asked the Minister of Power what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Wilson, appointed to inquire into delays in the commissioning of power stations.

I am sorry that I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe), on 17th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 48.]

In view of the urgency of many of these matters, has my right hon. Friend set any time limit to action?

Not at this stage. It is a lengthy Report, and it is having to be studied urgently with the Ministry of Technology and the C.E.G.B. As soon as I have further information, I will let the House know.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that one of the Committee's recommendations was a long-term programme for the authorisation and construction of power stations? Is it not, therefore, a matter of extreme urgency to reach agreement with the Central Electricity Generating Board as to what stations will be authorised for this year?

It is not as urgent as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He is aware of the present margin of capacity.

asked the Minister of Power, having regard to the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report, whether he proposes to increase the salary of the Chairman of the National Coal Board; and by how much.

asked the Minister of Power, having regard to the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report, whether he proposes to increase the salary of the Chairman of the Electricity Council, and by how much.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will now make a statement on the 60 per cent. increase in salaries, from £12,500 to £20,000 per annum, recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes for chairmen of certain State fuel boards.

asked the Minister of Power, having regard to the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report, whether he proposes to increase the salary of the Chairman of the Gas Council; and by how much.

asked the Minister of Power if he will implement the National Board for Prices and Incomes' report on the salaries of top people in the nationalised industries under his control.

asked the Minister of Power what plans he has to increase the salary of the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation; and if he will give an assurance that any increase will be in accordance with the Government's prices and incomes policy.

Generally, I would refer hon. Members to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) on 22nd April.—[Vol. 782, c. 50.]

As regards my hon. Friend's Question about the British Steel Corporation, I have now announced the reappointment of Lord Melchett as Chairman of the Corporation for a further period to 26th January, 1975, at a salary of £22,500 for the first year and £25,000 thereafter. At his own request, Lord Melchett has served so far on a personal salary of £16,000, considerably less than he was earning in the private sector and considerably less than the agreed range for the Deputy Chairmen.

Although I welcome the Government's acceptance in principle of the Prices and Incomes Board Report, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the one increase to which the Government have so far committed themselves for the Chairman of the National Coal Board will be enough to offset the discrepancy between the public sector and the private in the salaries of senior executives just below the top level?

I have committed myself to most of the chairmen's increases, as recommended by the N.B.P.I. On the question of comparability, no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that the Board did not go down that road. If it had compared public industry and the men in charge of these major responsibilities with those of private enterprise, its recommendations would have been in the region of £40,000 to £50,000 per chairman.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why the extraordinary disparity between the salaries of the chairmen of these boards has now been further aggravated? Why are the chairmen of coal, gas, electricity and the railways getting £15,000 a year whereas Lord Melchett, for no apparent reason, is getting £25,000 and an increase of 56¼ per cent. on his existing salary? Is that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a prices and incomes policy?

Because the N.B.P.I. recognised that the British Steel Corporation was a different industry. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said in 1967, it is a different industry. It is certainly very different from the nationalised domestic concerns of, for example, coal, gas and electricity.

Would the Minister care to deny reports in the Press that when these increases are implemented the various chairmen and senior managers concerned may have some of their allowances cut and that that would, in effect, eliminate their increases?

That is one recommendation in the Report on a subject which has still to be determined between the chairmen of the industries concerned—not all of them are concerned—and myself.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why the steel chairman is to get so much more than the other fuel industry chairmen? Is it because the steel industry is supposed to be competitive whereas the other fuel industries are not, which was the reason given by Lord Melchett?

There are a number of reasons. The first is that steel is not a domestic nationalised industry like, for example, coal, gas and electricity. Secondly, most of it operates alongside a large private sector which contains 100,000 men and up to 200 firms. Thirdly, it must be internationally competitive. Fourthly, it must compete, particularly from the point of view of higher management, with private manufacturing as well.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that patriotism should start at the top? What is the point of exhorting the likes of building workers and bus crews to stick to a 3½ per cent. norm while, at the same time, he sanctions increases of this character? Would not he agree that inconsistencies of this kind are resulting in the Government losing the support of thousands of working-class people throughout the country?

