§ 28. Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the plans of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in respect of projects at Glen Nevis, Ken-more, Grandtully, Loch Laidon, Fada-Fionn-Maree, Snizort-Bracadale, and Upper Findhorn-Monadhliath-Loch Ness, total k.w.i. 240,000; what is the estimated capital cost both in pounds sterling, correct to one million pounds, and pounds sterling per k.w.i; and, having regard to large unsold stocks of bituminous coal in the hands of the National Coal Board, mostly suited for power stations' use and anxiety concerning employment in the coal mining areas, whether he will make a statement on future hydro-electric schemes in the Highlands.
§ Mr. N. MacphersonApart from the Glen Nevis project, to which my right hon. Friend is giving preliminary consideration, none of the schemes has pro- 872 gressed sufficiently to be submitted to him, and it is not, therefore, possible to give any information about them. Future schemes will be considered on their merits in the light of the Board's statutory responsibilities.
§ Mr. NabarroHas my hon. Friend observed that there is a level of unemployment in Lanarkshire of more than 6 per cent., notably in the coal mining areas? As the primary purpose of all these hydro-electric schemes in the far north has been to save coal, is it sensible at high cost to continue to build dams in the far north while we are subsidising unemployment in the coalfields in the south of Scotland? Will the Secretary of State endeavour to relate those two important matters, instead of aggravating coal mining unemployment and indulging extravagance in the far north?
§ Mr. MacphersonMy right hon. Friend is well aware of the problems of coal mining in Lanarkshire, but I cannot accept that it is the primary or even a primary purpose of the hydro-electric schemes in Scotland to save coal. The primary purpose has always been to supply electricity to the Highlands and to develop the economy of the Highlands.
§ 29. Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in respect of £16 million proposed to be spent during the financial year 1960–61 by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, how much coal per annum will be saved by the new projects; what will be the additional k.w.i. created, and at what capital cost per k.w.i.; how much has been spent by the Board out of its total maximum borrowing powers of £200 million at 30th April, 1960; and what consultations he has had with coal mining interests, having regard to the current planned reduction in British coal mining output and stocks held, financed by public funds.
§ Mr. N. MacphersonThe projects under construction in 1960–61 will, when completed, produce additional supplies of electricity equivalent to the production from a quarter million tons of coal per annum; and they will add 556,000 kilowatts of installed capacity at an estimated average cost of £75 per kilowatt installed. Up to 30th April, 1960, the Board had spent £194.5 million out of its total maximum borrowing powers of £240 million. As regards the last part of the 873 Question, when the merits of a proposed hydro-electric scheme are examined the comparative cost of alternative methods of production is a prime consideration.
§ Mr. NabarroIs it not a fact that the 250,000 tons of coal per annum saved represents the annual output of 800 coal miners in Lanarkshire? Is it sensible to go on maintaining that high level of unemployment in our basic industry in Scotland, coal mining, with £125 million of taxpayers' money, represented by unsold coal stocks, while the Secretary of State continues his extravagance in the far north, spending £16 million more money in order to save coal?
§ Mr. MacphersonI cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. Electricity produced from hydro-power is essentially at a much lower cost per unit than from steam power.
§ Mr. NabarroBut not including capital.
§ Mr. MacphersonThat is the cost per unit. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. My right hon. Friend has to consider the economy of all the parts of Scotland in this matter, but he has primarily to consider the economy and problems of the Highlands.
§ Mr. WoodburnCould not the hon. Gentleman make it clear to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that his Questions are misconceived and that the production of hydro-electricity is not in competition with coal, because hydro-electricity is being used at peak periods when coal-produced electricity would not be economic and that there are two entirely different purposes? While we appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in Lanarkshire, surely there are other ways in Which he can help than by stopping hydro-electric schemes?
§ Mr. MacphersonI join with the right hon. Gentleman in appreciating—
§ Mr. NabarroGo over there then.
§ Mr. MacphersonI was about to say that I join with the right hon. Gentleman in appreciating the benevolent interest of my hon. Friend in the Highlands and I agree that there is a great deal in what he said.
§ Mr. NabarroIn view of the very unsatisfactory Answers to both Questions, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on Clause 72 of the Finance Bill.