asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Central Electricity Generating Board that it should curtail further increases in the cost of electricity supplies to the area boards.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the continued rise in the costs of the products and services of the nationalised industries is causing very grave concern to members of the general public, particularly to that section of the public who exist on small fixed incomes? Will my hon. Friend consider submitting the workings and whether an increase in price is required by a nationalised industry to, perhaps, the Monopolies Commission to see whether, in fact, some rise is justified?

No, Sir. I must remind my hon. Friend that the bulk supply tariff is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. The Board stated that the reason for the recent increase was the larger capital expenditure, heavy increases in running costs and increases in transmission costs. I do not think that I can help my hon. Friend.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the increase in the price of electricity compares favourably with increases in prices generally and that the Select Committee of this House which reported on the electricity supply industry submitted the proposition that the consumers were getting very good value for money?

I do not disagree.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied with the present constitution of the electricity consultative council in South Wales; and what plans he has to strengthen it.

Yes, Sir, and I would like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the work of its members.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply is rather a complacent one? Is he really satisfied that these consultative councils have sufficient power, and examine these rises sufficiently closely, to say, when an increase is passed on to the public, that it is entirely justified?

I am in very close touch with these consultative councils and without in any way being complacent I am satisfied that they do a very useful job. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that all the members of these councils, except the chairmen, give their services for nothing and really do make a very useful contribution to the industry.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is aware that the several area electricity boards are adopting different policies towards meeting the cost of placing supplies underground in the National Parks; and whether he will issue general directions to the area electricity boards to adopt a common policy towards this problem.

The answer to the first part is "Yes"; to the second, "No"; this is a matter which is and should be within the discretion of boards to settle in the light of particular circumstances.

Arising from that reply, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that those who farm or live in National Parks in the area of the North Eastern Electricity Board are so penalised by prohibitive charges for taking the lines underground that often they cannot afford to have electricity, while in National Parks in the areas of other boards the cost is spread over the whole area? Is not this quite contrary to the spirit of the Electricity Act, bearing in mind that those who get the advantage of these underground lines are not those who farm and live in National Parks, but those who farm and live outside and who visit the National Parks?

I am, of course, aware of the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend has referred, but I very much regret that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend wrote to him recently on the subject.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter at an early opportunity.

asked the Minister of Power what objections he has received to the building in Dorset of the largest electricity pylons ever built in Great Britain.

Objections were raised by Dorset County Council and a number of other bodies and individuals. The objections were considered at a public inquiry held at Dorchester in December, 1962, and January, 1963.

Is it not the fact that hose inquiries related to the route and not to the fact that the largest pylons ever were to be reserved for an exceptionally beautiful county, much more beautiful than a lot of the National Parks, and that the reasons for this are simply not understood? Why is it necessary that we should have larger pylons than anybody else?

I do not think that Dorset has been in any way singled out for special treatment. The towers which carry this 400 kV line will be the same in Dorset as elsewhere. Everybody regrets the necessity for them, but it is difficult to produce a practical alternative.

Is it not a fact that they will be larger than any previous pylons, as we have been informed locally by representatives of the board?

The 400 kV line is itself a larger affair than we have had pre- viously. The normal height of these towers is 165 ft. In some circumstances, they may go up to 195 or 215 ft. to give the necessary clearance.

asked the Minister of Power the total electrical generating capacity of the Central Electricity Generating Board in June, 1964; how this compares with June, 1958; and what additional capacity is now under contract or construction.

Total capacity in June, 1964, was 33,151 megawatts sent out and this was 10,553 megawatts greater than in June, 1958. An additional 28,990 megawatts of capacity is now under contract or construction.

In welcoming the advance which these figures reveal, may I ask my hon. Friend what margin of capacity will be available in the coming winter as compared with last year? Will he indicate also the amount of spare capacity of oil-fired stations in the United Kingdom at the present time?

The gross margins of plant in average cold spell weather are now slightly better. These figures, I must tell my hon. Friend, do not allow for plant out of commission. In 1963–64, the margin was 8·8 per cent. In 1964–65, it will be 9 per cent.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the increase in the oil-burning power stations adds a hazard to health by the increased discharge of sulphur dioxide in the air, which in conditions of fog affects both human lungs and buildings? Is anything being done to deal with this health hazard?

