asked the Minister of Power what further consultations he has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board regarding the Wylfa nuclear project.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the placing of contracts for the Wylfa, Anglesey, nuclear power station.

The acceptance of tenders is a matter for the Board, which is still in touch with both of the consortia concerned, and is keeping me informed of developments.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that I have at the moment in my constituency 9·2 per cent. of unemployed, and if Richardsons Westgarth do not get this contract I shall be faced with something like over 1,000 unemployed in the next nine months? I understand that the differences are not all that great. Surely my right hon. Friend can use his powers under Section 8(1) of the 1957 Act and direct that this contract should go to an area of high unemployment. Surely this is a very bad advertisement for the North-East with all the demonstrations now going on and doubts about the future of this contract and the need to get further industries there when this kind of thing happens.

I quite understand the great importance of this matter to my hon. and gallant Friend. What I do not think unreasonable is that the Central Electricity Generating Board should have refused a tender which was not only high but which was for a design that it did not like. But, as proof of the importance which the Board itself attaches to this matter, it is, as I say, continuing conversations with both of the consortia, and it is also in consultation with the firm which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned to see what could be done to offset the effects if, in fact, the contract for the station is not awarded to the U.P.C.

Is it correct that negotiations are still open and continuing with these firms and with the Central Electricity Generating Board? I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows that there was almost an engagement to employ the United Power Co. with regard to this power station in Anglesey. It is a serious matter, apparently, to the whole position of the North-East Coast, and it makes us wonder what is really the position. The situation of Richardsons Westgarth at Wall send, which firm is connected with the consortium, is really hopeless. The firm is in a desperate position, and we should like to have as much information as possible as to the present possibilities.

The Board and the consortium are still in touch. Both consortia put intenders which the Board thought too high. The U.P.C.'s re-tender was rejected by the Board for the reasons which I have told my hon. and gallant Friend, and it has been told that. But the U.P.C. and the Board are still in touch about this matter. The Board is also considering the English Electric tender. As far as the letter of intent was concerned, this could never be considered an unconditional promise. What the Board told the U.P.C. was that the Board intended to give it the contract, but, obviously, always subject to a satisfactory tender being produced.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Power when construction work on the Wylfa nuclear power station will start.

I cannot yet say.

Can the Minister say whether any other factor, apart from the disagreement on cost, is affecting the start on the construction of the Wylfa nuclear power station?

No, Sir. The reason I cannot give the information the hon. Member wants, as no doubt he gathered from my Answer to an earlier Question, is that I understand the Generating Board has not yet been able to agree on the tender for the station. Until that decision has been made, I cannot give that information.

asked the Minister of Power when he expects production in the iron and steel industry to be in creased to meet the target set by the National Economic Development Council.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the Question of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) on 20th June.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate clearly to the House what discussions his right hon. Friend has had with the Iron and Steel Board in order to comply with the intention of the National Economic Development Council? He surely is aware that the industry is presently working at fewer than 30 per cent. of its capacity. Will he not tell the House the firm proposals he has to relieve unemployment and short-time working in the steel industry?

My right hon. Friend is in regular and close contact with the chairman of the Iron and Steel Board. I should remind the hon. Member that expansion of production in the iron and steel industry depends on the state of the economy as a whole, and he will be aware of the measures the Government have taken to stimulate the economy.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what review has been made of future possible Government contracts for large steel-using projects, such as bridges and road construction programmes, to see if they can be brought forward to use spare capacity in the steel industry?

I would prefer the hon. Member to put that question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Power what effect the import of methane gas in the newly constructed tankers will have upon the gas industry of this country; and what consideration he gave, in approving the policy of methane imports, to the effect on the employment of men now engaged in the gas industry.

Imports of liquid methane from North Africa will give the gas industry a new raw material of special technological value and will thereby strengthen the industry's competitive position. The present scheme will provide about one-tenth of total gas supplies and is unlikely to have any significant effect on employment prospects in the industry.

Is the Minister aware that this is a new industry and it is likely to put out of employment a large number of miners and gas producers? The tanker for carrying this gas has already been launched and it is estimated that 700,000 tons will be imported in a very few years. That is bound to have an effect on these two industries. What preparations are being made to arrange for the workers in these industries to find other employment?

I discussed at considerable length when I made the decision some time ago what would be the likely effect on the coal industry, which was the main question at that time. In the gas industry, as the hon. Member knows, technological developments are taking place which on the whole require fewer men to produce a given volume of gas than do the old methods. That is natural. Therefore, I cannot see that this particular decision to produce a proportion of the country's needs in gas in this way will be any more inimical to employment in the gas industry than a number of other technological developments which are taking place.

Is not the importation of 700,000 tons of liquid gas bound to have a serious effect on the men producing gas in this country today? If not, why introduce this gas?

I do not think it likely to have any more effect on the men producing gas than the making of gas from oil feed stocks. That, as the hon. Member knows, is taking place at an increasing rate at present and employment in the gas industry, although dropping, is dropping at a very controlled and reasonable rate, and so far I have heard of no difficulties.

asked the Minister of Power if he will issue general directions, in the national interest, to the boards of each of the nationalised fuel and power industries to engage upon a twelve-months' public relations campaign to convey to the public the successes of their undertakings.

