With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, signed by 3,340 constituents of the County Borough of Huddersfield and the Urban District of Kirkburton, who are concerned about the growth of amusement arcades and the urgent need for greater control.

The Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government do three things:

One, to introduce legislation to give local authorities power in every instance to approve or reject any application for the establishment of an amusement arcade or centre;

Two, to introduce legislation to prohibit the admission of young persons under school leaving age to amusement arcades or amusement centres, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian;

Three, to introduce legislation to give local authorities power to impose conditions on amusement arcades and centres on such matters as the opening hours, and the number and types of machines therein.

The Petition concludes in the customary way, with the words

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

asked the Minister of Power what percentage of the country has now been converted to natural gas; and what is the provisional date for the completion of this operation.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied with the progress of the natural gas conversion programme; and if he will make a statement.

About 5 per cent. of consumers have now had their appliances converted. The programme is planned to be completed by 1977–78. There was some delay last year in the planned rate of build-up, but the gas industry is confident that the programme will be completed in this period.

Is the Ministry satisfied that the standard of conversion, which left so much to be desired in the first place, is now much improved? Is it still confident that natural gas is more efficient and effective than the old variety?

On the first point, it would he wrong to generalise, as I think I have said to the hon. Gentleman before. There was a percentage of call-back and complaints. This is now reducing. I believe that the figure last year was 25 per cent. call-back, and it is now down to 22 per cent. I have reason to believe that it will continue in that direction.

I appreciate the helpfulness of the Chairman of the Eastern Gas Board and his staff, both in the conversion programme and in dealing with complaints, but is the Minister aware that there is great concern among many consumers about the increases in gas bills since conversion? Would he not agree that if natural gas is to be nationally acceptable, the confusion about charges must be cleared up urgently?

Yes, Sir, and the confusion about charges would be helped it hon. Gentlemen were to spread the facts a little more often. There has been quite a number of Written Questions on the subject, in reply to which we have provided first-class information. Further information has been made available, and even more could be made available by the gas boards concerned, which could explain fully, as I am prepared to explain, the reasons for the increased gas bills for the consumption earlier this year.

Will the Minister consider this point yet again? The figures he has given in Parliamentary Answers in no way explain some of the major increases, and unless this matter is explained to consumers the success of conversion will be in doubt. We all want it to succeed, and the Minister has a duty here.

And so have hon. Members. To some extent there is a stirring up of difficulty by hon. Members who are not prepared to make a little more effort in spreading full information.

That is a generalised slur.

It is not a generalised slur. I have correspondence to prove this. We and the boards have been quite prepared to explain the position. If hon. Gentlemen wish to put down Questions, they will get factual Answers, and some of the Answers have explained the position to date.

asked the Minister of Power (1) when he expects North Sea gas to be generally available in Scotland;

(2) what proportion of the gas supply in Scotland will be from sources other than North Sea gas once this is generally available to customers of the Scottish Gas Board.

The trunk line should reach into Scotland in the spring of 1970. On present plans, one-quarter of the Board's customers will receive natural gas direct by 1974. The Board hopes to convert all except the outlying areas.

Since Scottish gas prices are considerably above prices in England, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether, as a result of this change, the price of gas in Scotland will come down to the same level as that in England?

The bulk supply price or tariff for natural gas will be on a uniform basis throughout the country, but there will still be the influence of local costs in addition which will be decided by the boards.

Can my hon. Friend say if, by the dates he mentioned, there will be introduced a national hydrocarbon corporation to control the marketing and leasing of North Sea gas?

That is a different question.

But a good one.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important issue, and I assure him that my right hon. Friend is studying it closely.

asked the Minister of Power how many complaints the West Midlands Gas Board has received from consumers about increased gas bills, following conversion to natural gas.

I am informed that, since conversion started last year, about 3 per cent. of the 75,000 consumers so far converted to natural gas have raised complaints.

However much the hon. Gentleman and the gas board contend that natural gas does not cost the consumer more, is he aware that hundreds of my constituents know from personal experience that it does cost more? If the hon. Gentleman is right, will he explain why so many people are apparently labouring under such a serious misapprehension?

One reason arises from what I said earlier; that hon. Members as well as Ministers and the industry have a responsibility in this matter. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that natural gas means higher costs for the consumer.

Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear to his right hon. Friend that the proposition which he propounds—that it is the Opposition's job to put forward Governmental or Gas Council policy—is absolutely incorrect?

The hon. Gentleman is talking a piece of nonsense. I made no such suggestion. I said, and I repeat, that there is a responsibility on hon. Members as well as on Ministers and the industry to spread the facts and not to spread distortions.

Has the hon. Gentleman read the letter which I sent to his Department a month ago about 18 of my constituents at Congleton whose gas bills for natural gas have gone up by between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent.? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about these alarming increases?

It would take a considerable time—I would be prepared to do so on a siutable occasion or perhaps by correspondence—to explain all the factors that have given rise in certain instances to rising bills as a result of consumption earlier this year. However, these factors had nothing whatever to do with natural gas conversions.