No, Sir. That is happening because of ill-informed comment such as that I have heard in the House. [Interruption.] Patriotism in this respect did start at the op. The Chairman of the British Steel Corporation voluntarily took a cut in his salary of £4,000 a year and two senior deputy chairmen and two full-time members of the Board voluntarily took a cut of 12½ per cent. No other members of senior management have done that in the last two years.

On the question of comparability, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the annual rate of capital investment in steel is very small indeed compared with, say, the electricity supply industry?

That is so only if one makes a comparison between steel and electricity as a whole—the C.E.G.B. and the 12 area boards.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that only by sharply reducing the rate of tax on earned income will the Government effectively be able to make sense of the salary structure of top management?

Was my right hon. Friend aware that when he was negotiating with Lord Melchett he was to be the first Minister to increase a recommendation made by the N.B.P.I.? Was he aware, while he was doing that, that he would cause a national outrage, particularly in the Labour movement? Did the Cabinet approve his decision?

I have, of course, noted the comments which my hon. Friend made during the weekend in which he referred to me as being too gutless to make a statement in the House. I have given him an opportunity today—

Why not debate it?

I should have thought that the salary of one chairman represented a subject on which I should not take up too much of the time of the House.

The N.B.P.I. pointed out in its Report that the level of pay in the British Steel Corporation was substantially higher than in other State enterprises and reflected in part its recent past as a separate group of private enterprises. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries also emphatically said last year that we should not refer the matter to the Board but should pay the rate for the job. That is precisely what I have tried to do.

Why has the right hon. Gentleman down-graded, by comparison, other chairmen of nationalised power industries in the face of the increase to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation? What exactly are the criteria by which the right hon. Gentleman judges the degree of competitiveness of the industry?

I have not down-graded them. I have given them increases in accordance with the Board's wishes. I have already explained the differences between the Corporation and other industries.

What note, if any, do the Government take of additional paid employments held by the chairmen of nationalised boards? How many such additional employments do they now hold?

Chairmen must receive my specific permission and consent if they wish to take up such employments. If my hon. Friend will table a Question on the subject, no doubt I shall be able to give him the information he requires.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory reply given by the Minister to Question No. 7, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will now make a statement on increased steel prices.

asked the Minister of Power what assessment he has made of the economic effect of the proposed increase in steel prices; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what arrangements have now been made for the provision of steel plates and sections for the shipbuilding industry at special rates, as recommended in the Geddes Report, accepted by the Government; and when he received the report on steel prices by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

On all matters concerning steel prices, my right hon. Friend is awaiting the Report of the N.B.P.I., which is expected shortly.

Since this crucially important matter has been before the Board for many months, would the hon. Gentleman say what influence the Ministry has had on the final adjudication? Is the delay not unconnected with the recent rearrangement in salary for Lord Melchett?

The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is, "No, Sir". The answer to the first part is that we have not influenced any final adjudication, particularly as one has not yet been made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that even in the present protectionist system Continental steel is doing much harm to our domestic market and that the proposed increase—I understand that it is in the region of 14 per cent.—will weaken our competitive ability still further? Would not my hon. Friend agree that the faster he stops the empire-builders from creating jobs for the boys at extortionate salaries, the faster he will be able to scale down increases of this character and make us more competitive?

The last part of that supplementary question is nonsense. The answer to the first part, about the reference to the Board, is that we are awaiting the Board's report.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that before the price increases were submitted to the N.B.P.I. they were examined by the Department and the Treasury? If they were, what on earth is the point of this totally unnecessary manœuvre and long delay? Can he give an estimate of the cost to the steel industry of delaying this increase in price?

I am not in a position to make such an estimate. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the grounds for the reference, I suggest that the Government would have been open to even more criticism had they not referred the price proposals to the Board. The best thing for us to do is to wait for the report, which will be coming forward soon, and see what that produces.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the steel workers are putting their best feet forward and are achieving a tremendous increase in steel production? Is he also aware that any further increase in the price of steel will have a serious effect on, for example, the construction industry? Will he particularly bear in mind that Lanarkshire is a development area and that there is every possibility that many jobs will be lost there if such an increase takes place?