No, Sir. Campaigns of this kind are within a board's responsibility and are a normal part of its effort.

In view of the gross misrepresentation that took place in 1955 and 1959 about the performances of nationalised industries, does not the Minister regard it as part of his duty, as the Minister responsible for three successful nationalised industries, to make sure that during this year in particular the truth about nationalised industries is known to the British public?

I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have always been ready to give praise where praise is due. I do not believe that any general direction is necessary, because I think that the campaigns which the industries at present adopt are perfectly adequate for making known their achievements and also for making known the obligations and the challenges which are still ahead of them.

Would the Minister not agree that we are now in a period when we are being told that a very great sum of money is to be spent for no other purpose than to denigrate the nationalised industries and in these circumstances is it not in the national interest that the nationalised industries should show the great success that they have achieved and be able to point to the shortcomings of many private industries?

Our objective will be to resist any further nationalisation. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Our objective will also be to show how successful we have been able to make the industries already nationalised.

asked the Minister of Power what was the proportion of United Kingdom output of crude steel produced in Scotland in 1948 and 1962.

15·2 per cent. in 1948 and 9·2 per cent. in 1962.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these are very disturbing figures for Scotland? To try to help to relieve this position, would he discuss with his right hon. Friend the possibility of his right hon. Friend once again approaching the chairman of the National Coal Board in an effort to relieve the burden of discriminatory coal price increases which have been imposed upon Scotland, so that Scotland will be able at least to buy the coal required for the steel industry at a price comparable with the price charged south of the border?

I do not think that I can usefully add to the recent Answer which I gave on the question of coal prices. It was a commercial decision reached by the National Coal Board, and before the decision was reached the Board discussed it with my right hon. Friend, who thought that the decision was right and sees no reason to change his mind now.

asked the Minister of Power what plans he now has to avoid a breakdown in the distribution of coal and solid smokeless fuel next winter.

My right hon. Friend has had discussions with the National Coal Board which, in conjunction with the coal trade, is taking steps to increase supplies of house coal and to build up stocks for the winter. Supplies of gas coke should be adequate and production of the premium fuels is being increased. I hope that consumers will help by stocking fuel during the summer when they can buy at the lower prices.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider setting up a permanent committee consisting of representatives of the National Coal Board and the Coal Traders' Federation to ensure a more efficient distribution of coal and smokeless fuel this winter? Surely after the experience of last winter plans should be laid now? Could he give any details of any specific plans already made?

Consultations between the bodies the hon. Member mentioned are constant and between those bodies and my Department. While I certainly appreciate the aim the hon. Member has in mind, I do not think the setting up of another committee would help at all.

While having sympathy with my hon. Friend, who says that he would like to encourage householders to buy at cheaper summer prices, may I point out that there is a danger that future decreases in price may reduce that advantage? If the price decreases which are to take place could be announced at an early date, that would be a stimulus to early ordering.

I think that is looking well beyond the edge of the horizon.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that local authorities in Scotland are inhibited in their desire to implement the Clean Air Act because of difficulties encountered in securing adequate supplies of quality solid smokeless fuels; and if he will represent to the National Coal Board the need to construct a plant to produce solid smokeless fuel in Scotland at an early date.

No, Sir. Supplies of Gloco are adequate. Premium fuels were scarce last winter, but the position should improve materially when the National Carbonising Company's plant at Comrie in Fife shire comes into production early next year. The N.C.B. stated in their 1962 Annual Report that they are considering the possibility of building a premium fuel plant in Scotland.

While I am pleased to have the information which the Parliamentary Secretary has given us, will he bear these facts in mind? The difficulties of local authorities are increasing and all the signs are of an increasing demand for this fuel, but as yet no production of this character has taken place in Scotland. In view of the large number of unemployed, would he not agree that it would be an advantage to have this necessary development in Scotland?

We are fully aware of the importance of the matter. I think that what I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman is all that I would be prepared to say at the moment.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ten years have elapsed since the introduction of the Clean Air Act and that another five years will elapse before there are adequate supplies of smokeless fuel in Scotland? Cannot he do something to improve this situation?

I think that the Answer I have given indicates some possibility of improvement. It is a serious problem both in the long and short term, and certainly engages the very careful attention of my Department.

asked the Minister of Power by what percentage the amount of coal exported this year up to the latest convenient date exceeds that exported in the same period in 1962.

41·5 per cent. up to 31st May.

While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that encouraging reply, may I ask him to say whether there is any prospect of our increasing our coal exports to Common Market countries? Has the National Coal Board been in contact with the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community about this possibility?

The very gratifying increase which has taken place in coal exports has been very largely to continental Europe. I think the hon. Member can be quite certain that the Board will remain in very close touch with any potential customers in Europe and elsewhere.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent he estimates the decision to make the new Scottish power station coal-burning will affect the number of men employed in the coal-mining industry of Ayrshire.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the effect on the market for coal and employment in the industry of the decision by the South of Scotland Electricity Board to construct a 2,300 meggawatt power station to be fuelled by coal.