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

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

I made a statement on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry last Friday.—[Vol. 787, c. 1091.]

Arising from that statement, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Central Electricity Generating Board will still be much the dominant force and major spending element in the new Authority? As such, does not he agree that there would have been some greater advantage from having more than one generating authority? Why does he not go for that at this stage? Will he say something about cross-posting between boards? Would not he agree that there are so many questions still to be answered arising from his statement that a White Paper would be helpful?

Order. Long supplementary questions mean fewer questions.

I have not closed my mind to the possibility of issuing a White Paper. I hope that cross-posting will be encouraged. The Central Electricity Generating Board will be the biggest spender, but I think that the Authority, given its new powers, will be able to control the spending, and because it will have power over the capital investment programme of the industry as a whole. I shall be better advised.

When does my right hon. Friend hope to bring the legislation forward?

Next Session, I hope.

asked the Minister of Power how many coal pits or mines were sunk post-war in Scotland, England and Wales; and what are the capital charges for each country.

Major sinkings have been: Scotland 14, England 15 and Wales 6, costing respectively £75 million, £91 million and £30 million. Capital charges on colliery activities for the financial year ended March, 1968, were: Scotland £8 million, England £59 million, Wales £9 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although we in Scotland appreciate the new capital investment that has been made, there is a feeling and belief that, with the operation of capital charges and the like, this is the thinking and motive behind the operation of differential coal price policy, which is grossly to the disadvantage of Scotland?

I am afraid that I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's observations. The position is that there has been a balance, if anything, in favour of Scotland in capital investment in the industry—14 sinkings in Scotland, 15 in England and 6 in Wales. Pricing policy reflects, as far as possible, the costs of production in the different areas concerned.

asked the Minister of Power, in terms of energy produced in Scotland, England and Wales, what are the percentages in these three countries that are produced, publicly owned and privately.

Excluding oil which is nearly all imported, the public sector is responsible, at least in part, for most of the energy produced in Britain. Complex exchanges of energy between the public and private sectors make it difficult to give percentages in answer to the Question as it is worded. In any case the answers can vary widely according to the system of measurement adopted.

Is it the Minister's intention to encourage more new private enterprise in energy supplies, bearing in mind that the nation has invested millions of pounds to ensure adequate energy capacity?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the position with regard to investment in private generating capacity, this is a subject we look at regularly. So far as encouraging investment is concerned; it is our responsibility to ensure sound investment in the public energy industries.

asked the Minister of Power what additional capacity for electricity generation he proposes to authorise in the current year.

I have not yet completed my review of the current investment programmes of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales and am unable to anticipate its outcome.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what has been approved so far this year? Can he indicate the capacity he will be approving, bearing in mind that electrical plant manufacturers want sustained orders and he has planned 66,000 megawatts, which is an increase of 20,000 megawatts over the next five to six years—that is, an annual demand for 3,000–4,000 megawatts? Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing?

No new stations have been approved this year. I am aware of the difficulties of the power plant manufacturers but that is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the electricity industry can provide capacity according to its own estimate of the rate of national growth rather than the estimate of the Department of Economic Affairs, which has proved slightly wrong in the past?

The hon. Gentleman should keep his tongue in his cheek when talking of estimated demand. There is surplus generating capacity at the moment because of the Conservative Government's bad estimating. Too many stations were built too quickly.

asked the Minister of Power what was the percentage margin of electricity capacity last winter over average cold spell conditions and over maximum demand, respectively.

About 18 per cent. in each case.

Will the hon. Gentleman try to help the House by clearing up some of the confusion to which I frankly admit? A number of different figures have been given by different Ministers. For example, can he explain what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the margin over peak demand was 25 per cent.? What contribution to success has the Winter Emergency Committee made?

I would have to have notice of the reference to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Winter Emergency Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, reviews all the factors relating to winter conditions annually and it continues in that job.

asked the Minister of Power why he has not yet published financial targets for the nationalised industries for which he is responsible; and whether he will make a statement.

The White Paper on the Financial and Economic Objectives of Nationalised Industries (Cmnd. 3437) indicates the relevant criteria but their application has posed difficult problems. The over-riding considerations are that we get the right answers and that the industries should be properly consulted. All this has taken longer than I had hoped.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as we will not have a statement now, it means that we will not be able to have Parliamentary inquiry into the financial target for next year until 55 per cent. of the year is past? How can he possibly sustain the view that the chairmen of the nationalised industries know what the eventual target will be already but that he will not tell the House at the moment? This is despicable.

The seething indignation on the hon. Gentleman's face does not disturb me. The chairmen are being closely consulted. But we have not finalised what the objective shall be. Until we do, I cannot inform the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember his undertaking in Committee on the Iron and Steel Act to give financial directions to the B.S.C. at the earliest opportunity? When can we expect him to do so?

