§ 16. Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Power what decision has been reached on the proposal put to him by hon. Members who saw him recently to construct an electricity power station in the County of Durham.
§ 17. Mr. Pentlandasked the Minister of Power if he is now in a position to state the Government's policy on the building of a new power station in the County of Durham.
§ 28. Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Power what recent proposals he has received from the Central Electricity Generating Board about the building of a new power station in Durham.
§ Mr. WoodDiscussions I have had with the Central Electricity Generating Board and the National Coal Board have established good prospects of a steady expansion in the market for electricity coals from the North-East, particularly from Durham, over the next eight years.
Power stations in the North-East and on the Thames burned in 1962 about 11.8. million tons from the Northumberland and Durham coal fields. The two boards have agreed that by 1970, the total demand at stations in these places. 1114 which the coal fields in the North-East should be well placed to supply, will probably have increased to about 14 million tons, which should provide employment for about 38,000 coal miners. As a result the outlet for Durham electricity coal should, by 1970, be nearly double what it was last year. These improved prospects arise partly from an undertaking by the Generating Board that not less than two-thirds of the fuel burnt at the proposed dual-fired station at Kingsnorth will, up to the end of 1970, be coal.
In view of these arrangements, the Government have agreed with the boards that the construction of a power station in Durham, far in advance of local electricity requirements, and involving superfluous expenditure of over £3 million on transmission, would not be justifiable. When the Generating Board reconsiders, within the next two years, the project for a new power station in the North-East. probably in Durham, it will take into account the effect on the future demand for electricity of the Government's plans for expansion in the North-East.
§ Sir C. OsborneOn a point of order. Is it possible to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to ask Ministers to give shorter replies?
§ Mr. SpeakerYes, but I should also have to ask hon. Members to make their questions, both those on the Order Paper and supplementaries, as short as could be. Since I have the opportunity, may I point out to the House that we dealt with 10 Questions in half an hour this afternoon? I cannot manage the business unless I have the help of the House.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order. Am I to understand that that is a charge against me personally, Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, not at all. I very often have the right hon. Gentleman in mind, but this was one of the occasions when I did not do so.
§ Mr. ShinwellWhat the Minister's Answer amounts to is that after all the negotiations, all the submissions by hon. Members, all the representations by the development corporations in the North-East and the submission made by the National Coal Board in Durham and Northumberland—[Interruption.] I am putting my supplementary question. This 1115 is very important to the North-East. If it is not important to hon. Members opposite, it is important to some of us on this side. Am I to understand, after all this palaver—
§ Sir G. NabarroOn a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Is it not an established practice in this House, Mr. Speaker, that right hon. Gentlemen when asking supplementary questions are precluded from giving information? Was not the whole of the last supplementary question the giving of information?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe should make better progress, and I would have better prospects of ruling upon the content of a supposed question or questions, if there were less noise so that I could hear. Let us get on. We have wasted a lot of time.
§ Mr. ShinwellDo I understand from the Minister that, after all our representations, he is doing nothing? Why does he blame the Generating Board or the area board for the refusal to proceed with this power station? Does not the responsibility rest upon his shoulders? Because he refuses to do anything, why does he not have the decency to resign?
§ Mr. WoodThe right hon. Gentleman has an almost unrivalled facility for standing facts upside down.
§ Mr. ShinwellThe Minister is turning the country upside down.
§ Mr. WoodThe right hon. Gentleman asked me to take action to try to see that the likely drop in electricity coal demand from the North-East after 1965 would not take place, because he pointed out to me, very rightly, that that would have serious consequences in his county. I then held talks with the Generating Board and the National Coal Board and have established that the drop which the Coal Board itself feared will not be likely to occur. Therefore, when I was asked to examine the question, it was examined and the result is as I have announced. I am amazed at the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment. I thought he would be pleased that the electricity coal demand from his county of Durham is likely in 1970 to be double what it was last year.
§ Mr. PentlandFollowing the reply to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] 1116 On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that this is a most serious question for us? We are sick and tired of the conduct of hon. Members opposite.—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerI was hoping, so that we could get some Questions answered, that I might have the assistance of the whole House, and I ask that that be given. I do not want to behave like a schoolmistress in a primary school having to suppress all sounds of jubilation. Let us, however, have some reasonable balance about it.
§ Mr. PentlandFurther to what has already been said about the need for a new power station in Durham, may I ask whether, when the Minister refers to £4 million expenditure involved in the project, he has compared that with the 10,000 to 12,000 miners who will become unemployed if the power station is not built? Is not his reply in direct contradiction to everything which has been forthcoming to him from the National Coal Board and from the divisional coal board in Durham? Is it not a disgraceful decision?
§ Mr. WoodI have tried to explain to the hon. Member that the National Coal Board has agreed—and I thought that hon. Members would, on the whole, welcome the decision—that the demand for electricity coal from the coal fields in the North-East in eight years' time would be above what it is now. When the hon. Member and his right hon. and hon. Friends came to see me that was exactly the case they put. They were bothered that the coal demand from the North-East would decline. I have discovered that it is not likely to decline but, in fact, will increase.
§ Mr. FernyhoughDoes not the Minister realise that the decision which he has announced this afternoon makes nonsense of the appointment of the noble Lord from another place as the Minister to supervise affairs in the North-East? Does he not realise that on his own statement, the building of a power station in Durham would cost only £3½ million more than to build it elsewhere? Does he not realise that if the power station is not built, 10,000 miners will lose their jobs? Does he not realise that for every— [Interruption.] I have been here a long 1117 time and have dealt with a lot of shouting down. I hope that hon. Members opposite will realise this, including the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro).
§ Mr. LoughlinHe is like a cat: he thinks with his whiskers.
§ Mr. FernyhoughUnless we get this power station, thousands of miners will lose their jobs and the Minister will be faced with three alternatives. Either he will transfer them and have to provide homes for them, schools for their families and hospital services, or he will pay them unemployment benefit— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] It is a good speech—or he will pay industrialists the cost of £1,000 a job under the Local Employment Act to go and provide work for the miners who are dismissed. Does not the Minister think it is time that he weighed the £3½ million extra—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If we allow supplementary questions of that length we shall all of us suffer. I am sure that I should have more assistance from the House if hon. Members asking long supplementary questions would bear in mind how selfish it is to do so because it tends to exclude other Questions altogether.
§ Mr. FernyhoughOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When one is subjected to constant interruptions from the benches opposite there is a tendency for one to lose one's train of thought.
§ Mr. SpeakerI know so well how one evil provokes another. That is why I hope that all hon. Members of good heart and good sentiment will help me. But my principle is breached if I allow a supplementary question of that length to be answered at all.
§ Mr. WoodMay I just say this to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough)? The purpose of Lord Hailsham's appointment was to maintain and increase employment in the North-East. This aim seems to be effected in this case by the arrangement that has been reached between the Generating Board and the Coal Board, for I cannot believe that the miners in Durham really care whether their coal is being burnt in Durham or in other 1118 parts of the country as long as it is bought from the National Coal Board after they have produced it.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Harper. Question No. 19.