When the projected station is in full operation I understand that it will burn about 5½ million tons of coal a year. This is equal to the output of about 10,000 miners, but it is too early for the Coal Board to say how this employment would be distributed between the different parts of the Scottish coalfield.

Is the Minister aware that after the Barony pit was shut down there was a definite undertaking by the Coal Board that if the power station was coal-fired the Barony would be reopened? Is he aware that there would be great relief in the area if that decision were come to?

I understand that the chairman of the Scottish Coal Board said, as the hon. Member has suggested, that he expected the Barony pit to be reopened within the next three years, but when that time will be must depend on a number of considerations, technical and otherwise.

Although the figures given by the Minister are very encouraging, will he reject out of hand the agreement made between the Coal Board and the Electricity Board in Scotland that the next power station shall be oil-fired? What right has oil to have that guarantee—a guarantee which coal cannot get? I should like to know what the Minister is prepared to do about this, because in Scotland we are very concerned about imported fuel getting a guarantee which the coal industry can never get from the Government.

I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member welcomes the decision which the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week. I am sure we all feel that it would be too early for us to speculate about what fuel will be used in the next power station, and, although I have seen the report to which the hon. Member referred, I am not prepared to speculate. This will be a matter for my right hon. Friend to decide when application is made to him for either a coal-fired or an oil-fired station. He will decide that matter when the time comes for him to give his consent.

Is the Minister aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the reopening of the Barony pit simply will not do? It was not only the chairman of the Scottish Coal Board but Lord Robens himself who gave a definite promise that if the new power station is to be coal-fired the Barony would be reopened. Will it be reopened?

If Lord Robens made the statement it is clearly a matter for Lord Robens and the Scottish Board to decide.

In view of the tremendous importance of this decision to the future of the coal mining industry, can the Minister say why there was such inordinate delay in arriving at the decision?

I think the hon. Member will realise that the comparative cost of coal and oil had very carefully to be examined and various considerations had to be balanced against the great benefit to which the hon. Member has drawn our attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will initiate a conference of Ministers from countries of the Commonwealth who are concerned with judicial and penal questions, together with expert advisers, to discuss the merits of various penal methods, including the use of corporal punishment.

I understand that a United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders is to be held in Stockholm in August, 1965. This may be proceeded by a series of regional meetings also under United Nations auspices. My right hon. Friend sees no need for a Commonwealth Conference in addition.

This conference will, of course, be welcome. But is the hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that in Tanganyika in our own Commonwealth some convicted prisoners are to have 24 strokes of the cane every year of their imprisonment? Is it not a pity if we cannot assist within the Commonwealth some of our former territories to achieve more quickly than we did in a hundred years of struggle enlightenment on penal procedures, and is not this a direct Government responsibility?

Tanganyika is a sovereign independent State of the Commonwealth, and neither I, my right hon. Friend, nor Her Majesty's Government have any responsibility for it.

Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that when our delegation is being made up for the conference that is to take place it will include representatives from some of our Colonial Territories so that they may enjoy the benefits of more progressive methods of penal reform?

I will bear the views of the hon. Gentleman in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when he intends to wind up the Overseas Migration Board.

It is not at present the intention of my right hon. Friend to wind up the Overseas Migration Board, although it has not had occasion to meet for some time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us are delighted that it is not the present intention to wind up this Board? Will he understand that there can be two interpretations of the phrase "wind up" and that it might be worth while using this Board for positive purposes in Commonwealth Relations?

Migration is going very well. Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that in the last year migration to Canada and New Zealand exceeded that of 1961, and that this year the applications for Australia are three times what they were last year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to say that this Board has not had occasion to meet for some time is extremely ambiguous? Is he aware that the position is that the Minister has decided that the Board should not meet but that the members of the Board—and I am one—would be only too glad to meet if the opportunity were offered, and is not the present position of putting it in cold storage very unsatisfactory?

The Board met last July, and I understand that at that routine meeting all members of the Board agreed that such meetings with no substantive agenda should be discontinued.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter upon the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if Her Majesty's Government will give the fullest support to, and co-operate in, the establishment of a Federation of Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya, including its extension to Somalia and Zanzibar, to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and to Ruanda and Barundi.

The British Government have long believed that Federation would do much to promote the stability and prosperity of East Africa. We therefore warmly welcome the recent announcement by the President of Tanganyika and the Prime Ministers of Uganda and Kenya of their intention to establish a Federation embracing their countries and to invite the Government of Zanzibar, after the forthcoming elections, to participate in the preparatory discussions.

Is the right hon Gentleman aware how all of us welcome the statement which he made? Is he aware that the proposal is not only that this political Federation shall begin but that it shall be established in economic and transport relations with Somalia, Ethiopia, the countries of the Central African Federation, Ruanda, Urundi, and also the Congo? When we have this tremendously hopeful idea, will he give every possible assistance to a proposal which may cause quite a change in the whole pattern in Africa in a hopeful direction?

I am in full agreement with everything that the hon. Member said. I think that the Governments concerned are wise to base the new Federation, in the first place, upon the three Governments which already have embryo federal links through the East African Common Services Organisation, and then to consider extension later.