I did give that undertaking but I have not yet concluded my talks with the Corporation.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had, at what times, and with whom, on the test rate of discount applied to new investment by the nationalised industries.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement about the test rate of discount to be applied to new investment by the fuel and power nationalised industries.

asked the Minister of Power what test rate of discount is currently applied to new investment in the fuel and power industries.

Cmnd. 3437 announced that nationalised industries—other than the B.S.C.—should use a test discount rate of 8 per cent. The nationalised fuel industries were consulted in the preparation of the White Paper. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury informed the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 8th July, [Vol. 786, c. 1139] the rate is at present being reviewed, and the House will be informed of the result.

The rate for the B.S.C., which is still under consideration, will take account of the fact that unlike other nationalised industries, it receives investment grants.

As it is now well over a year since Government witnesses before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries implied that the 8 per cent. figure was out of date, and as apparently we are not to have a chance before the autumn now, is not this an intolerable delay by a Government who claim to be dynamic and modernising?

I am aware of the views expressed with regard to reviewing the position of the discount rate in relation to higher interest rates and it is one of the factors that will be taken into account.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commercial rates are well above this figure? Is he further aware that, since the Treasury has raised this issue, some £1,500 million worth of investment has been carried out? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any time for the revised target?

I am not in a position to give information to the House at present, but the matter is the subject of a review. All the points made by the hon. Gentlemen will be taken into account.

Since the Treasury has just issued a stock with a 9 per cent. coupon, will the hon. Gentleman bring to its notice the fact that it is high time that this discount rate was raised? When will he make an announcement? He has been talking about it all summer.

If I were able to tell the House when I could make an announcement I would be able to give the answer today. I will draw the Treasury's attention to the hon. Gentleman's observations.

asked the Minister of Power what is the sum of extra borrowing taken up by the National Coal Board since the passing of the 1967 Coal Industry Act for additional coal-burn by the gas and electricity industries.

No additional borrowing has been entailed.

Does this mean that it will not be essential for the National Coal Board to add any further in borrowing to the £45 million allowed under the Act for the further coal-burn?

The Question is about extra borrowing. None has been involved. The National Coal Board is allowed up to the £45 million limit in the four years up to the end of 1969–71. I am not visualising anything beyond that at the moment.

asked the Minister of Power how the growth of coalmining productivity in the first half of 1969 compares with that achieved in the corresponding periods of the years 1967 and 1968.

Productivity in the first half of 1969 was 44·2 cwt. per manshift, 6·6 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period in 1968. The comparable increases in 1968 and 1967 were 9·1 per cent. and 3·0 per cent. respectively.

Will the impetus towards greater production continue? Do not the achievements of the men working in the nationalised coal mining industry warrant greater help from the Government? Will the Government further consider that industry when deciding the fuel to be used by future power stations?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have given much financial aid to the coal mining industry, totting up to about £550 million, while we have been in office. The Tories closed 350 pits and 250,000 men left the industry while the Tories were in office and the Tories did not give a penny to the miners or the Board. There has been a slight falling off of output per man shift this year, but I hope that it will pick up later. It may be due to higher recruitment in recent months.

Is not the £2,000 million investment in the coal mining and ancillary industries during the 13 years of Tory rule the reason for the great increase in productivity in coal mines today?

No. If we had not nationalised the industry and had allowed the anarchy of the market place of Tory rule to continue, 200 pits would not be in production today.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had, or proposes to have, with the steel industry on the present world trend towards larger ore-carriers requiring deep water and its likely effects upon the siting of future ore terminals and steel works.

The size of ore carriers and the need for deep water approaches are amongst the factors which the British Steel Corporation and the Government will continue to take into account in their studies on ore terminals.

Will the Minister also bear in mind that the deepest water around the shores of Britain is in the Firth of Clyde and that if the present trend of building larger and larger ships continues, that fact will be of considerable help to the British steel industry?

Yes, Sir. The Metra-Weddell Report has drawn attention to the natural advantages of the Clyde and they will undoubtedly be borne in mind by the British Steel Corporation in the forthcoming study which it is to undertake in conjunction with the Clyde Port Authority.

In his consultations with the British Steel Corporation, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the proposed Uskmouth iron ore terminal in South Wales is kept under constant review and that the proposal is not put into cold storage? In the meanwhile, will he seek agreement with the British Transport Docks Board to modernise the existing iron-ore handling facilities at Newport Docks as a temporary measure?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members who have constituency interests for drawing these matters to my attention. I will convey what they have said to the B.S.C.

What ports and estuaries, apart from the Clyde, are available to take the largest projected ore carriers without dredging?

Port Talbot will be able to take 100,000-tonners quite soon and eventually 150,000-tonners and Redcar is now being developed to take 100,000-tonners.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that facilities on the Clyde will not help Summers Steel Works on Mersey? Is it not essential that there should be a berth on Mersey to cater for the needs of Summers Steel Works? Will my right hon. Friend have consultations with the steel industry in this connection?