Considerable research goes into this matter, on which, I believe I am right in saying, even medical opinion is divided. I remind my hon. Friend, however, that before consent is given to the construction of any power station, my right hon. Friend has to be satisfied that there is no risk to health.

asked the Minister of Power how much generating capacity of the Central Electricity Generating Board in June, 1964, was nuclear-powered; how this compares with June, 1958; and what additional capacity is now under construction.

Total nuclear capacity in June, 1964, was 576 kW sent out, all of which was brought into operation since 1958. An additional 3,870 mW of nuclear capacity is now under construction.

While I congratulate my hon. Friend on the advance which these figures disclose, may I ask whether his programme is justified, bearing in mind that the capital cost of plant for nuclear power stations is about £100 per kW as compared with only £35 per kW for conventional stations?

Yes, Sir. Our experience so far will prove to be most valuable in the future. I should remind my hon. Friend that it is expected that nuclear power will become competitive with conventional stations in the early 1970s. Thereafter, it should become cheaper.

Will this be from the American type reactors or from the A.G.R.?

That would be looking far into the future.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent steel imports contributed adversely to the trade balance in the first four months of 1964; and what steps he intends to take to remedy the situation.

The c.i.f. value of steel imports in the first four months of 1964 was £37 million. The f.o.b. value of steel exports in the same period was £62 million. In reply to the second part of the Question I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's Answer of 16th June.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the present position is very serious and very unsatisfactory? Is it not the case that imports in the first five months of this year—it was four months in the Question, but since it was put down later figures have come out—have doubled compared with the same period last year and that many motor car manufacturers admit that they are buying overseas steel because of the inferior quality of the sheet steel which they are getting from our own industrialists? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is very unsatisfactory?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Iron and Steel Board has been looking into the reasons for increased imports and I expect to hear from it very shortly. It has very nearly completed its inquiry.

While the Iron and Steel Board is looking into it, is it not already evident that at the time when people in the industry were on short-time working—working three instead of five or six shifts—it would have been much more sensible, as was urged on the Government from this side of the House at the time, to stock steel in order to have it ready at the present time?

No, I cannot agree with that.

Is it not true that a lot of these steel imports are coming from Canada, and would not my hon. Friend further agree that the tariff against our exports of steel to Canada is in many cases 17½ per cent. whereas there is free entry into this country for Canadian steel? Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to look into this serious disparity in the tariff structure?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Is not the Minister aware that in the spring of this year the Government introduced an Order to reduce import duties on many steel products from the Continent of Europe so that the motor car industry in this country could get the products which it so much required from the Continent because they were not available from the industry in this country?

That is not a matter for my Department.

asked the Minister of Power why the Iron and Steel Holdings and Realisation Agency has again turned down an application on behalf of the Baker and Bessemers' employees for compensation; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the Agency is informing claimants of the reasons for its decision. They can appeal against the Agency's decision to a tribunal under the procedure laid down by the Iron and Steel Act, 1953.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if the men from Baker and Bessemers who are now unemployed do not receive compensation they will be very harshly dealt with? Is it not true that the consortium which purchased Baker and Bessemers from the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, as in the case of the English Steel Company and the other company which purchased from the consortium, knew at the time that this plant was to be closed down? Will he make certain that compensation is paid to these men who have been so harshly dealt with?

I must make it clear that my right hon. Friend is required by the 1953 Act to make regulations. He is not responsible for dealing with individual cases. It would be dangerous and wrong for me to comment on a matter which can, and perhaps should, go to the tribunal set up for the purpose.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the effect on steel prices of the ruling given recently by the Restrictive Practices Court, and on the use of his powers in this regard.

asked the Minister of Power if he will direct the Iron and Steel Board to review the system of laying down maximum prices for steel, in view of the ruling by the Restrictive Practices Court that certain price agreements based on these prices are contrary to the public interest.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the Iron and Steel Board consequent on the ruling by the Restrictive Practices Court on steel price agreements.