While welcoming very much indeed what my right hon. Friend told us this afternoon, may I ask whether he can give us any indication when the East African Federation of Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika will come into operation?

I could, but I think that that is a matter for the Governments themselves to state.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will state in respect of Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Uganda, Trinidad and Jamaica for the year 1961–62 the total amount of Government economic assistance; and what percentage of this was returned under the arrangement negotiated by Her Majesty's Government as pensions to retired overseas civil servants.

Since the Answer to the first part of the Question consists of a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report. The Governments to which the hon. Gentleman refers pay pensions to retired overseas officers in discharge of their normal governmental responsibilities. By arrangement with the Nigerian Governments, the British Government pay the pensions of some of the Overseas Officers, who have served there, and are reimbursed from Nigerian funds.

Is it not a typical piece of Treasury self-deception to describe as economic assistance money which we give the newly independent Commonwealth countries in order that they may pay it back to our people here who served the Crown while those countries were still Colonies? Will he at least ensure that this kind of self-deception is not repeated with Kenya and other countries which are approaching their independence?

I think that the hon. Member is possibly getting muddled up with loans for commuting pensions and also for compensation on change of office and status. That is another question.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the progress of the discussions regarding the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia.

Very substantial progress has been made in the constitutional and other preparations for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia. Malayan and Singapore Ministers are at present in London discussing with me certain issues which are still outstanding.

In view of the failure of the Federation in Central Africa and in the West Indies, will the right hon. Gentleman take the utmost care to be sure that the peoples of these territories spontaneously desire this Federation? Has a reply been sent from the Government to the proposal of the Foreign Ministers of Malaya, Indonesia and the Philippines that before the Federation is introduced the United Nations should have the responsibility of investigating whether the peoples of all these territories support this Federation?

I think the hon. Member knows that the peoples of the North Borneo territories demonstrated their desire to join Malaysia in a very clear manner in the elections which took place both in North Borneo and in Sarawak, When the hon. Member speaks of the proposal that the United Nations should send a representative to ascertain their wishes, I think that he is referring lo a recommendation by the Foreign Ministers of the three countries, which attended the Manila conference, to their own Governments. The three Governments are to meet again at Prime Minister level to consider that recommendation. Meanwhile, there have been consultations between the Malayan Government and the British Government.

Are we to take it that in any case the proclamation of the Federation will take place on 31st August? Has the right hon. Gentleman paid any special attention to Brunei, which is in rather an exceptional position? That being so, may I ask him whether the proclamation of the Federa- tion might take place with the exclusion of Brunei for the time being?

The target date for the formation of the Malaysian Federation is 31st August. I hope that the various negotiations on outstanding points will be completed in time to realise that target date, but it depends on the negotiations being completed. We have always made it clear that the question of Brunei was one which must be negotiated between the Government of Brunei and the Government of Malaya. I hope that they, too, will manage to settle any differences which are still out sanding before that date. But that would not of itself hold up the formation of the Federation.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he said about the United Nations and re-state the principle that relations between Commonwealth territories shall be settled within the Commonwealth and not within the United Nations?

I did not state any principle. I tried merely to remind the House that what has happened is that the Foreign Minsters of the Philippines, Malaya and Indonesia have made a recommendation to their own Governments. That is the present position.

Would not the Secretary of State agree that on the narrower question of the realisation of the Federation of Malaysia it is not so much a question of further ascertaining the wishes of the people, for a great attempt has been made to do that, as of securing a successful financial settlement between the various Governments? In view of the very great importance of this whole area to the Federation, and of pressing these matters to a conclusion next month, will he do everything in his power to facilitate a successful conclusion to these predominantly financial arrangements?

The differences are not exclusively or even primarily between the British Government and the others. Certain difficulties have arisen in the negotiations between the Government of Singapore and the Government of Malaya. I am trying to sort them out. It is not easy, but I am hopeful that we shall still find satisfactory solutions.

asked the Minister of Education if he will introduce legislation to control the standards of blazers and other items of school uniforms.

My right hon. Friend does not propose to introduce legislation on this matter, which is one for the local education authorities and the school.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is an important problem for parents, who feel that they should not be asked to provide school uniforms for their children without some sort of guarantee that the clothes will give value and reasonable wear for the money spent, which many of them have a very tight squeeze to afford? Since local education committees and head teachers are becoming concerned about shoddy blazers and other garments, would he make a fresh approach to the problem, in consultation with them, with a view to providing a standard which is more satisfactory both in respect of value for money and in respect of wear?

I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of this subject and with much else that she said. Education proceeds on the basis of a partnership in this country; there are some things which are the responsibility of the central Government and some which are the responsibility of local education authorities. This is a matter which I think properly falls to the local education authorities who will, I am sure, have taken note of the reference to school uniforms in the Molony Report.

asked the Minister of Education if, as a result of the co-operation of certain local education authorities and firms in developing non-vocational day release courses, referred to in pages 32 and 33 of his last annual report, he will issue a circular of advice to local education authorities to encourage the broadening of day-release curricula.