Points of this nature will no doubt be borne closely in mind by the N.B.P.I. in reaching its conclusion To answer my hon. Friend's questions now would be difficult, since we do not yet know the recommendations that will be made by the Board.

asked the Minister of Power what financial targets he has set for the electricity and gas industries for 1969–70; whether he will now announce the financial objectives for the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

I will inform the House of the new objectives when they have been settled.

Is it not time that the industry had these objectives from the Minister? Does he not agree that he should fulfil the recommendations in Cmnd. Paper 3437, which suggested that this information should already he in the hands of the chairmen, and that they should be for a five-year period, not just the immediate 12 months?

As the hon. Member has suggested, Cmnd. Paper 3437 is determining our economic and financial objectives. To get the relevant data from the nationalised industries has taken a little time, but it is our intention to plan over a five-year period.

When the Minister fixes these targets, will he see that there is equality of treatment in the return expected from electricity as against gas?

I cannot give that promise, but I shall certainly look at the suggestion.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he had with the Central Electricity Generating Board before the ground rules for advanced gas cooled reactors were changed; and when the decision was taken.

I have been aware since my early discussions with the C.E.G.B. in the summer of last year that a change was under consideration. The C.E.G.B. formally notified me of its decision last month.

In view of the strong argument and discussion which is now taking place between the Coal Board and the C.E.G.B. as to the costs of nuclear power versus coal-fired stations, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it was disingenuous, to say the least, to have allowed the ground rules to be changed and go through as a footnote in Written Answer rather than making a proper declaration to the House and to the industries concerned?

No, I did not think that was so. It has been under consideration for some time and could have been announced prior to the Seaton Carew decision, but if the C.E.G.B. had done it then and I had informed the House, it would have been charged with being biased. There is always this difficulty over nuclear or coal-fired stations as to when the announcement should be made, but I did not think it warranted a statement to the House just before the Board had changed one of its ground rules.

asked the Minister of Power if he will seek statutory power to control the level of prices in the fuel industries, as recommended by the Select Committee on nationalised industries.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the Government's reply to the Select Committee's Report.

Is the Minister aware that it is already eight months since that Report was published? If he is not to take power to control prices of fuel industries, will he give up trying to do so?

The Select Committee Report was a substantial document, and a considered reply is being prepared. I hope that the point raised by the hon. Member will be considered in the reply.

asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the arrangements for consultation with the National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation on matters relevant to regional policy; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. My officials are frequently in touch with both boards on regional matters, and have regular joint meetings with their officials. I discuss the main issues from time to time with the chairman. There is thus both close co-operation and a wide exchange of relevant information and experience.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether a good relationship exists between the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation?

Yes. A recent example of their co-operation, particularly in regard to the initial Question, is that they have jointly commissioned Political and Economic Planning to do research on methods of attracting industry to remote areas. Recognising that there may be some steel plant closures in areas where coal mines have closed, both are eager to work together, to co-operate and to learn from each other's experience.

Have there been consultations with the British Steel Corporation in the shipbuilding areas about steel prices, which are vital to the future of the industry?

So they may be, but this is not relevant to the original Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the progress that has been made in implementing the Government's policy on home refining; and if he will make a statement.

With the addition of 11 million tons of annual capacity in 1968 and a further 17 million tons under construction substantial progress has been made towards the Government's objective that home refining capacity should match in total inland demand and bunkers. Net imports of petroleum products are being reduced and by 1970 refinery capacity should be sufficient in total to allow some net exports.

How much of the new refinery capacity is owned by British companies?

About 40 per cent.

asked the Minister of Power if he will state the numbers of pipelines which have been constructed under authorisations granted in accordance with the Pipelines Act 1962, the total mileage covered, the number of compulsory acquisition orders made and the length of line included in those orders.

14 cross-country pipelines, covering 667 miles including the Thames-Mersey line. No compulsory purchase orders, and only six compulsory rights orders for 1¼ miles have been made.

