HC Deb 23 May 1960 vol 624 cc30-1
38. Mr. Neal

asked the Minister of Power how many coke oven plants have been closed during the years 1958, 1959, and 1960.

Mr. Wood

Nine in 1958, three in 1959 and two, so far, in 1960.

Mr. Neal

Can the Minister say how many of the coke oven plants which have been closed are owned by the National Coal Board?

Mr. Wood

I understand that one of these plants was closed by the iron and steel industry and that the other plants belonged to the National Coal Board.

39. Mr. Neal

asked the Minister of Power what is the expected increase in consumption of coke by the steel industry during the next twelve months; and what are his plans for the immediate erection of new coke ovens, in view of the expected increase.

Mr. Wood

The steel industry is expected to need 2½ million tons more coke for blast furnaces in 1960 than in 1959. A further increase of 750,000 tons is expected in 1961. The coke oven capacity already in being or under construction is sufficient to provide the quantity likely to be required.

Mr. Neal

Is it not a fact that a gentleman's agreement existed between the National Coal Board and the steel industry concerning the production of industrial coke for the steel industry? Is it further correct to say that this agreement has now been broken by the proposed erection, with the aid of public money, of a coke oven plant in Scotland to supply the steel industry? Which side is the Minister on in this controversy—the side of the private enterprise concern which has broken this agreement, or the side of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Wood

I do not think that the agreement has been broken. Perhaps the hon. Member has in mind both Colvilles' plant and Richard Thomas and Bald-win's plant. As I told his hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) on 21st March, extensive discussions took place and eventual agreement was reached in connection with Richard Thomas and Baldwins coking oven plant. As for Colvilles, there were perfectly good technical reasons, including the very long rail haul, which made it quite impossible for the coke which it needed to be taken from outside.

Mr. Neal

Whatever reason the Minister may have had in his mind, does he agree that the National Coal Board could have met the needs of the Colvilles' plant?

Mr. Wood

That would have been liable to impose on Colvilles the need to bring its coke from Durham, or more than 100 miles, whatever the agreement might be, and therefore I think the technical reasons against taking this coal from elsewhere were overwhelming.