The desirability of broadening the studies of day release and other students was stressed in the Circular on the organisation of further education courses which my right hon. Friend sent to local education authorities and colleges on 18th February. A booklet on "General Education in Technical Colleges" was published with a similar object last year. I am sending the hon. Member copies of these.

Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, whereas many local education authorities and employers run very successful vocational courses, there is far less enthusiasm for liberal and non-vocational courses? Will he keep up the pressure in this respect so that a good foundation can be laid ultimately for carrying out the recommendations of the Crowther Report about day release?

Yes. This was a matter upon which the Crowther Report laid particular emphasis, and we are determined to pursue it.

asked the Minister of Education how many schemes for village halls, community centres and playing fields he has approved under the Physical Training and Recreation Act in the current building programme; and what are the total capital grants allocated to the voluntary bodies in each category.

During 1962–63, my right hon. Friend made firm offers of grant totalling £176,500 for 170 village hall schemes, £36,000 for 17 community centre schemes and £93,500 for 67 playing field schemes. These schemes are not at present covered by a formal building programme.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure is still not up to that for 1961–62? Has he not an obligation to make bigger grants in the current year than were made in 1961–62 in order to bring it up to that level? Surely there is a great need to encourage this activity?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council announced a considerable advance in this matter in the House of Lords recently. As a result we shall be making more generous grants—more generous in a number of ways—to sports bodies.

asked the Minister of Education when he will announce his revised proposals for next year's school-building programme.

My right hon. Friend will shortly approve a limited number of additional projects for the 1964–65 school-building programme. These will in the main provide places urgently needed to keep pace with new housing developments. The final size of the 1964–65 programme depends on the outcome of the Government's review of capital investment and the capacity of the building industry. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in the near future.

What is the value of the additional proposals the Minister is prepared to approve? Will there be any addition for the replacement of obsolete schools?

There will be virtually no additions for replacement jobs among this group of additional projects that my right hon. Friend is about to announce, because this money falls within the original total announced. The Government review of investment is still awaited.

asked the Minister of Education (1) if he is aware of the difficulties with which the Kent Education Committee are faced as a result of the limited capital allocation for major school-building projects; and, in view of the general concern in Kent, if he will make a statement on his decision to approve an allocation of £1¼ million for the major building programme for 1964–65 against the proposed programme of over £4½ million submitted by the Kent Education Committee;

My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties facing the Kent Local Education Authority, but in compiling the Major Building Programme for 1964–65 he gave priority to projects required in areas of new housing where children would otherwise have no schools to go to, and to projects designed to complete the reorganisation of all-age schools. All projects submitted by the Kent authority that came within these categories were included in their programme, together with one secondary school improvement project. Since the programme was announced the authority has submitted a number of additional projects, and these are under consideration.

How can the Parliamentary Secretary defend such a scandalous state of affairs? Is he not aware that in Kent there are sub-standard schools; that more families are moving in; that children are staying longer at school, and that in 1967–68 the so-called bulge will, in the secondary schools, be an explosion? Is he not aware that his right hon. Friend, who was welcomed as Minister of Education, has now been denounced on all sides and, even for the right hon. Gentleman's low standards, is it not a terrible thing that 21 out of 25 proposals for secondary schools should be rejected?

The hon. Member might reflect on the fact that total education building starts have been increased by 43 per cent. in the course of this Parliament, which would hardly seem to justify his language. My right hon. Friend recognises that there are urgent needs still to be met in this authority's area, as in others, and I have told the hon. Gentleman that the fresh applications that have been made by the authority are under active consideration, and that my right hon. Friend hopes to make announcements about further projects in a short time.

Would my hon. Friend convey to our right hon. Friend that all of us would like more schools—this problem does not apply to Kent alone—but that we appreciate what has already been done and look forward to his constructive proposals for the future?

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to encourage suitable persons to enter the field of educational research.

The commissions my right hon. Friend is making from his research fund have led to the creation of a number of new research posts at various levels. In addition, my right hon. Friend has approached the University Grants Committee about strengthening staff and equipment in universities for general educational research. As a result, the Committee has recently offered certain universities recurrent grants for this purpose, provision for which was made in the increased grants announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 9th May. The recruitment of staff is of course a matter for the universities themselves, but the Committee feels sure, as does my right hon. Friend, that the resulting new posts will attract more first class people to a career in educational research.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the first requirement is a willingness to spend more money on educational research? At present we are spending a very small fraction of 1 per cent. of our total expenditure on education on research. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, after money, the biggest bottleneck is the supply of personnel? In view of the difficulties of recruitment, training, and the establishment of career prospects, and in view of the need to integrate these people into the education service, will not be set up a committee to review this problem, or refer it to one of his advisory bodies?

I will certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the sums spent upon research have been increasing. My right hon. Friend sees clearly the need here, both for appropriate training arrangements and for a better career structure. My right hon. Friend is not resting on what has been done, but a promising start has been made.

asked the Prime Minister by what authority the Secretary to the Cabinet at the time cautioned a Minister of the Crown and Privy Councillor on a matter of security on 9th August, 1961.

Lord Norman brook, who was a Member of the Privy Council, Secretary of the Cabinet and official head of the Home Civil Service, informed Mr. Profumo of certain facts which had come to the knowledge of the Security Service and alerted him to the possible security implications of those facts. Lord Normanbrook was acting in the course of his duty and required no special authority.

