inconvenience that has been experienced by a number of people in the early stages of this programme. I am also aware, however, that the vast majority of the conversions have been undertaken smoothly. I am also aware that there are not guinea-pig areas, but a start with these programmes has to be made somewhere. There are inevitably difficulties in the early stages, but there is every reason to believe, according to my contacts with the industry, that these problems will be overcome soon.

Will the hon. Gentleman look at the efficiency, or lack of it, in the gas consumer councils in this respect to see that they are looking after consumers properly and not being just servants of gas boards?

I should say bluntly that in his last remark the hon. Member was talking nonsense. If he has a particular case in which he thinks these matters are not handled properly by a local consultative council and he writes to us, I shall have it investigated. The job these councils are doing, particularly in these areas, is excellent.

asked the Minister of Power how much of the total borrowing powers authorised by the 1968 Act have been so far taken up by the Gas Council; and what further sum he estimates will be required by the end of 1969.

The estimates published last March in the White Paper on Loans from the National Loans Fund show that by, 31st March next, the end of its current financial year, the Gas Council expected to have borrowed £1,357 million. Revised estimates for 1968–69 and estimates for 1969–70 will be published in a White Paper next month.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his predecessor gave an undertaking during the passage of the Act that he would be open to be questioned so that the House could keep a rolling review of the amount? As it appears that there is considerable under-expenditure of the capital amount, would it not be reasonable for the House to reduce the total borrowing power allowed to the gas industry?

I would not have thought that would be wise, since the House gave the Gas Council a limit of £1,600 million, which covers the requirements to spring 1970. As for questioning—the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing pretty well.

asked the Prime Minister when the hon. Member for Bosworth may expect a reply to his letter dated 13th January, 1969, about co-ordination between the relevant Government Departments in inquiries into air accidents.

My hon. Friend's letter to which I am replying referred to the accident at Gibraltar in 1943, in which General Sikorski was killed, and certain current allegations of British complicity in this matter. He will realise that I must not prejudice the legal proceedings which are now pending in this connection. But I can say that I know of no evidence to imply that the crash of the Liberator at Gibraltar was other than a genuine accident.

Would it be possible to have another inquiry, in view of all the technological advances which have been made since the war, so that there can be disposed of the monstrous charges that Mr. Churchill organised the murder of his friend, General Sikorski, based on allegations made by a German playwright and founded on a document which he says exists in a Swiss bank and which he will not allow anyone to see; nor will he give the name of the bank?

rose—

Send it to a Select Committee.

Despite the levity of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), this is a very serious matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

There was a report to the House of Commons at the time by the then Under-Secretary of State for Air. I have read—and it took some hours—the whole of the inquiry and every single deposition and answer by every witness. I stand by what I have said. There is no evidence at all that there is any need or reason to reopen the inquiry.

In the light of what I have said, the allegations to which my hon. Friend has referred should be dismissed and brushed aside with the contempt they deserve.

In view of the wide publicity the matter is getting and since, as the Prime Minister rightly said, there will probably be law suits pending, could not the Government help to give a lead by publishing documents which will be available?

I do not think that that is necessary. It would be totally opposed to all our practice in these matters. There was a report to the House. I have read the information in great detail and it really is for those who are bandying these allegations about to produce some shred of evidence to suggest that the wartime Government, the then Under-Secretary of State for Air and those responsible for the inquiry were wrong in their findings. If there were such evidence, it would have to be considered, but so far not a single shred of evidence has been produced apart from a highly scurrilous play and some rather silly letters about it in the Press.

asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will offer a site in Parliament Square or elsewhere for a statue to the late Sir Winston Churchill, subject to suitable arrangements being made for defraying the cost of making and erecting such a statue.

As I said in my reply to an earlier Question by the hon. Gentleman on this subject on the 14th of May last year, these are matters in which the House prefers to move by agreement. Although some publicity was given to the hon. Gentleman's proposal at the time of my earlier Answer, there has not so far been convincing evidence of broad support for it, either in the House or among the public generally.—[Vol. 764, c. 1030–2.]

Does not the Prime Minister agree that there is no statue to this very great man in the centre of London that the public can see? Those who remember his splendid speeches would like to see such a statue before we are all dead. How can we find out whether there is public support unless there is a public appeal and discussion as to where the site should be.