As I hinted, hon. Members who have small ports who want them to be large ports adjacent to steel works would best serve their interests by writing to the B.S.C. instead of question- ing me at length on what is a Scottish demand for a major ore terminal.

asked the Minister of Power if he will issue a general direction to the North Thames Gas Board to cease using private contractors on work in connection with the overhaul of new re-forming plants so long as craftsmen employed by the Board and capable of doing the same work are being declared redundant, and that such work should be done, wherever possible, by the Board's own employees.

No, Sir. This is a matter for the Board, and I have asked the Chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

If the Minister has no responsibility in this matter, why did the Table accept this Question? Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Table erred? That is unthinkable. Is he aware of the strong concern and anger felt at the Beckton gas works and elsewhere at this unfair and uneconomic practice?

I think that the Question was accepted as a matter of courtesy.

No.

The Table Office is not responsible for the administration of the gas industry.

The issue is essentially a managerial matter. Channels are available for complaints about managerial decisions of this kind to be taken up by the men concerned, and I do not think that this is an appropriate matter for the Minister.

On a point of order. Am I not right in suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that if the Table accepts a Question, the Minister has some responsibility or the Question would not have been accepted in the first instance?

A Minister may disown responsibility even after a Question has been tabled. He may reply in whatever way he likes.

Are the contractors' men employed by the gas boards to have selective employment tax paid in respect of them, unlike the private contractors' men for whom it has to be paid, in line with the decision about gas showrooms?

That is another matter of detail which I suggest the hon. Gentleman takes up with the board in question.

asked the Minister of Power whether he has completed his inquiry into the availability in Scotland of coking coal suitable for the steel industry and into the economic advantages or disadvantages of using local deposits or transporting such coal from elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

This is being examined by the National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation.

As there are at least three nationalised industries concerned with this problem, will the Government ensure that the study of the whole problem continues in order to find the best solution in the long term?

Yes. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he phrases questions. There is no general shortage of coking coal in Scotland and the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board are now carrying out a number of blending experiments to see whether they can find a wider range of coals which will satisfy the Corporation's requirements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the war a pit was sunk in Scotland exclusively to exploit seams of coking coal, but was subsequently abandoned because the steel industry then thought that there would be no demand for it? What will my right hon. Friend do to investigate this?

To which pit does my hon. Friend refer?

Mr. Hooley to ask the next Question.

On a point of order. Is it in order for my right hon. Friend to pose a question to me in answer to my question?

I have no power to direct Ministers to answer Questions in the way hon. Members would like.

It was Airth.

asked the Minister of Power what progress has been made in his consultations with the National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation on aspects of regional policy; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions continue at various levels to ensure the fullest exchange of ideas and information and the best use of both.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary recently discussed with the two chairmen their constructive ideas for assisting regional policy.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply and I am glad to know that these discussions are going on. What specific measures of support for regional policy have these two industries proposed?

The British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board are to use the influence of their organisation to support Government measures to attract industry to areas which might be hit by coalfield and steel plant closures. The Corporation is to appoint a social policy adviser purposely to deal with these problems and to help particularly in areas where steel plants may be closing down after there have been problems with coal mines.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us in this regional context what is to be done to help the Tyne now that it has been decided to take ore shipments from the Tyne and to transfer them to Tees-side? There is far too much talk; we never hear about action.

I am sorry, but the hon. Lady has risen too late. The point she raises was answered two Questions ago.

The answer to her question about regional policy is that last year we spent £260 million on aid to the development areas, a strong contrast to what the Tories managed when they were in power.

On a point of order.

Order. I have in the past urged hon. Members to, if possible, raise points of order at the end of Question Time. Mr. Swain.

But would the Minister—

Perhaps I may interrupt the hon. Lady to put a question to my right hon. Friend. Has he forgotten, or is he still considering, implementing paragraphs 58 to 62 of the 1968 T.U.C. policy White Paper referring to regional policies where rationalisation of coal and steel is taking place?

I cannot call to mind the precise paragraphs to which my hon Friend refers, but if he will table a Question on the subject or see me about it after Question Time or on another occasion I will gladly discuss the matter with him.

asked the Minister of Power how much coal output was lost last year as a result of industrial disputes; and if he will make a statement.

About 329,000 tons. This is one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the total output, and to maintain good relations to this degree is a remarkable achievement of which the coal industry as a whole can be justifiably proud.

To what degree have industrial relations between the National Coal Board and the Durham miners been instrumental in guaranteeing continuity of coal production?

Although the Durham coalfield has suffered quite harshly from pit closures in the last two years, not one ounce of coal has been lost through industrial stoppages during that time, which is a fantastic achievement.

asked the Minister of Power how much coal he estimates will be used this year in the United Kingdom; how much he estimates will be exported; and how the figures compare with 1968 and 1967, respectively.

In 1967, inland consumption was 163·9 million tons and exports 1·9 million tons. The corresponding figures for 1968 were 164·4 million tons and 2·7 million tons. For this year home demand may be slightly lower and exports higher.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the decline in the demand for coal has been halted, at least temporarily? Would he further agree that this is the time for him to consider reviewing the estimates for coal production in the 'seventies?