What statutory rights has an individual to object to a pipeline?

There can be no cross-country pipeline without my consent; a proposal must be advertised; and objectors must have an opportunity at hearings or public inquiries to put their case. But, as I have already pointed out, we have built 667 miles of pipeline and there have been no objections of note. This is an excellent example of public relations by the industries concerned.

asked the Minister of Power what study he has made of the survey of uranium supplies made by the European Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency, a copy of which is in his possession; and whether he still expects nuclear power stations to be competitive with those using coal.

I see no reason to change the assumptions about relative generating costs outlined in the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438), and would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 14th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 225.]

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the expected world shortage of uranium supplies could affect our nuclear energy programme? Does not he further agree that it is, therefore, desirable to have a complete reappraisal of the use of coal, our own indigenous resource?

Questions about the availability of uranium should go to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and not to me, but I understand that stocks plus imports under existing contracts are likely to meet our requirements until well into the 1970s and that no significant increase in the price of uranium is expected over the next five years.

asked the Minister of Power what consideration he has given to the future termination of concessions for the exploration of the North Sea energy potential; and if he will make a statement.

I have no power to terminate existing concessions, unless there is a breach of the licence conditions, but after six years each licensee is required to surrender not less than half the area of each licence. No decision has yet been taken about the terms and conditions on which surrendered areas may be re-licensed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a body of opinion in the country is anxious about the outcome and that the Labour Party has a policy in relation to the subject? Do the Government propose to implement Labour Party policy?

I suppose that my hon. Friend is referring to the North Sea Gas Study Group—for example, the suggestion for a National Hydrocarbons Corporation. As the House has been informed, this is under consideration.

asked the Minister of Power what is his latest estimate of the effect on the relative consumption of different forms of primary energy in 1975, compared with the forecasts in the 1967 White Paper, of the abolition of the tax on fuel oil.

The estimates given in The Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438) remain valid.

asked the Minister of Power if he will now make a statement on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement before the Whitsun adjournment on his plans for the reorganisation of the electricity industry.

asked the Minister of Power when the expects to announce the results of his review of the structure of the electricity industry.

I have had extensive consultations with those principally concerned with the structure and organisation of the industry. As soon as I have reached a final conclusion, I will inform the House.

Now that my right hon. Friend has received the Report of his Working Party, does he not think that it would be useful to all concerned to publish it as a White Paper?

I will certainly consider that, but first I must complete all the necessary consultations. So far, I have met the Electricity Council, the C.E.G.B., the 12 area board chairmen and representatives of the principal unions concerned.

In any legislation which the Minister may be considering, will he bear in mind the possibility of including a provision that, in future, it will be wholly at the discretion of the Chairman of the Electricity Council to make any further changes in organisation which may be necessary?

I will keep that in mind.

Can my right hon. Friend give any idea when he will be able to say what his final findings are? What consideration has he been giving to creating larger areas?

Larger areas are very much in doubt. On the first point, it will be some time before we can complete the round of consultations and firm up our ideas sufficiently to be able to determine when legislation will be necessary.

Could I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider tabling a White Paper on this matter? To what extent could some of the changes be made in advance of legislation?

As I said earlier, I will certainly consider the publication of a White Paper at an appropriate time.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is aware of the present widespread evasion of the law laying down a maximum resale price of electricity; and if he will seek powers to publicise the statutory limit.

The steady volume of complaints I receive certainly suggests that there is widespread evasion. Publicity for maximum resale prices is already a statutory obligation of area boards under Section 29(2) of the Electricity Act, 1957.

In his consideration of the steps he should now be taking, will the Minister concentrate on giving as much publicity as he can to the fact that there is this maximum limit and by means of the courts people can reclaim for over-charging? Has he given consideration to making overcharging a criminal offence?

On the first point, I am glad of the opportunity of giving the matter publicity and I hope that area boards will take note of the point that has been made. Certainly I have raised the question of publicity and considered it with the consultative councils. They are doing their best to help. The question of legislation is not a matter we would rule out. We are considering whether it would be feasible to make it effective, which is something we could pursue.