In view of that, may we assume that Lord Normanbrook did not minute or mention a matter concerning a member of the Defence Committee and a Minister of the Crown to the Prime Minister himself? Since when has it become the practice for the Prime Minister or any other Minister to cast the blame or cast doubt on the duties or the effectiveness or the work of a civil servant in this country?

In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, Lord Normanbrook made a minute which is in his files. He made quite clear what he did and that he did not report it to me. I am not in the least attempting to put blame on to him, but I thought it right to tell the House the facts.

Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that some of us recall the former Secretary of State for his careful, sympathetic and compassionate attention to individual cases and that the invocation—

"That mercy I to others show,

That mercy show to me."

Yes, but I still thought it right to tell the House the facts. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Prime Minister whether the report on John Profumo made to his private secretary by a newspaper manager was in written form; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, No, Sir. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? In the House of Commons Manual of Procedure, paragraph 168 lays down that where a Minister of the Crown refers to a document, or, I take it, a report, he should lay that document on the Table of the House. In this case the Prime Minister refuses to lay this letter on the Table.

In any event, it is much too late to raise that in relation to the Prime Minister's speech; but I thought the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no such document.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to determine the conditions upon which persons appointed to the Privy Council after having held office in the United Kingdom may continue to be members of the Council, and to provide for cessation of membership.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to define the conditions upon which persons subject to the constitutional law of the United Kingdom may remain members of the Privy Council, and to provide for retirement from the Council.

No, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he wrote to me asking me, when this Question was originally down on Tuesday, to postpone the Question because he wanted to give the Answer on Thursday? Before that he said that he intended to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to reply. It was at his suggestion that the Question was postponed. Why could not the Deputy Prime Minister have given this Answer on Tuesday, as the Prime Minister at first suggested?

Because the matter was still under consideration. A submission had been made to Her Majesty which she was graciously pleased to approve, and the matter has been dealt with. I should have thought that the House would like to leave the matter there.

Hear, hear.

Whilst I am sure that the whole House would hope that the circumstances which prompted this Question will never occur again, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if the Government took power whereby the initiative in these matters rested with them rather than with the erring member of the Privy Council?

I think that the House would probably feel that it is best to leave the matter now where it is.

In view of the desire of some hon. Members that certain Privy Councillors should renounce their membership of the Privy Council, is the Prime Minister aware that in this assembly there exists at least a majority of hon. Members who are dying to become Privy Councillors?

Would it not be infinitely better to leave the ancient traditions of appointment to the Privy Council completely unchanged?

That is why this took a little time. Mr. Profumo wrote on 13th June asking that some way should be found to enable him to divest himself of his Privy Councillorship. The precedents were somewhat obscure, and it took a little time to devise what appeared to be the right way to carry out his wishes. I think that the submission which Her Majesty accepted was the right one in the circumstances.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will propose to President Kennedy that the two Governments should seek to secure agreement on a settlement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics before further building up the military power of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

I am sure the House will realise that it would not be appropriate to go into detail on the possible subjects for my talks with President Kennedy. But I will, of course, bear the hon. Gentleman's ideas in mind.

While appreciating what the Prime Minister has just said—and I thank him for saying that he will bear these remarks in mind—would he also bear in mind the fact that the present situation is highly unsatisfactory; where any member of N.A.T.O. may commit us to be incinerated for policies over which we have no control and with which we do not agree; for example, that of the United States in the case of Cuba? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the military and political merits of the mixed-manned fleet have just been submitted to some fairly vigorous criticism in another place and that a high military authority, Lord Montgomery, without exaggeration may be said to have shown less than wholehearted enthusiasm for the proposal?

All these varied points will be borne in mind.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer one point of detail and say which language the proposed multilateral fleet would use? Would it be English or would it be multilateral?

That is another question which must be borne in mind.

Before my right hon. Friend makes a final decision on this difficult problem, will he give adequate consideration to the bitter opposition of the Soviet Government to the rearming of Germany, even by indirect methods, with nuclear weapons?

That, also, is relevant.

asked the Prime Minister whether the inquiry announced by him on 21st June, 1963, to be undertaken by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, will be required to investigate any matters within the responsibility of the Admiralty.

I am not myself aware of any matters within the responsibility of the Admiralty which fall within Lord Denning's terms of reference. If the hon. Member has any information of this character, no doubt he will send it to Lord Denning in accordance with his public request.

Am I not right in understanding that matters concerned with the Admiralty should fall within the ambit of this investigation because Ivanov was a naval attaché of some sort? Surely that would arise? Did the Prime Minister know, when he selected Lord Denning for this appointment, that Lord Denning's brother was the Director of Naval Intelligence at the Admiralty?

I think the whole House would feel that there is no possible connection with what Lord Denning would do in carrying out his duties.

asked the Prime Minister whether persons appearing before Lord Denning in the course of his forthcoming inquiry will be permitted representation by counsel or solicitors in the same manner as persons appearing before a tribunal of inquiry.

