asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to require the electricity boards not to reduce the scope or operations of their contracting sections, and to take steps to correct the loss of contracting work to private enterprise in recent years.

No, Sir. There is no general tendency for the electricity boards to reduce the contracting activities they carry on in competition with private enterprise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that personnel in the contract department of the London Electricity Board has diminished by 500 in the last two years? Surely this is creeping denationalisation.

I gave a reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 18th December, that there appears to have been no significant reduction over the last three years in the number of manual workers employed in contract, sale and fitting. But the special contract section of the London Electricity Board is a special case, and my right hon. Friend is willing to discuss with the board any special questions arising from the decision about the section, and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could give my right hon. Friend details of any such special questions he thinks should be pursued.

asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the experienced gained in the running of nuclear power stations, he will reassess their working life.

The first commercial nuclear power stations in Britain came into operation as recently as 1962, and it is too soon to carry out a re-assessment just yet.

As capital charges amount to up to two-thirds of the cost of nuclear electricity produced, will my right hon. Friend—bearing in mind that the 20 years suggested as the life of these power stations is now proving to be very much out of date, and this being such an important element in the cost of nuclear electricity that it is vital that figures should be brought up to date—instigate action as necessary to ensure this?

I agree that the C.E.G.B. assesses the life at 20 years. I know that in some parts of the world—in the United States, for instance—they are looking at a 30-year cycle, but I should like more experience of this.

asked the Minister of Power how much capital has been invested in the past 10 years in the gas industry; and what has been the percentage price increase in gas in these years.

Expenditure on fixed assets in the ten years ended 31st March, 1964, totalled £558 million. During this period, the average revenue per therm of gas sold rose by 40 per cent.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that figure compares with an investment in the electrical industry of £3,000 million and a price rise of 18 per cent.? In view of the price rises and the capital employed in that industry, does he not think that the time has come for an urgent independent inquiry into the capital structure of the nationalised industries?

As regards this industry, no.

asked the Minister of Power if he will now make a statement on the action to be taken to prevent landlords using electricity meters as a means of obtaining additional rent.

asked the Minister of Power what action he is taking to deal with excessive charges for electricity retailed by landlords to tenants through prepayment meters.

I would refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) on 9th February.

When does the Parliamentary Secretary expect to be able to make a further statement on this? Will he undertake to the House that, as soon as he does find a way of taking action, he will announce it to the House and immediately introduce any legislation which may be necessary?

There are difficulties about this matter. My right hon. Friend has been consulting the Electricity Council. The Council is consulting the boards and its consultative councils. My right hon. Friend is determined, when agreement is reached, to ensure that early action is taken.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are many tenants who had hoped that there would be some news at least before this winter is over, because winter is the most penal time for them to endure this situation? Will he bear in mind the typical case of an elderly invalid whom I know who is playing Is. an hour for a 1 kilowatt fire which the London Electricity Board informs me should not cost more than 3d. an hour? Is not this a situation which the Government clearly must do something about?

A number of complaints have been made from time to time to my right hon. Friend's Ministry, and he is determined at the earliest possible moment to ensure that a solution is found to this problem.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the perfect solution to this problem is almost unattainable, but in attempting to attain this perfect solution will he bear in mind that there are grave abuses just now and any amelioration at all and any legislation which will reduce the exploitation by some landlords of their tenants would be a very great help?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. The electricity boards have the power under Section 29 of the Electricity Act, and if it is possible to obtain a solution without recourse to legislation my right hon. Friend will ensure that those steps are taken.

Is my hon. Friend aware that too much time can be spent on trying to obtain the consent of the multiplicity of councils that he is now consulting? Is he further aware that the electricity boards have the power to do it? Give them the power to do it and get on with stamping out this nasty little racket which has been going on for far too long.

My right hon. Friend is well aware of the seriousness of the situation. Consultative councils have been set up under the Nationalisation Act, and it is therefore important that they should be consulted in this difficult matter. They are being consulted.

