§ 11. Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a further statement on the proposed power station at Seaton Carew.
§ 27. Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Power whether he has now reached a decision on the building of a new power station at Seaton Carew; and on the fuel which will be used.
§ 41. Mr. Urwinasked the Minister of Power when he expects to announce the decision as to the type of fuel which will be required to fire the power station at Seaton Carew.
§ Mr. WilleyIs my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of anxiety about this in the North-East? Can he allay it by saying, whether it is coal-or nuclear-powered, that there will be a power station at Seaton Carew?
§ Mr. MarshA very complex series of studies is taking place, taking into account many factors, not least the Generating Board's load forecasts.
§ Mr. ElliottDoes the Minister appreciate that ever since devaluation there have been constant suggestions that Seaton Carew would be a casualty of the cutback in nationalised industry investment? Will he take very seriously what his right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said? This is very important to the North-East of England.
§ Mr. MarshI appreciate that this is obviously a very important issue to the area, and one which has attained very great significance. The fact is that one cannot build power stations without taking into account the load forecasts of future demand.
§ Mr. UrwinDoes my right hon. Friend accept that there is a very great deal of anxious speculation in the area surrounding Seaton Carew about the power station, and that it is high time a decision was reached? Bearing in mind the doubts about the costing of Dungeness B, which still has 2½ years to go and has already escalated by 25 per cent., will he decide 1165 strongly in favour of coal for Seaton Carew?
§ Mr. MarshThere are other questions on the Order Paper about nuclear costs. The position is that hon. Members on both sides of the House asked for a careful social cost benefit analysis to be done on this very complex issue. There is also the problem of load forecasts.
§ Mr. LeadbitterWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the recent announcements regarding the Furness shipyard and the ship conversion yard in Hartlepool, involving a large degree of unemployment, make it imperative for the Government to end this study as soon as possible? A decision should be made, both in fairness to the miners and to Tees-side.
§ Mr. MarshI appreciate that, but the key point in building power stations is what the load is likely to be. Power stations cannot be built to provide employment; they must be built to provide electricity in connection with whatever demand is arising.
§ Mr. ShinwellAs the decision for which we have been hoping for some time may have a beneficial or adverse effect on my constituency, can my right hon. Friend say what complexities trouble him? Are they economic or are they price-fixing in character?
§ Mr. MarshFor a start, one clearly wants the most up-to-date load forecasts, which are due fairly soon. In terms of cost benefit analysis, one must make assumptions about length of employment of people who might otherwise be unemployed, which leads in turn to a long-range economic analysis.