As the Iron and Steel Board has said, the judgment is not likely in this period of high demand to have any marked immediate impact on prices. Nor does it call for the exercise of the Minister's statutory powers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this period of very high demand may not last? Is he not aware that we are asking what his intentions are? Is it his intention to leave this so-called highly competitive and very efficient industry to go on all the time safeguarding itself on the basis of controlled prices? Does he not wish to see a little more competition in prices enter into the industry?

The position is quite clear. The Conservative Government set up the Restrictive Practices Court. The Government also decided not to exclude the iron and steel industry from its jurisdiction. An important judgment has now been delivered, and naturally, my right hon. Friend would wish to consult the Iron and Steel Board and the industry before deciding future policy.

The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Minister would wish to consult the Iron and Steel Board. But he said that he was answering Question No. 22 which asks what consultations the Minister has had with the Iron and Steel Board. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when his right hon. Friend will initiate discussions with the Iron and Steel Board and with what end in view? Is it not the fact that part of the steel industry's case before the Restrictive Practices Court was that it was operating on prices laid down by the Iron and Steel Board and this system of price fixing was the basis of the agreement under review? Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Minister agrees with the ruling of the Restrictive Practices Court?

It is not for me to agree or to disagree with the judgment of the court. I apologise to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) if any confusion was caused by my use of tenses in my Answer. Perhaps I may say to him that whatever system may be evolved to produce a virile, competitive steel industry, public ownership would probably be the last one we should think of.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the objects of the Restrictive Practices Court was to ensure ample competition in the economy, and that nationalisation could not effect this?

Accepting, as no doubt the Government do, that these agreements were not in the national interest, what do they propose to do about it?

I think I am right in saying that the court decided that they were not in the national interest because they were not necessary. As I have said, at a time of high demand the judgment of the court is unlikely to have an immediate effect on steel prices. The matter is still under consideration and it is a difficult problem.

Surely the Minister must appreciate—after all that we have been hearing about the importance of this industry and the need for freedom and the rest of it—that this judgment is something which demands action from the Government? Are we to understand—irrespective of what may have been said by the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development—that the Government are not prepared to do anything at all?

The judgment of the court demands action by the industry, though one is perfectly prepared to have suggestions from all sides about what should be done. Nevertheless, I find those from advocates of public ownership most surprising.

As there is, apparently, some confusion in the minds of hon. Members about what was the ruling of the Restrictive Practices Court, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make the text available to hon. Members?

I should like to consider that.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will inquire into the volume of recent purchases of steel from foreign countries by British motor companies.

The Iron and Steel Board has nearly completed its examination of steel imports and will be covering this. I expect to hear from it shortly.

Is the hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that purchases of steel from abroad made by British motor companies are not disadvantageous to the legitimate interests of the steel industry? When he receives this report from the Board will he give a guarantee that if it is reported that in fact purchases have been made because the ownership of some of these motor companies is in foreign countries, he will take immediate action to protect the legitimate interests of the steel industry in this country?

I should like to see the report first.

Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been drawn to a recent report in The Guardian that the Ford works at Dagenham admitted importing 20 per cent. of its sheet steel from the Continent because of the unsatisfactory quality of the steel from our own industry? Is this evidence of a highly efficient and highly competitive British steel industry?

I have no reason to think that British sheet steel is inferior. In point of fact, the standard of this product from both of the new mills at Llanwern and Ravenscraig is first-class. I should very much regret any suggestion going from this House that our material is inferior.

I am grateful to the Minister for his tribute to the steel produced in the nationalised steelworks at Llanwern. In view of the report to which my hon. Friend referred, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's Ministry has made full inquiries, because many of us believe it may be that purchases made by the Ford Company are not due to any inferiority of British steel but to the fact that the ownership of some of these motor companies resides in foreign countries, a fact about which the Government appear to be completely careless?

That is a matter for which I have no responsibility. Nor do I accept the innuendo behind what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have told him already that this, among other matters, is being covered by the Iron and Steel Board in its present inquiry of which I am awaiting the result.

When will the result be available?

I have told the hon. Gentleman—shortly.

asked the Minister of Power what were the sales of open-grate and other solid smokeless fuels in the domestic market in the year ended March, 1964, in the previous year, and in 1958.

asked the Minister of Power how the domestic sales of open-grate and other solid smokeless fuels compared with supplies in the year ended March, 1964; and what are the prospects for them in the current year.