I agree that there is no statue as yet but no doubt there will be in due course when there is sufficient public demand for it. The hon. Gentleman has had a number of Questions on the Order Paper on this matter, which have resulted in publicity. Answering those Questions, I made it clear that I would be glad to receive representations from any right hon. or hon. Members in the House or from any other sections of public opinion on this matter. But so far there has not been the response which the hon. Gentleman hoped for when he first raised the matter.

Would my right hon. Friend consider an application to build a statue in Parliament Square to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to frighten the pigeons away?

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for an official meeting with the Head of Government of Portugal.

None, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have in my hand a piece of shrapnel from a rocket fired by a Portuguese aircraft in Zambia? Bearing in mind the very close ties that Portugal has with this country, is it not a disgraceful state of affairs that Portugal, in Mozambique, should blatantly evade sanctions, and not only that, but kill the citizens of a country which opposes the sanctions?

I have been in close and personal touch with the President of Zambia on this and all other related questions. I have had discussions with him on this in July of last year and again at the time of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. I should be glad to respond to any proposals made to me by the President of Zambia, particularly if he produces evidence of the kind that we require, and take it up with the Portuguese.

My hon. Friend will know that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to supply arms to Portugal for use outside her N.A.T.O. responsibilities in Europe. No arms go to Portugal for use in Africa. [Interruption.] No arms go for use in Africa. If this is being circumvented or broken I would be glad to receive evidence and we should certainly take it up.

Is not the prosperity of these two Portuguese provinces in Africa of direct British interest? Is there not a great opportunity for British exports there, and would we not stand a better chance if we were seen to treat this old and loyal ally with a little more respect and understanding than we do?

Portugal is, of course, an old and loyal ally within N.A.T.O. This does not mean that we support her policies in Africa, and we have made plain in successive Commonwealth Conference communiqués—I may be wrong in this—going back to before this Government came into office, that we do not agree with her policy in Africa. Certainly we would not approve of arms supplied for N.A.T.O. purposes being used there. There are allegations; when we get the evidence we will investigate them.

How can the Prime Minister possibly make a check on whether these arms, supplied to Portugal, ostensibly for N.A.T.O. purposes, are not being sent from that country to repress the Africans in Angola and Mozambique? Since it has been impossible to make such a check, will he not now impose an embargo on the export of arms to Portugal?

It is not impossible to make a check. We have throughout had this on the shipments to Africa. This would certainly apply to Angola and Mozambique—

Nigeria.

Nigeria is not in that part of the world—it is several thousand miles away. It applies a fortiori to any possible use involving the strafing of Zambian villages. That there have been Portuguese attacks on Zambian villages is not in dispute. We are prepared to receive evidence from the Zambian Government if it would lead to the suggestion that these were N.A.T.O. arms being used.

Apart from this question, is there not enough evidence of Portuguese connivance at sanction-breaking in Rhodesia to merit a meeting at which my right hon. Friend should have some very straight things to say to the Portuguese Government?

We have been in very close touch with the Portuguese Government on many of these questions over a period of time. The enforcement of the Security Council resolution dealing with this matter is for the Security Council.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference for altering the structure of the Government to give greater attention to Commonwealth affairs.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to give the fullest attention to Commonwealth affairs and no further alterations in the structure of government are required for this purpose.

In view of the growing importance of the Commonwealth, would the right hon. Gentleman not arrange for one Minister of State in the Foreign Office to oversee Commonwealth affairs generally and to be responsible for answering Commonwealth Questions, in principle, in this House?

The hon. Gentleman, if he thinks hard about this, will probably feel that our present arrangement is better, in the interests of the Commonwealth as well as in the interests of this House. Certainly this was the view very strongly put to me by Commonwealth representatives at the recent Conference. They liked to have one Department to deal with, whether they are talking about direct bilateral matters, or of course foreign matters affecting third countries. It is far better, and I think that my right hon. Friend's decision to divide responsibilities on a geographical basis means that we no longer have some of the anomalies of having two Ministers dealing with contiguous areas because one happens to be Commonwealth and the other foreign.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that there is a considerable realignment of economic forces taking place in the world? Would he agree that there might be some wisdom in setting up a Committee to look into the implications of Commonwealth trade as a whole, with the possible inference that we are paying a very heavy price for it?