There has certainly been a levelling off between supply and demand and this is encouraging for the mining industry. I am now considering what aid, if any, and to what extent, should be given to the industry after March, 1971.

Will not this levelling off—I agree that sales are now equalling output—have a disastrous effect in the near future, with 40 pits being closed this year, with an average of 1,000 men each, compared with 70 last year, with an average of 500 men each?

No, Sir. My hon. Friend is quite wrong. It so happens that in the first three months of this financial year only seven pits were closed.

asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the arrangements within his Department to keep in touch with overseas developments in district heating and total energy schemes; and if he will make a statement.

We fully recognise the potential importance of total energy and district heating schemes and take steps to keep in touch with overseas experience as well as information in the United Kingdom. As an example, I have visited Denmark and Sweden to inspect and discuss a number of such schemes. In addition, there is the normal collection of information in the Department, and my right hon. Friend and I hope to attend an international conference on total energy and district heating in London next April.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him if he is really satisfied with the progress that we have made? Should not we be doing more to match the performance of the Scandinavians in this sphere?

I am certainly not satisfied with the progress that we have made and I believe that there is considerable scope for enlarging total energy and district heating schemes. It is correct to say that the Scandinavians and other Western European countries are ahead of us in this matter.

Has his Department any objection to electricity boards proposing schemes for total energy arrangements?

We have no objection in principle. These schemes would have to be considered, as they are submitted, by the Electricity Council, the C.E.G.B. and the Department. I have very recently had discussions with representatives of the Electricity Council, and this point was considered.

asked the Minister of Power why he gave his consent to the Central Electricity Generating Board to establish a new national control centre less than 10 years after the completion of the present centre; and if he will make a statement.

The present national control centre was built in 1961 and is reaching the limit of its capability. The growth of the power system has led to a need for more advanced information display facilities to assist continuous surveillance of operating conditions on the system. This need will be met by the C.E.G.B's. new national control centre which, when completed, will be one of the most up to date in the world.

Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that a British computer will be used at this new centre? Will the centre be open for viewing by potential foreign buyers?

I understand that two British Ferranti Argus 500 computers will be used in the new centre. The C.E.G.B. will be only too pleased to demonstrate the operation and performance to potential purchasers.

What has been the cost of the new centre? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do with the old centre when it becomes redundant?

The cost has been £1·8 million. The new centre has been built within the old one.

asked the Minister of Power what progress is being made in providing adequate supplies of non-toxic gas to Scottish consumers; and if he will make a statement.

I am informed by the Scottish Gas Board that with the exception of certain smaller plants outside the main grids the average toxic content of gas in the area has been reduced from 24 per cent. in 1960 to approximately 6 per cent. now.

That is very good progress, but would my hon. Friend bear in mind that Scotland has many old properties with dilapidated gas piping which frequently results in leaks and fatal accidents? Would he ask the authorities to do their best to complete the job?

I am aware of the sad accident which I believe gave rise to the Question. We shall convey the representations which have been made today to the board concerned, but I have every confidence it is doing the job well.

asked the Minister of Power what manpower savings have been achieved by the changes made by his department in the organisation in the National Coal Board in Scotland.

The reorganisation was the responsibility of the National Coal Board and I have asked the Chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

Has contraction on the office side of the Coal Board kept pace with the contraction of the collieries?

That is a matter for the Board. But no doubt my hon. Friend recognises that in 1967 the Scottish Division was disbanded and the five areas were reduced to two—North Scotland and South Scotland. Consequently great savings must have been made.

asked the Minister of Power how many collieries are currently not producing coal, but are being held in reserve in the event of an upsurge in coal demand, in Scotland, England, and Wales, respectively.

One, in Yorkshire.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lord Robens told a colleague and I that another colliery in Fife was being held in reserve and that in the event of a rise in the coal market it would be reopened? Can he give an assurance that the Coal Board is satisfied that the manpower will be available to man the pits in the event of an upsurge in demand for coal?

No. The Michael Colliery is closed and it would be very costly to reopen it. It has lost its labour force. Even an indication that it might be reopened would undermine the efforts of the Government and the local authority to bring new alternative industry to the area. It would not be right to raise hopes that it might be reopened.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the effect on exports and employment of the decision by the British Steel Corporation to increase the price of steel bars by 24 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

The product my hon. Friend has in mind is a very specialised type of bar with a limited sale. I have no reason to believe that the increase in its price will have any general economic effect.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently the Scottish Region of British Railways gave a contract to an Italian concern to build a steamer and that one of the reasons for it was that Italian steel is 10 per cent. cheaper than ours? If steel bars are increased by this amount, will it not seriously affect the competitiveness of British steel?

I am not aware of the comparison which my hon. Friend makes.

This is a special product. It has a very limited sale. It is technically difficult to make. There are 2,500 tons made a year. I know that the firm concerned is in my hon. Friend's constituency. I have asked the British Steel Corporation to contact my hon. Friend.