In the year ended March, 1964, supplies were generally adequate though there were a few temporary or local shortages of particular kinds of fuel. This year supplies are again expected to be adequate; in particular, production of specially reactive open-grate fuels should increase.

In thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him

Sales in the year ended March, 1964, were 7·4 million compared with 7·3 million tons in the previous year and 5·7 million tons in 1958. With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing how these figures are divided between the different kinds of fuel.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this rate of increase in the sale of smokeless fuels? Will he say how far these sales have been affected by a shortage of supply?

I cannot say. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that last year there was an addition to stocks of Gloco and even of the more popular specially reactive fuels. I do not think that there is any ground for anticipating a large increase in demand.

Stocks of gas coke at present stand at 1·9 million tons, but demnad for it is still falling. I will not add to what I have said in answer to previous supplementary questions.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he takes before orders for smokeless zones are confirmed to ensure that smokeless fuels of high quality are available.

It is for the local authorities to discuss their requirements with the producers and suppliers and to base their smoke control orders on the fuels that can be made available.

Is the Minister aware that the local branch of the coal merchants' association in my constituency confirms that certain types of smokeless fuel are very inferior? Does he realise that an old-age pensioner told me that she had to light her fire 15 times in one day, at considerable expense, to try to keep the fire going? In view of these circumstances, should not the Department be satisfied that an efficient quality of smokeless fuel is available before the Minister confirms smokeless zones?

It is true that at one time last winter a bad batch of Gloco was produced by the Scottish Gas Board, but this matter has been put right. I can only say that I sympathise with the unhappy experience to which the hon. Member has referred.

asked the Minister of Power if he will now seek power to control the retail price of smokeless fuels; and if he will make a statement.

No.

It will be appreciated that I anticipated the hon. Gentleman's reply. Is he aware that something should be done about this? Does he realise that pensioners are paying more than 15s. for a bag of smokeless fuel and that this is a particularly high cost in relation to a pensioner's income and quite costly to the general public? Should he not take some action to ensure that the price of smokeless fuel is controlled within the limits of the public purse?

Perhaps I might first congratulate the hon. Member on the shrewdness with which he anticipated my reply. Secondly, I am afraid that I must tell him that I do not believe that price control would be effective.

Is it not a fact that the thermal efficiency of good smokeless fuel is greater than that of ordinary fuel and that the cost in return for heat given is probably lower than for the ordinary type of fuel?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That is correct.

asked the Minister of Power in view of the current shortage of smokeless fuel, when sufficient quantities of the right type of smokeless fuel at reasonable prices will be available in the North-West.

There is no present shortage of solid smokeless fuels. I have no reason for thinking that present prices are unreasonable in relation to costs of supply.

I do not know what will be thought about that reply in the Northwest. Is my hon. Friend aware that many towns in the North-West have suspended their smoke control orders because of this problem? Is he also aware that the greatest danger lies in the possibility of the breakdown of the control orders which have already been granted? I do not accept his Answer.

This puts me in a very great difficulty, because I do not know what alternative answer I can offer to my hon. Friend. Of course I am aware of the problem, but prices, as I have told my hon. Friend, and as I have previously said, must reflect the cost of production. I very much hope that local authorities which are hesitant or doubtful about going ahead with clean air schemes because of the difficulties will accept that immense benefits would flow from a successful clear air policy and not be deterred.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the uncertainty of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I give notice that I should like to raise the matter on another occasion.

asked the Minister of Power what is the most recent statistical information he has as to the current brick output of the National Coal Board; and how this compares with the same period last year.

205 million bricks between January and May this year, as against 187·5 million in the same months of last year.

In view of the shortage of bricks and the reluctance of private brick makers to invest more in the industry, would the hon. Gentleman consider making available to the National Coal Board more capital so that it can increase its already rising production of bricks to alleviate the shortage?

Brick production as a whole is not a matter for me. I am afraid that I could not hold out any promise to furnish the National Coal Board with the funds for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. It may interest him to know, however, that the Board has recently announced the construction of a new plant at Desford, at a cost of £900,000, to produce 50 million bricks a year.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the National Coal Board has made a good job of this brick making?