I am not sure if my hon. Friend is saying that we are paying a heavy price for Commonwealth trade. I would certainly not agree with that. The question of Commonwealth trade—as well as questions of Commonwealth development—is discussed regularly at Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences and also at the regular meetings of Commonwealth Finance Ministers. Following the 1965 Conference, I proposed, and it was accepted, that there should be a specific meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers to review all these questions. I certainly cannot agree, either that Commonwealth trade is too high, or that we are paying an excessive price for the Commonwealth trade which we enjoy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some anxiety about the position of dependencies under the new arrangement? Could he give an assurance that representatives of dependencies would have direct access to the Foreign Secretary on major matters concerning them?

This is exactly the position. Just as they had direct access on appropriate occasions to the Commonwealth Secretary, they will certainly have direct access to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and, of course, on appropriate occasions, to myself as well.

asked the Prime Minister what further initiatives he proposes in 1969 with a view to further Great Britain's application to joint the European Economic Community.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on the 4th of February to Questions by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and the Answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) yesterday.—[Vol. 777, c. 203–5; c. 879–80.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some alarm about increasing reports from Europe that our further efforts to get into the Community are resulting in a complete worsening of Anglo-French relations? Does he not think that British Government strategy should be reconsidered and that the way into Europe is through a deal with the French, rather than trying to fight them?

If my hon. Friend has any constructive proposals to make for a way into Europe, by a deal with the French, I should be very glad to have either a long or a short memorandum on the subject. Of course these matters are discussed in an amicable way with the French Government but that does not, of itself, remove the fundamental cleavage of view between the French Government on the one hand and ourselves and out friends in Europe on the other. My hon. Friend will further be aware that I shall be discussing some of these questions with the German Chancellor later this week.

How is the momentum getting on? If it is still there, could it not be applied to a more fruitful objective, such as the investigation of an alternative trading arrangement, like the Atlantic Free Trade Area?

The momentum, which we use our efforts and energies to generate and to keep moving, with the help of our friends in Europe, has up to now suffered the fate that all momenta suffer when they run into an irresistible object.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that a community embracing, say, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and those of the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. countries that wanted to join, would be a far more outward-looking and advantageous community than the narrow, inward-looking E.E.C.?

Naturally, a community embracing the whole world would be even better. There are questions of the realities and the likelihood of achieving such a community at reasonable speed. Many of us who support British entry into the Common Market regard that as the best means of securing freer trade within the world community as a whole.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House anything more about the political consultations which were agreed upon by the Foreign Secretary at Luxembourg? Is it correct that these are to take place in the context of the Western European Union and, if so, can the Prime Minister say what is new about this, because political discussions have always been going on in W.E.U., and that was one of the purposes of the Treaty? What is the point of describing them now as "compulsory discussions"? How can anyone be compelled to discuss a subject if they do not wish to do so?

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, after the first veto in 1963, his own Government turned to W.E.U. hoping that would provide a way around the veto. It did not, and they have been no more successful in that particular move. The right hon. Gentleman will feel that some progress was made at Luxembourg last week. There was my right hon. Friend's invitation to the Six to send representatives to a meeting in London later this week on the subject of the Middle East, on which there has been a complaint from France that we are not all agreed with one another—this is probably true. With regard to the so-called compulsory meetings, what is being sought is an arrangement under which the Six as a whole plus Britain, if the Six as a whole will agree, if not then as many as will agree, will pledge themselves in advance to have discussions on all matters of common world concern, political concern. This has not been the case in W.E.U. up to now.

Yes, but how do the Government reconcile, in their continued desire to make the Six into Seven, the two recent speeches of the Minister of Agriculture, in which he criticised the Common Agricultural Policy because it would send prices sky high, and the Prime Minister's acidulous observations in the House last week about the added value tax? Will my right hon. Friend not retreat to reality on this issue, give his hon. Friends something to cheer about and withdraw this wretched application?

I hope one day, perhaps not yet, to take my hon. Friend cheering forward to reality on this question with us. There is a Question on the Order Paper about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. He sets out what would be the consequences for Britain of the unilateral acceptance by us of the Common Market agricultural programme if it were not part of our entry into a Common Market in which we would at the same time get very signal advantages in return. In any case the C.A.P. as it is at present is due to be renegotiated before we are likely to be in the Common Market.