Is not this a general problem? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I tackled him about steel prices a couple of months ago he said that the average increase was about 9 per cent., whereas in this instance it is 24 per cent., which represents an invitation to continental producers to flood our market with foreign steel to the detriment of British steel?

The hon. Gentleman is responsible for ridiculous exaggerations. This is a very special type of product of which only 2,500 tons are made out of a total production in Britain of about 26 or 27 million tons.

asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that supplies of coal to the Longannet Power Station in Fife will be adequate when the station is in full production in 1973; and if he will make a statement.

I am informed by the National Coal Board that supplies will be adequate.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the issue of production licences under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, in respect of areas for which licences were granted in 1964 and 1965.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will undertake to make a statement to the House on the issue of production licences under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, in respect of areas for which licences were granted in 1964 and 1965 before coming to any decision.

I hope to be able to make a statement on licensing policy before the House rises. Areas to be surrendered under licences awarded in 1964 and 1965 will not become available for relicensing until the autumn of next year.

Is the Minister aware that the rather sneering remarks which he made in a recent speech about abortive expenditure by the exploration companies has caused widespread offence to the exploration industry? When will he make a statement about the abortive expenditure by the Americans in getting to the moon?

I am not aware of any sneering remarks about abortive expenditure on the exploitation of North Sea gas. In fact, we are very grateful that the international oil companies have taken a very keen interest in taking up licences and working out their work programme within the six years in which they were required to do it before giving up 50 per cent. of their blocks. I am not aware of the sneering comments to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Was not the right hon. Gentleman reported in the Northern Echo of 28th June as having said that £40 million of the money spent in exploration was wasted? It is the use of the word "wasted" which is regarded as being highly offensive in this high risk area.

I cannot make a serious reply without looking at the reference. This is not "wasted" in the sense that the hon. Gentleman uses the word. There is a high risk in the North Sea, which is a very hazardous area for drilling operations. Consequently a lot of dry holes can be drilled without any return. Money may be wasted in that sense, but this is a high risk venture.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the results of the inter-departmental investigation into the control of environmental pollution.

As I said in reply to Questions from my hon. Friend and from my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on 26th June, this has recently been discussed by the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology and the Government are now considering the matter in the light of the Council's advice.—[Vol. 785, c. 302.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposal of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science that legislation should be introduced to the effect that before any chemical or insecticide is released on the market a long-term analysis of the likely effects should be made?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the proposal to my attention. The Government investigation will cover the co-ordination of measures for controlling environmental pollutants, both those which are known and potential ones, as a result of commercial or other research. Different Departments will be responsible for looking at the possible effects of new materials used in medicine, veterinary medicine, pest control and other fields where there is potential danger.

Is it not apparent that man excels all other animals in his ability to foul his nest and that unless we take positive steps our descendants will be poisoned with pollutants, choked by fumes and deafened by noise before finally being smothered under mountains of waste? Is it not time that we established a Department to deal with this very important subject?

I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman has missed out one or two potential dangers. All these questions with regard to the marine environment, rivers and the atmosphere are being studied by the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite President Nixon to London for conversations either before or after his visit to Rumania.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek an opportunity to consult with President Nixon on matters concerning the forthcoming discussions between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on strategic missiles.

It was announced last week that I shall be having an informal talk with President Nixon on 3rd August when he makes a brief stop n Britain on his way home. There is no formal agenda for the talks.

On strategic arms limitation, intensive consultations have been under way in the North Atlantic Council about the possible bilateral talks between the United States and the Soviet Union, and our views have been made known.

When the Prime Minister meets the American President, will he congratulate him, not only on the magnificent courage of the American spacemen, but on the great achievements of American technology? To make up for our own shortcomings, will the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and establish a Select Committee on Defence?

On the first part of the supplementary question, the serious part, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that I took the opportunity on the Atlantic telephone yesterday when President Nixon phoned Downing Street to express to him exactly the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which indeed I had done on three American television networks the night before. I am sure that the whole House would endorse the words of congratulations of the hon. Gentleman and those which have poured out from this country to the United States to the astronauts and on the technological achievement and planning which underlay it.

On the second part of the supplementary question, I am not aware that anyone has suggested that this country, under this or a previous Government, should have entered the moon race, with all the resources involved. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of our very high degree of technological and scientific advance in the past three or four years.

Regarding the strategic arms limitation talks, is it not a fact that Europe has important interests in this field which are by no means identical with those of the United States? Has not this country, as the only country with a viable strategic missile capacity, a particular right to be heard in this respect? Therefore, is it not important that we should remain in very close touch with the United States throughout these talks?

It is a fact that Europe has an interest in these talks, which may not be exactly the same as that of the United States. For that reason, the United States and her European allies have been discussing all aspects of this problem in the North Atlantic Council. With regard to the position of Britain, we shall, of course, hope to keep in very close touch with the United States Government on this matter, and I would be very surprised if this was not one of the subjects which we shall be discussing a week on Sunday.

Although there is no fixed agenda, may we assume that the Prime Minister will discuss the possibility of an American, if not a British, initiative towards control of the supply of arms, etc., to the Middle East, Nigeria or any other part of the world where they are likely to cause a breach of the peace?