With great help from the Conservative Government, the national Coal Board has done very well in this field.

asked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to enable him to control the retail price of coal.

No, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman find a way of dealing with the particular point that in many towns coal in 28 1b. parcels is being sold in paper bags at 3s. 5d., which works out at £13 13s. 4d. per ton? As it is the poorest people who have to buy their coal in such small quantities, could not the hon. Gentleman take some action to control coal margins to bring the price down?

On the general question of the price of coal, I do not think that there is anybody more anxious than the National Coal Board to keep it competitive. That is quite clear, and I am satisfied about it. On the second point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the bagging and packaging of coal is very expensive. Each bag costs 6d., and this materially adds to the price.

Is not the hon. Gentleman concerned a great deal about the enormous difference between pithead prices and the price to the housewife? What are the Government doing to bring some rationalisation into the retail distribution of coal, where most housewives believe the difficulties arise?

Here is this awful word again. I suspect that "rationalisation" covers a multitude of sins, and that if we had it, we should regret it very soon.

Will my hon. Friend resist this ridiculous suggestion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would he not agree that it entails interfering with the commercial freedom of the nationalised industry, that it entails operating the National Coal Board as a welfare service, and that it also entails the presumption that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best?

I see no reason to differ from what my hon. Friend has said. In fact, I accept it.

asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the fact that the National Coal Board's report and accounts will be for a 15-month period, he will ensure that when these accounts are presented they are broken down into the five quarters separately.

The usual summary figures of quarterly revenue results will be given for each of the five quarters, and all revenue statements for the 15 month period will include also figures for the 12 months ending 28th March, 1964.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he can assure the House that these figures will be available before we rise for the Summer Recess? Further, can he indicate the trend of production, consumption and profitability or otherwise in the first six months of the calendar year 1964?

No, Sir; I cannot anticipate the accounts. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that I told the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) last month that it was hoped to publish the accounts at about the end of August. The National Coal Board is not under any statutory obligation to produce an outline of the accounts beforehand, but as my hon. and gallant Friend has expressed this wish, I will certainly undertake to consult the Chairman of the National Coal Board about the matter.

asked the Minister of Power if, in the light of the approval he gives to the Board's major development programmes, he will make a statement about the progress made by the National Coal Board with the extension of mechanisation and the introduction of automation in coal production.

In the first half of this year more than 70 per cent. of the Board's deep-mined output was obtained by power loaders compared with 37½ per cent. in 1960. Trials of two types of equipment for remotely operated coal production are now in progress at four collieries in the East Midlands and Durham and I understand that the Board intends to extend these trials to other coal fields.

May I ask the Minister whether the experiments being conducted in Ormonde Colliery, Derbyshire, and Newstead Colliery, Nottinghamshire, with remote-control working have been successful, and if so does the National Coal Board anticipate putting this type of machinery into other pits?

I should remind the hon. Gentleman that these experiments are at a fairly early stage. As I have said before, the intention is to carry out wider experiments. It must also be borne in mind that these modern methods are not universally applicable.

Is this the industry which the Prime Minister was referring to when he talked about "the junk yard of nationalisation"?

Answer.

rose—

He has lived among miners all his life.

I would certainly agree with what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion. Of course, I only hope that hon. Members opposite will never have a chance to add to the "junk yard".

The hon. Gentleman, who says that he supports his right hon. Friend, is, in fact, making a vicious attack upon the National Coal Board—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] Will not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, who has some responsibility in this matter, offer the congratulations of Her Majesty's Government to the National Coal Board on the measure of modernisation to which he referred in his Answer, which is unequalled in any sector of private industry in this country?

All I would say to that is that it has taken a number of years for a Conservative Government to achieve sensible arrangements with the nationalised industries. I have no desire or intention to attack the National Coal Board. I am saying that, with the help of the Government, it has begun to overcome some of the problems—they are difficult ones—inherent in public ownership.

asked the Minister of Power what information he has about when the natural gas pipeline between Canvey Island and the North of England will be completed; and when the new gas works in Sheffield will be supplied with natural gas from this grid.