Is it not completely unrealistic to expect the victims of overcharging, who generally are in poor circumstances, to take action in the courts to recover amounts of over-charging? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore take powers to enable local electricity boards to institute prosecutions against anyone alleged to be guilty of this offence and also to test the meters and advise consumers whether the meters are wrongly set?

The first point made by the hon. Member is a fair comment. It is difficult for many people who are suffering from this kind of thing to take necessary action in self-defence through the courts. On the latter point, I would not wish to comment at this stage as to the precise form which any legislation which might be considered feasible might take. It is a matter we wish to study.

asked the Minister of Power what was the capacity and the capital cost of new generating plant ordered by the Central Electricity Generating Board during the four years 1961 to 1964 and during the four years 1965 to 1968.

Twenty-four and six thousand Megawatts respectively, at a capital cost of approximately £1,240 million and £460 million. The lower rate of orders during the later period was to correct the over-ordering during 1961–64 as a result of over-estimation of future demand in those years.

Will the Minister tell the House what efforts have been made to bring capacity and demand into balance?

The long-term effect of power station orders—some units ordered before 1964 will not come fully into commission until 1972—precludes the short-term matching of plant capacity with demand, but the capital expenditure programme, as I have already said, has been adjusted downwards in the last years to try to achieve a balance in the future.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ensure either a stand-by capacity or a continuity of supply of North Sea gas in view of the number of accidents that have taken place in the North Sea during the last 12 months.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking in view of the recent cut in North Sea gas supplies caused by the accident to the Shell-Esso production platform, to ensure that there will be no disruption of supplies to consumers as a result of further such accidents.

Consumers were not affected by the Shell-Esso accident. The loss of gas was made good by increasing supplies from B.P. and the Canvey storage, but mostly by switching town gas plant from natural gas to oil feedstock. Security of the North Sea supply will be ensured as facilities increase: like the newly-commissioned Leman Bank pipeline and plans for more trunk line storage.

As the hon. Gentleman will realise, there have been a number of other accidents in the North Sea. If such actions should happen again, the North Sea supply would be in very great danger. Does the Minister actually mean that he is not making any standby proposals for meeting a shortage of North Sea gas, perhaps by 1973 or 1975, if there were further accidents?

I thought I had indicated in my main Answer that security is to be ensured as the storage facilities increase and fresh lines are brought in to bring the supplies ashore. One must make a sharp distinction between the present position and that which will obtain in the 1970s. Something like 15 per cent. goes direct to consumers at the moment, and the rest goes into the town gas plant. I do not think there is any need for fear in this respect.

Is my hon. Friend yet in a position to announce his decision as to setting up a national hydrocarbons corporation to control North Sea gas?

No, that is a different question.

asked the Minister of Power what is his estimate of the amount by which investment in gas would be reduced on the basis that the test discount rate was raised from eight per cent. to 12 per cent.

No significant estimate can be given. Among many uncertainties are the effects which a higher return on new investment would have on tariffs—so affecting demand—and on investment to meet such demand.

What is the Parliamentary Secretary's view on the comment by Sir Alec Cairncross that the discount rate should be raised from 8 per cent. to 9 per cent.?

I would not wish to make any coment on that statement at this stage.

Since interest rates for capital for the private sector have gone up by very nearly 50 per cent. in the last two or three years, why has the test discount rate not gone up by a similar percentage?

To answer that question I would have to deny the answer that I gave to the question asked by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker), that I do not wish to make any comment at this stage.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent the present large- scale investment in transmission systems and appliance conversion for North Sea gas is based on the level of gas reserves.

This investment is based on the discovery of large supplies of natural gas in the North Sea and the decision to convert the whole system to its use. The new transmission system and appliances could be used for other forms of gas, if necessary.

Will the Minister say what other sources could produce gas which would be usable in converted appliances?

The Gas Council has developed processes which can produce from oil high calorific gas which is interchangeable with natural gas. There is also a possibility of continuing the importation of natural gas, as has been done in past years, should the need arise for providing an alternative to North Sea gas, but this should not be necessary for many years. This can be done without reconversion.