The right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that we are in close touch with the United States about this. If he looks up HANSARD, he will find that two Questions were answered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on that part of his question which dealt with arms supplies to Nigeria and relief.

While understanding as a legitimate Parliamentary ploy the desire of hon. Members opposite to have the Prime Minister out of the country as much as possible, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that quite a few Members of this House think that he is quite capable of deciding for himself whom he shall meet and when?

The meeting with the President will take place in this country. It is very convenient that there is this opportunity.

Do not the Prime Minister's relations with the President seem to have become more informal than has been the custom with British Prime Ministers in the past?

No, Sir. I have already informed the House of our discussion about my visiting there in the spring and again this summer, which certainly has been possible. But I had the opportunity of a very full discussion with the President on his visit to this country in February and while we have been discussing the possibility of a further meeting, next week's opportunity has now occurred.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the President of the United States how important many hon. Members on this side of the House consider it to be that such bilateral contacts should be made with East European countries? Will he also make it quite clear to the President of the United States that we are extremely concerned and interested in the development of a European security conference, which would include the United States, which could lead ultimately to a European security pact?

Yes, Sir. On the first part of the question, my hon. Friend will be aware of the line taken by N.A.T.O., including, of course, the United States, in Iceland last year and, again, the declaration which was made in Washington at the N.A.T.O. 20th anniversary celebrations on this question, which can best be explored, I agree, by bilateral contacts.

With regard to the second part of the question, there has been the recent Finnish initiative, which I discussed last week with the President of Finland. As I have already told the House, there now seems to be understanding on both sides that the United States and other non-European countries interested in Europe could be involved. I have also expressed hope after my talks with Herr Brandt that the difficulty about the two Germany's looks like being within reach of solution. Even so, it is important that this conference should be properly prepared.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will outline his proposed arrangements for the commemoration of Gandhi Centenary year.

asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to commemorate the Gandhi Centenary year; and if he will make a statement.

Her Majesty's Government have contributed £5,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for the Gandhi Centenary. In addition, we contributed £4,000 towards the cost of the statue of Gandhi in Tavistock Square and some £10,000 to cover the cost of a British Pavilion at the Gandhi International Exhibition in Delhi. Apart from this, the Post Office is issuing a special commemorative stamp and the India Office Library is mounting a special exhibition.

While acknowledging that help and the issue of the commemorative stamp, to which the Prime Minister has referred—very fittingly designed by an Indian resident of this country—may I ask the Prime Minister also to continue to encourage positive participation by the Government in the centenary activities, partly as a tribute to a very great man and also as a means of furthering Indo-British relations, which in recent years, as the Prime Minister is well aware, have from time to time suffered considerable strains and stresses?

Yes, Sir, I agree with the objectives in the hon. Member's question. He was probably present at the great festival in Tavistock Square last year when I unveiled the Gandhi memorial. I hope, as, indeed, do other Ministers to be able to attend the very special centenary tribute at the Royal Albert Hall in October as part of the Gandhi centenary celebrations.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for his observations, may I ask whether, in view of Mahatma Gandhi's contribution to securing the peaceful transfer of power from His Majesty's Government to the peoples of the sub-continent in India, it would not now be appropriate for the Government to initiate, in this particular year, a study of the rôle of non-violence in the conduct of world affairs today?

That raises a much wider issue and, of course, a much wider geographical setting. But those of us who have been called upon to pay tribute to the memory of the late Mahatma Gandhi, as I have, not only in speeches, but in writing, while not agreeing with everything he did in relation to the United Kingdom at certain critical times, will, I think, pay tribute to the extent to which he tried, in the solution of this problem and other problems with which India was later concerned, to bring the concept of non-violent solutions.

While the whole House will welcome the contribution by the Government to the Mahatma Gandhi commemoration, may I ask the Prime Minister to explain why his attitude with regard to a statue to Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square is so ambivalent? Why does not the Prime Minister make the same generous gesture for the provision of a statue to Sir Winston Churchill?

The hon. Gentleman has introduced a rather sour note into an issue of great importance in Anglo-Indian relations, quite apart from our desire to pay tribute at this centenary time. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Answers I gave concerning a statue to Sir Winston Churchill. What I said was that we were prepared—and I think that this carries the support of those sponsoring the proposal—to make an appropriate contribution to it but that it would mean far more if those involved could make it the subject of a nation-wide appeal, with support from the many thousands, perhaps millions, who wish to pay tribute to Sir Winston Churchill. I do not think that that is on a parallel with this issue.

asked the Prime Minister if he will undertake discussions with the Prime Minister of France regarding the eventual co-ordination of the British and French nuclear deterrents.

I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in reply to Questions by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) on 17th July.—[Vol. 787, c. 878–81.]

Last week, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he had no proposals to make to the French Government on this matter. The French Prime Minister has, however, made a specific proposal suggesting that the co-ordination of the British and French deterrents would form the logical follow through of British entry into the European Community. What are the Prime Minister's views about that specific proposal?