The pipeline is almost complete and is now undergoing final tests. It is expected that natural gas will be supplied to the Sheffield gas works in the second half of September.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a very satisfactory Answer and that I should like to congratulate his Department on the work which has been done? Is he also aware that this was a matter which I pressed in my maiden speech as being of particular interest to me? Can my hon. Friend state how many other gas authorities will benefit by this supply? Will they all get it at the same time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. No words of mine are needed to embellish the well-deserved reputation for prescience which my hon. Friend enjoys.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, in view of the decline by £3,000,000 in exports of building materials and components in the last four years, what steps he is taking by way of credits under the Export Credits Guarantee Department or otherwise to ensure that those sections of the building materials industry whose exports have declined make a greater contribution to the export drive.

All the services which Her Majesty's Government provide to help exporters are available to this industry as to others. Exports of building materials and components covered under the insurance facilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department have risen by nearly £7 million in the last four years, from £16½ million in 1959 to £23¼ million in 1963.

If the Department is doing its stuff, what is wrong with the producers of building materials? Surely they should be in a better position now than that of losing trade? is it not serious for the whole of the building industry if the efficiency of building producers is falling back?

It is not a question of credit, as I think the hon. Gentleman will realise. My Department is taking action in the matter and the industry is participating in the Board of Trade's joint venture schemes. In particular, displays have been arranged in the specialised trade fairs at Paris, Brussels, Milan and Essen. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the total figures, he will see that the industry is doing well. Of course, we hope that it will do even better.

Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the harm being done to the cement industry by the imposition of the fuel oil tax?

That is not relevant to the Question on the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what is the estimated employment at the two motor vehicle factories at Bathgate and Linwood, set up with Government assistance under the Local Employment Act.

It is estimated that the employment to be provided by the two motor vehicle factories at Bathgate and Linwood will be 5,600 and 3,500 respectively.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this development represents a welcome diversification of industry in Scotland? Does he further agree that the Rootes-Chrysler merger will be of great advantage in the sale of the Scottish Imp?

I quite agree.

While we appreciate this contribution to employment in Scotland, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has anything to report about contributory industries—those that supply parts to these motor companies? Scotland was promised that such companies would also gravitate to Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Ford Company, which can apparently get very good steel in Scotland—according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power—to come to Scotland to be near its source of supply?

I have always hoped that components manufacturers would begin to move to central Scotland in order to to be near the car firms. Unfortunately, I have little progress to report in that respect. I also hoped that Scottish firms themselves might begin to make suitable components. I hope that we shall begin to see progress in that direction.

We welcome this development, but can the right hon. Gentleman add information about the amount of public money by grant and loan invested in these projects? I believe that the last figure we had was over £16 million. Can he give a more accurate estimate?

If the hon. Gentleman is asking for specific amounts for specific firms, we do not normally give information of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development how many applications for expansion or development in Scotland were received by the Board of Trade for the years ended 31st March, 1963, and 31st March, 1964.

146 applications for industrial development certificates for Scotland were received in the year ended 31st March, 1963, and 177 in the following year.

Is not this good evidence of the Government's successful policy? Is not this proof of the advance of Scottish industry under this Government?

I think that this is a most encouraging development and I do not know why hon. Members opposite should be so dubious about it. It has meant an increase in jobs under I.D.C.s from 9,200 in the year ending March, 1963, to 14,200 in the following year. This is extremely encouraging.

How many of these applications for industrial development were for north-east Scotland, particularly Aberdeen, and how were they dealt with? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the north-east of Scotland, particularly Aberdeen, has been shockingly neglected both by his predecessor and himself in this respect?

If the hon. and learned Member will put down a Question, I will try to give him specific information about Aberdeen, but I cannot agree that it has been neglected.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he is aware that some wallpaper companies have now made their rolls 10 metres long, so conforming to European Common Market standards, instead of the previous 13½ yards, thus shortening each roll by 1½ yards while keeping the price the same; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent this practice.