Does my hon. Friend see a future for coke oven gas as a means of domestic heating and cooking in competition with North Sea gas?

As my hon. Friend will know, even before the advent of natural gas, coke oven gas was on the way out and was being replaced by oil feedstocks in the gas industry.

What is the latest estimate of the life of North Sea gas?

That which has been published on many occasions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper on Fuel Policy gave it as 25 years' life at three times the present rate of consumption. On the basis of the present rate of annual consumption, this will be equivalent to about 60 years' supply.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give the latest forecast for the availability of natural gas supplies from the North Sea.

As my right. hon. Friend recently told the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (Cmnd. 3996), present reserves should build up to a production rate of 3,500 million cubic feet per day. Further recent discoveries reinforce the planning figure in the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438) that 4,000 million cubic feet per day should be available by 1975.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, since there is now some confusion in forecasting for North Sea gas, serious consideration should be given to whether we should press ahead with the domestic conversions and use up this precious indigenous fuel too quickly rather than put it into industry as near the shore as possible?

If there is any confusion it is confined to a few individuals, and I hope that the figures I have given today will correct it. The gas industry is doing an excellent job for industrial supplies but that does not mean that it should not attempt to get into the premium market as rapidly as possible. That is where it is most profitable for it to be active.

But we are going to increase consumption from the North Sea, are we not? It is just not going to last as long as we thought, is it? We are just going to have to convert back, are we not? Why, in these circumstances, import oil instead of using our own coal?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the manner of his supplementary question, but I must disappoint him by pointing out that if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find that I have already answered it. The industry had already been switching from indigenous coal to oil feedstock, and we are now going ahead with an even greater use of our home production of fuel. After all, North Sea gas is an indigenous fuel.

asked the Minister of Power how many objections, from organisations and individuals, he has re-reived so far to the National Coal Board's proposal for opencast working on the Anker site in North Warwickshire.

Twelve and 183 respectively.

Since a number of those objections were made on behalf of thou- snads of people, does the hon. Gentleman realise the widespread concern about this proposal? Could be give a date for and the venue in which the public inquiry is to take place?

I am very much appreciative of the feelings expressed by many people in the locality. As I have indicated, numerous objections have been raised. It would not be right for me to do any more than I did in the debate last Friday and to comment on a matter which is sub judice. We have no date fixed yet, but we hope to appoint one soon.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the Opencast Executive would be better employed clearing up dereliction than creating it?

The Opencast Executive does an excellent job in clearing up dereliction.

asked the Minister of Power whether he has completed his discussions with the National Coal Board and with other Departments on the National Coal Board's pricing policy; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that the pricing policies of the National Coal Board are in accordance with the criteria laid down by Command Paper No. 3437; and if he will make a statement.

I am not yet ready to make a statement, but I hope to do so soon.

Was that not a disappointing reply? Is the Minister aware that the Treasury was expressing concern about this nearly 15 months ago and his predecessor started discussions in March, 1968? What positive action is the right hon. Gentleman taking?

As I said in my reply, I hope to make a statement soon.

Since Lord Robens said on 25th March that the Coal Board was making considerable losses in 1968–69, can the Minister assure the House that if there are to be price increases to comply with Command Paper 3437 these will be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, as the Prime Minister promised in 1967?

I am aware that if major increases come forward, they may have to be referred to the N.B.P.I. I have received proposals for selective price increases. They are under consideration, and the Coal Consumers' Council is considering them at the same time.

In the meantime, will the Minister confirm that it is his policy that the consumer, not the taxpayer, should pay for the products of these industries?

It depends how far down the line one wishes to go on every product.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that the present measures of protection for the coal industry enable advantage to be taken of the use of indigenous fuel; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The measures of direct assistance for the coal industry constitute a massive degree of protection which ensures that coal is used to the maximum extent compatible with the national interest. It is partly as a result that our economy is more coal intensive than that of any other major industrial country in the free world.

Will my right hon. Friend give comparisons of coal utilisation between the United Kingdom and other major industrial countries?