That was not a specific proposal. The French Prime Minister said in his speech—it was not at all misquoted by the hon. Member—that he envisaged this as something which would follow after British entry into the Community. It is, therefore, not an immediate proposal by the Prime Minister of France or, as far as I am aware, by anyone else. Our view, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) on 17th July, is that while I favour the setting-up of arrangements for much closer co-operation on defence matters by the European countries, not least between France and ourselves, this should be done within N.A.T.O. and the overall control of N.A.T.O.

Will my right hon. Friend take note, however, that there is growing opposition in France to the tremendous expenditure envisaged on nuclear weapons, as there is growing opposition to this expenditure in this country? Will he not, therefore, listen to this advice and take up this point but rather correspond to the policy on foreign affairs of the French Government, which wishes for an overall agreement with Eastern Europe? Is there not a more fruitful field of joint co-operation there than in these nuclear proposals?

The question of public opinion in France and any review of nuclear policy in France must be a matter for the French Government and people. Our concern in these proposals is to express our hope that France will now come back fully within the framework of N.A.T.O. in all these defence matters and that any question of this kind is best discussed in the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. With French co-operation there, I am sure that we could make the best possible progress in the direction which most hon. Members would wish to see. With regard to both parts of Europe and further afield, I have already referred to the European Security Conference and also to the vitally important strategic arms limitation which I shall be discussing with the President in the near future.

Will the Prime Minister dispose of the myth on his own benches that there is anything in the Non-Proliferation Treaty to prevent Anglo-French collaboration? Will not he also agree that Britain has advantages to gain, both in technology and in finance, from collaborating with the French?

I think I have made it clear that on any reading of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, there is no question of proliferation, as far as collaboration between two nuclear Powers is concerned, such as Britain and France, Britain and America or any other two nuclear Powers. The question of a breach of that treaty would arise if there were, for example, a European deterrent which went beyond the existing nuclear Powers, unless, as the treaty obviously envisages, there were at some distant future time a single country in Europe with a single defence administration and a single foreign policy, and which inherited any nuclear equipment or nuclear potentialities of its individual members.

Is not there a very great difference between the idea of a European deterrent, to which the objections are obvious, and the idea of an agreement between Britain and France confined to the joint control of their existing nuclear weapons, which would reduce the number of independent deterrents from five to four and might have considerable advantages to both countries?

The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was in relation to the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and I think that I gave the right interpretation of it. Certainly I agree that there is a very big difference between a European nuclear deterrent, as my hon. Friend has said, and co-operation between individual nuclear Powers. But, so far, co-operation between Britain and France has been largely precluded by the specific nuclear policy of the previous French Govern- ment and by the fact that the French Government have not been taking part actively in N.A.T.O. and particularly within the Nuclear Planning Group. If France were to come within the nuclear planning group, that might help to create a new situation.

Seeing that there is both a British national plan and an Anglo-American plan for the utilisation of the British deterrent, will the Prime Minister at least keep an open mind about the possibility of an Anglo-French plan if other circumstances, economic, Common Market and so on, should hake this seem desirable?

The answer is, as I have said, that this is a matter within the alliance of N.A.T.O. and of the Nuclear Planning Group. We should be more than happy to have the opportunity of talking to the French within the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. So far France has not been playing any part in it.

The Prime Minister will agree that we still have national control over our own nuclear deterrent, within the terms of the negotiation of its attribution to N.A.T.O. when required. If the French Prime Minister comes forward with proposals for Anglo-French co-operation in the nuclear field in the context of discussions about the Common Market, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider and discuss these proposals?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman for some time, since long before the French Prime Minister's speech, has been advocating something of this kind in connection with the European negotiations, particularly during the period of government of President de Gaulle. In my view, it would be extremely unwise to link this with negotiations for entering into the Common Market. I have seen no disposition on the part of the Six to attempt to extract from us a deal of that kind, linking two things which are very different indeed. There is room for co-operation, on the other hand, between Britain and France on a wide issue of subjects and for an improvement in relations which have not been all that good for several years. The right forum for talks with the French in the nuclear military field is not the Common Market but N.A.T.O.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the most important fact about nuclear weapons is that the world stock has grown in 10 years by one hundred times to the present stock of a million megatons? Will he reaffirm that this is regarded by the Government as a growing danger and that it is still their policy to work for the abolition of all weapons of mass destruction?

Yes, it is our aim to work for that. Without commenting on the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend, I will go one stage further and say that there is a danger of a new qualitative as well as quantitative risk in the arms race with the introduction of A.B.M.s and things of that kind. That is why we attach so much importance to the forthcoming talks, if they are held, as we hope they will be, between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. It would of course be most valuable if France now felt able to sign the test ban and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Failure to take these two steps is the most important factor which inhibits further co-operation.

While we are accustomed to the Prime Minister saying what he would like the French Government to do, my question to him was quite specific If the French Prime Minister comes forward with proposals for Anglo-French co-operation, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider and discuss them?