No, Sir; my information is that a roll of British wallpaper used to be 11½, not 13½ yards long. To facilitate our export trade, the British industry has successfully worked to secure a standard European length of 10·05 metres, which is almost exactly 11 yards. This is not a matter which seems to me to justify Government intervention, particularly as our exports are increasing substantially.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are varying statements about this and that some firms have been making a 13½ yard roll? Is he aware that I have here a letter from two manufacturers saying that this method of reducing the amount of wallpaper in a roll was merely a subterfuge for increasing the price and that in some cases it has meant an increase in price of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. a roll, which is considerable? [Laughter.] I see nothing to laugh at. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I see nothing to laugh at about this. The person who does his own wallpapering must now pay this increased price. Does the Minister of State also realise that, in the report referred to, it is admitted that there is a distributive costs margin of 60 per cent.? Does not he think that the Government should at least answer about this aspect?

I will, of course, examine with interest any correspondence that the hon. Lady would like to let me have. On the other hand, I cannot accept everything she said in phrasing her two supplementary questions. I point out to her that there can be nothing more important for our export trade than making progress towards standardisation; and we are delighted that it has been achieved by the wallpaper industry.

Is it not correct to say that, given the size of the roll, British wallpaper is the cheapest and probably the best in the world?

What is so gratifying, as I pointed out, is that exports have risen so substantially, and that is what matters most.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference.

With permission, I will answer these Questions at the end of Question Time.

asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has undertaken with the President of Pakistan in respect of trade between the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

My discussions with my Commonwealth colleagues were confidential.

Would it not be deplorable, following the Prime Minister's exaggerated concern about trade in arms to other countries, if concern were not also shown about legitimate trade? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has refused credit facilities in the case of the acrylic fibre plant in Pakistan? Will the Prime Minister show about this case some of the concern he has shown about arms in the last few weeks?

I cannot accept what the hon. Member implies. We try within our resources to help as much as we can in the Commonwealth countries. This is a particular case which must be dealt with by commercial practice.

Since the issue of the £6 million acrylic fibre plant order was first raised in the House, the Pakistan Government have intervened with the Pakistan syndicate concerned and have asked it to place the order, if possible, in this country and not in France. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only the Board of Trade's refusal to grant the necessary credits that is standing in the way of this very important order being gained by this country? Is it not scandalous that the Government should throw away export orders like this and that the Prime Minister should know nothing about it?

There is a Question on the Order Paper to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade about this matter. As I have said, we try to employ our resources to the best of our ability and to finance what we can in the Commonwealth countries. A whole variety of Commonwealth projects are involved. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite well. My right hon. Friend will answer the Question on the Order Paper in due course.

Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade had striking success at the Geneva Trade Conference recently which has paid off handsomely to the benefit of Commonwealth countries?

I do not think that this country can be blamed for not doing what it can. Some 40 per cent. of our imports come from the developing countries.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that these Commonwealth discussions are confidential? Are we not to be informed about trade relations between another Commonwealth country and the United Kingdom? Is it not important that we should be well informed on matters of this kind? Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that the reply he will give later to Questions about the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference will contain no information of any value?

The House, I think, can certainly be informed about Commonwealth trade and trade with Commonwealth countries, but I was asked about conversations with the President of Pakistan and they were confidential.

Will the Prime Minister answer the Question I asked him? Is he aware that this contract is now likely to amount to £9 million? Does he take no interest in the loss of an order of this magnitude?

If the right hon. Member wants a specific answer about a specific deal he must ask for it from my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members could have had it if they had not taken so long in their supplementary questions.

asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the resolution in Southern Rhodesia forwarded to him by the Methodist Church Conference.

I have not yet sent a reply to the Methodist Church Conference. It seemed to me better to wait until the conclusion of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting before doing so.

Is it not a fact that the Methodist Church Conference has urged Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in bringing together the European and African leaders in Southern Rhodesia with a view to preparing a way for independence under majority rule? Since the Prime Minister insists that the British Government alone are responsible for Southern Rhodesia, will he say what steps he intends to take to discharge that responsibility? Will he put this proposition to Mr. Ian Smith immediately?

I do not think I will answer that question now.

Why not?

I had a very polite letter from the Methodist Church Conference simply expressing the view that—

What about the reply?