Lord Denning has asked those who have information for his report to communicate with him and has stated that any information he receives will be treated by him with the strictest confidence and used by him only for the purposes of his inquiry and report.

Is it not a fact that the Devlin Commission into the so-called massacre plot in Nyasaland was an inquiry held in secret also, but that Dr. Banda and his colleagues were, without question, allowed legal representation? Should not the same consideration be extended to citizens of this country in this situation? If there are cases in which Lord Denning does allow counsel to appear, will arrangements be made for legal aid to be extended to the people who wish to avail themselves of this opportunity?

I think that the major question is covered in the second part of my reply. I feel sure that the House can rely on Lord Denning to exercise his discretion wisely in this matter.

If it is conceded that there is a right here for legal representation, will the Prime Minister now answer my question about legal aid? Will he see that legal aid is given to those who want to take advantage of this opportunity on at least as generous a scale as we have been promised will operate in the case of the Vassall Tribunal?

I will consider that point. It is not in the Question, but I will consider it.

asked the Prime Minister what information he now has regarding the proposed state visit of the King and Queen of the Hellenes.

The Greek Prime Minister told the Greek Parliament on 24th June that it is not intended that there should be any change in existing plans.

While we all hope that Their Majesties will not be physically molested, as the Home Secretary has confirmed did not occur on a previous occasion, has the Prime Minister warned the Greek Government that there will be demonstrations on quite a substantial scale and that Her Majesty's Government will have no right whatever to stop those demonstrations if they are peaceful?

We all hope for the success of this visit, which marks a very long and close alliance between Britain and Greece in two wars. That friendship was temporarily obscured over the Cyprus problem but, that having been settled, this visit seemed an admirable opportunity to restore that ancient friendship. On the special question, we have told the Greek Government that while we will take every precaution to see that there will be no incidents that will give rise to personal molestation, the ordinary rights of peaceful demonstration are, of course, part also of our tradition here.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the British responsibilities as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, in his talks with President Kennedy he will discuss with him the pursuance of a joint policy in South Vietnam consistent with the provisions of the 1954 agreements and the prescriptions of the United Nations Charter.

The United States and British Governments are already agreed on policies in South Vietnam consistent with the 1954 Agreement and the United Nations Charter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that by constituting South Vietnam as a base for harbouring and supplying to other parts of South-East Asia American troops and arms, the United States is breaking the provisions of the 1954 Act and that recently she has been adding to that by spraying crops, fruit and so on in order, ostensibly, to smoke out Communists but at the same time poisoning people? Does he not think that these things today are sufficiently serious to warrant him having a little talk with President Kennedy about them to see if they cannot be ironed out in the interests of peace?

I think that the whole House knows our view on this. South Vietnamese are entitled to ask for foreign advice and assistance for ending insurgency originating and stimulated from abroad. At the same time, we have done everything possible, at Geneva with our allies and in other forms of negotiations, to try to keep this dangerous position under control.

If they are merely being encouraged from abroad, as is said, and not sometimes inspired by the United States, will the right hon. Gentleman say why a Buddhist priest, in a world protest, burned himself to death in public in protest against these happenings?

We must consider the long history of this affair and the general view that we and our allies should do everything we can. We have had good negotiations with the Russian Government to try to prevent this from becoming a danger point in the world.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that an essential condition of the continuation of the alliance with America is the existence of a guarantee against the danger of the United Kingdom being involved in a nuclear war as the result of decisions over which she has no control; and if he will convey this point to President Kennedy in their forthcoming talks.

As the hon. Member is aware, the British Government's policy towards the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Alliance is well-known. No new assurances about it are required. I believe that this policy is supported by at least the majority of his hon. Friends.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one occasion comes to mind when that policy was not supported on this side of the House? Does he recollect not so long ago there was a time when we were called on to intervene in policies in which we had no shaping? Will he say to President Kennedy, gently and nicely, that we do not want to see any more Cubas taking place involving us in policies over which we have no control?

I think the House as a whole feels that, on this question of what the hon. Member calls a Cuba matter, the result achieved was one which maintained the peace of the world without endangering its freedom.

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will, in the fairly near future, want to debate the question of Southern Rhodesia? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the First Secretary, on his return from the conference at Victoria Falls, the desirability of his making a full and urgent statement on the results of the conference, and on the whole question of Southern Rhodesia, so that the House can debate the matter with the fullest possible information that the First Secretary can give us?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary would be willing to do that, and I will, of course, take into account what has been said about a debate. There is a possibility—and, perhaps, more than a possibility—that we might have to bring legislation before the House before the end of the Session.

Following my question last week about the possibility of a debate on Commonwealth trade and the G.A.T.T. negotiations, can my right hon. Friend now say whether, out of either Opposition time on Supply days, or out of Government time, there will be a debate on these important matters, on which early day Motions have been put forward by hon. Members on both sides, and widely supported?

My right hon. Friend has made his point about Supply days; he knows that the responsibility for their allocation lies with the Opposition. As to Government time, he will realise from the letter I sent him that I did not make any firm promise, but that I have undertaken to consider the important case he makes with those of the other claimants for time during the remaining weeks of the Session.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the foreign affairs debate, the Government spokesmen will state the Government's proposals about the mixed-manned multilateral force? Do the Government propose to present their views on that force to the House during the debate?