The proportion of coal in total energy consumption in the United Kingdom is 55 per cent., in Germany, including lignite, 47 per cent., in Japan 35 per cent., in France 33 per cent. and in America 21 per cent.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give the figures for recruitment into the coal industry in the first quarter of 1969 as compared with the first quarter of 1968.

6,574 in 1969 compared with 2,782 in the first quarter of 1968.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but is he able to say how many of those recruited were juveniles, and whether he is satisfied that the National Coal Board will be able to maintain the recruitment of juveniles at a sufficiently high level, bearing in mind that the traditional source of recruitment in the old mining areas of South Wales will be lost?

It is necessary to keep the morale of the industry high to attract the juveniles we require. In the first quarter of 1969 we recruited 842, compared with 388 in the first quarter of 1968.

Will the Minister say whether the figures which he has quoted are in line with the target laid down by the National Coal Board of 135 million tons production in 1975, or with the Ministry's target in the White Paper of 120 million tons?

We are aiming to keep the manpower rundown within 35,000 per year, and the figure is well within that.

Does the Minister mean 35,000 per annum, whatever the total employment in the National Coal Board, and not 10 per cent. of the National Coal Board's employment figure at the beginning of each year?

I did not refer to percentages. We are obliged within the four years special period of 1967–71 to see that there is a rundown of 140,000 men—a manageable figure of 35,000 a year. I think that the rundown was much higher last year, but this year it is running well within the figure.

asked the Minister of Power how much coal was used by the electricity industry in the first quarter of 1969, compared with the same period of the previous three years.

In the first quarter of 1969 about 23½ million tons were used by the electricity industry compared with 21¾, 18¾ and 20 million tons, respectively, for the corresponding periods in 1968, 1967, and 1966.

Does my hon. Friend expect this relative stability in consumption to continue?

It is not possible for me to say that the identical figures will be repeated over the period which still stands until the conclusion of the Act in 1971, but the figures for the first half of the current financial year will be an additional burn of 2·3 million tons of coal, and we will see how it goes towards the end of the year.

Will the hon. Gentleman say how much extra coal would have been used if the rate of growth in the National Plan had been achieved?

Not without notice.

Has my hon. Friend seen the announcement last week about new technical developments made by the National Coal Board which enable coal to be burned in electricity generating stations more efficiently and more cheaply?

I imagine that my hon. Friend is referring to the fluidised bed technique which is being studied by the industry. We are fully aware of this research project, which is going ahead, and it has the full support of the C.E.G.B. It is still rather early to say what will be the outcome of the work, but we are watching it with great interest and, indeed, hope.

asked the Minister of Power what extra tonnage of coal was used by the electricity industry in 1968–69 as a result of Government assistance under the Coal Industry Act 1967.

It is estimated that in 1968–69 additional coal totalling about 6½ million tons was burnt by the C.E.G.B. and the Scottish Electricity Boards as a result of Government assistance under the Coal Industry Act, 1967.

How does my hon. Friend expect these trends to develop in 1969–70?

I gave a partial answer to that in reply to the last Question. At present we expect in the first half of the year an extra burn of 2·3 million tons, and we will see later on in the year how far the extra burn will be authorised for the latter part of 1969–70. The Act continues until 1971, and this additional burn will be continuing.

Will the Minister tell the House how much Government finance was necessary to obtain the extra 61 million tons? In other words, what was the subsidisation out of public funds to obtain the extra coal burn?

I am not able to answer that question without notice. The calculations are done after the flow of coal into the power stations, and after the C.E.G.B. has identified and agreed with us what allocation of its burn is required to be subsidised in this fashion.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give the figures for manpower rundown in the coal industry in the first quarter of 1969 as compared with the first quarter of 1968.

Manpower rundown in the coal industry in the first quarter of 1969 was 5,834, compared with 15,671 in the first quarter of 1968.

I welcome those figures, but will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the annual rate of rundown of manpower has been during this year?

The rundown rate so far this year is 23,000, which is well within the manageable figure to which I earlier referred of 35,000 a year.

How many of the men who have lost their jobs through this rundown have found other jobs, and how many are still unemployed?

I cannot give those details without notice.