I am going to reply, but I shall do so following the Prime Ministers' conference because I think I can then better explain to the Methodist Church Conference the point of view of Her Majesty's Government and the other Commonwealth Governments.

Is it not a fact that the Methodist Church endorsed what I suggested to the Prime Minister earlier—that a conference of the African leaders and European leaders should be called? Now that the Commonwealth Conference has agreed to that, what does the Prime Minister intend to do about it?

I am glad that the right hon. Member is blessed by the Methodist Church.

Mr. Foot.

rose—

I called Mr. Foot.

Is not the Prime Minister to be congratulated on the fact that he reserved his reply until after the Prime Ministers' conference, seeing that he has had to turn several somersaults in the last few days?

Is it not a fact that the Methodist Church believes in straight talk? Could we have a little of that from the Prime Minister?

asked the Prime Minister to what extent he proposes in future to change the practice in allocating responsibility for answering Parliamentary Questions as between himself and other Ministers in the House.

Not at all.

Can the Prime Minister explain why in November, 1963, when he first came to office by devious means, he orally answered 29 Questions and transferred 6 and that in June of this year he orally answered 55 and transferred 48? Why has the right hon. Gentleman turned another somersault in this regard and refused to face the challenge in this House that he is always answering outside?

I was very interested in this Question and of course I want to serve the House, so I have been comparing my performance with that of my predecessors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps hon. Members would like to hear of my discoveries. I find that I have already answered more Questions in this incomplete Session of Parliament than Lord Attlee did as Prime Minister in three whole Sessions. I have another bit of information in which I think the hon. Member will be interested. The second fact is that, to allow other hon. Members to receive as many Answers as have been given to the hon. Member, I should have had to answer 14,000 Questions in this House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Lord Attlee was Prime Minister he did not have a quarter of an hour allocated to him for Questions? Is he further aware that he had a much less effective Opposition? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, if he has now got these figures, I could not get a Question down to him asking for them a fortnight ago?

Whatever we were like in Opposition, we did not ask silly questions like this. In answer to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, this kind of figures are better late than never.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall all be gratified to know that in the days of Lord Attlee's Administration not only the country but the House was three times as satisfied with its Prime Minister as it is today? Are we now to take it that the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman will be a real sign of the ineffectiveness of the Conservative Opposition after October?

I think the right hon. Gentleman had better wait and see, but I seem to remember that Lord Attlee was defeated.

rose—

Order. If we do not get on we shall spoil the statistics.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce arrangements to co-ordinate the responsibilities of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Secretary of State for Scotland for the protection of the public health against the risks associated with imported canned meat.

No, Sir. Such arrangements already exist and are periodically reviewed.

Does the Prime Minister know the unhappy story of the consignment of contaminated corned beef which caused food poisoning in Edinburgh? Is he aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was unable to prevent the import of corned beef from an establishment which used unchlorinated water, was uninspected and unlicensed, and that the Minister of Health, although he tried to withdraw the corned beef from circulation, did not know how much had been distributed, where it had gone, nor that there were three brands and not one brand involved in the consignment? Does he not think that this suggests that at least some co-ordination is needed?

My right hon. Friends are reviewing the situation to see if there can be any improvement of their joint action at present. If the hon. Member has a suggestion to make, I shall be only too glad to have it, for we want to make our co-ordinating machinery as efficient as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was the responsibility of the Minister of Health which caused the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to resign from his Government back in the Socialist days?

Does the Prime Minister not realise the confusion which for years has existed in the various Ministries mentioned in the Question? Does he not realise that this confusion has been a grave danger to the nation from the time of the poison epidemic? Will he give serious consideration to the co-ordination asked for in the Question?

I have said so, but I do not think that there are any essential flaws in the present arrangements. If we can improve on them, of course we will.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that statistics for corned beef over the last five years show that nearly 100 million tins have been imported, of which the numbers suspected of having been infected with typhoid are three tins?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that meat which is refused in one port can be brought in through another port and accepted there? Is he aware that there is no co-ordination among the different medical officers of health as to the terms on which meat can be rejected? If meat is found unsuitable in one port, will he take steps to see that there are communications with other ports in order that that meat should not be accepted?

I will bring this point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.