Not in the sense that any final conclusions would be announced to the House, but no doubt the subject will come into that debate. The form of the debate is a matter for the Chair, but I understand that the debate each day would probably be taken on the Adjournment, and it might be convenient for the House if the debate on one of the days concentrated on foreign affairs generally and the other generally on defence, although, naturally, if the debates are taken on the Adjournment this is a matter for hon. Members themselves.

Is the Leader of the House aware that we welcome his statement that there is not to be any final decision, or commitment, if it is the one that some of us fear may be in the Government's mind; and that it is highly desirable that the Government should hear the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House on this question before coming to any decision or commitment?

I entirely agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and, in so far as we can be of help to the House, by all means let us have consultations, but I made the point, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred that, subject to the ordinary rules, if the debate is to take place on the Adjournment the form is a matter for the House. But we would wish to meet the convenience of the House by, for example, having speakers like the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of Defence, if they are to speak in the debate, at the appropriate stages of the two-day debate. I think that consultations on things like that could be helpful.

As the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure is not to be taken tonight, can my right hon. Friend say when it will be taken, and will he bear in mind his promise to take it at a reasonable hour of the day?

I cannot say when it will be taken—it is not Government business. All I can do is to try to be helpful to the House, because this is a matter that many hon. Members regard as of great importance, and try to see that it comes on at a reasonable hour. I cannot be more precise than that. I would hope to find a suitable opportunity in, say, the next two or three weeks.

What does the Leader of the House propose to do about the Motion that appears on the Order Paper in my name, expressing disapproval of the fact that the Leader of the House in another place should, in a debate there, have made imputations against the conduct of business in this House?

I should not have thought that the two matters are quite as separate as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has suggested. On the second, and perhaps more important, matter, some consultations have taken place. I have no proposal for finding time for the hon. Member's Motion.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that nearly two years have gone by since my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Defence, then Minister of Aviation, promised early legislation on the establishment of an authority to deal with the international airports of England? May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this would be an agreeable and relatively uncontroversial matter to include in the legislative programme which he is surely thinking about?

I am certainly thinking about the legislative programme, but it does not concern next week's business.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) about his Motion, and our exchanges yesterday, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility that the action of the Leader of another place may have been in contravention of Article IX of the Bill of Rights?

I have not had that point drawn to my attention. I am quite ready to look at it.

Having regard to Monday's debate on naval dockyards, may I ask my right hon Friend whether he can say when time can be found to debate the Rochdale Report on the docks?

No, Sir, but there is an undertaking that it will be debated before we rise for the Summer Recess.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Parking Places (Scotland) Order designates places in the Midlands and the south of England where work may be found by some of our 90,000 unemployed for whom the Government have so miserably failed to find work in their own country?

I doubt even the ingenuity of the hon. Lady to get that point in the debate.

As my right hon. Friend knows, many of us have been expecting any day now a statement by the Colonial Secretary on the outcome of his discussions with Mr. Mboya and the Kenya Government delegation who have been over here. Can my right hon. Friend say why it has not been made and when it will be made?

My right hon. Friend will certainly be making a statement at an early date—I think within the period of the business which I have announced.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the House has been promised a White Paper on defence. Can he say when that will be published and will a debate take place before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

I cannot give an undertaking about that. It is a possibility.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishing industry is likely to face serious difficulties at the end of this year? Is he also aware that his right hon. Friend is initiating a European conference of the fishing industry countries? Could the House have an opportunity of discussing the whole of the fishing industry of this country before that conference takes place?

I cannot see an early opportunity for that. I certainly agree about its importance, but we are concerned with business for a fairly limited period before the House.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will find time to discuss their own 10-year plan for the development of the health and welfare services? Is he aware that in the event of an autumn election it is not unlikely that the Conservative Party will wish to put this in its programme and that it is desirable, therefore, that the House should discuss it before we rise for the Recess?

I am not very enthusiastic about finding time to discuss election manifestoes.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in announcing next week's business, has not given a date, about which there was a reasonably firm promise, on which we could discuss the future of the House and accommodation for hon. Members. In view of the fact that we probably have a week or two for him to consider it in collaboration with the Minister of Public Building and Works, will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a White Paper to show hon. Members the kind of things which are contemplated for their convenience in future? Will the right hon. Gentleman do this, particularly bearing in mind that the scheme for building above the Chamber is to start this summer and that work on the precincts is to start next year, and that it is as well that the House when consulted should know what it is talking about?

That is an admirable proposition. I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend. It may well be that we can find a convenient way of giving information to the House before the debate.

Will not the House be handicapped in the debate on defence by the fact that there is not a Secretary of State for War? [Hon. Members: "There is."] Who is he?

While my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is obviously a little behind the times in this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the transfer of the Minister of State from the Foreign Office—the only Minister, as far as we know, who has departmental responsibility for disarmament—to become Secretary of State for War means that there will be no Minister available to the House next week to talk about the important question of disarmament?

I am not sure whether this is in order, but I must say that I do not think that that follows.