What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by "the earliest possible moment"? Does he mean before Easter? Will he get on with the job?

As regards getting on with the job, this matter has been hanging fire for a number of years. The predecessor to the present Minister made it clear on 13th February, 1964, as appears from HANSARD. My right hon. Friend, as soon as he took office, interested himself in this matter, and he hopes that an early solution will be found.

asked the Minister of Power how much money is being spent by the Central Electricity Generating Board and area boards on research on undergrounding cables; and what proportion such research bears to the whole cost of research by the Central Electricity Generating Board and area boards.

It is not possible to give a precise answer to this question. Of a total expenditure on research and development of about £7 million a year by the boards, roughly £1 million is spent on transmission and distribution, and of this between 10 and 20 per cent. is spent on undergrounding cables. In addition, a large amount of research is done by manufacturers and receives support from the boards through their purchases of cables. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that no promising project is being neglected.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his reply, but it seems that the amount of money spent on research on transmission techniques is very small. In view of the proposal to erect a 400 kV line right across the whole of south-east England and the further proposal to erect a 700 kV line towards the 1970s, would the hon. Gentleman increase the allocation of expendi- ture on research on transmission techniques before then?

There is a substantial amount of research going on, as the hon. Member will see from the Answer. The Central Electricity Generating Board has placed or is about to place contracts worth about £21 million for 275 kV and 400 kV cables of a pioneering type, for example those with an exceptionally large cross-section and with the provision of water cooling. These contracts reflect a substantial amount of indirect support for the research and development efforts of the cable manufacturers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Central Electricity Generating Board is one of the most enterprising research organisations in the country and in this matter is very much a model for most of private enterprise?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great uneasiness throughout large parts of the country at the apparent unwillingness of the Board to consider underground cables as opposed to overhead lines? As areas of great natural beauty may be severely damaged, am I not right in thinking that he would wish his Department to carry opinion with it? In order to do that, must there not be more evidence of thought being given to underground transmission?

The Central Electricity Generating Board is giving a substantial amount of thought to the possibility of underground cabling, but the hon. Member is surely aware that the cost of taking a 400 kV line underground is something between 18 and 20 times the cost of taking it above ground. It works out at about £1 million a mile. These are some of the problems which have been and are being studied.

asked the Minister of Power what proportion of the cables of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the area boards have been laid underground, respectively; and what is the estimated cost in total of the existing plans for undergrounding cables.

As the Answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction at the decision not to put underground any part of the 400kV line? In view of the admittedly large sums expended on undergrounding lines and the fact that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction already about the method of consulta-

asked the Minister of Power whether he intends to postpone his decision on a national fuel policy until the results of exploration under the North Sea are available.

No, Sir.

Bearing in mind the great advantages generally and from a currency point of view which would result from this operation if it turned out to be successful, would the Minister undertake in the meantime not to enter into any commitments which might limit any advantages which the nation might gain?

There must be a certain amount of flexibility in fuel policy but, as it would be at least five years before

No, Sir.

When can we expect details of the national fuel policy about which we heard so much before the election?

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave last week to my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent his proposed national fuel policy will afford a guaranteed level of employment in the coal industry.

asked the Minister of Power how he intends to equate the consumption of coal to the production target he will set for the industry.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will now issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board that they should maintain an annual output target of 200 million tons.

asked the Minister of Power in view of the success of the plan for exploiting the oil and gas deposits in the North Sea bed, if he will give an assurance that, in formulating a new national fuel policy, the present share of the coal-mining industry in the fuel and energy needs of the country will not be diminished.

I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 9th February.

In view of the fact that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers still appears to be dissatisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's rather equivocal answer as an implementation of the pledge given by the First Secretary before the election, will he take an early opportunity to make his position plain, and do so in the House?

I was under the impression that my meetings with officials of the N.U.M. were very happy indeed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity to set a good example to his colleagues and make a full comprehensive statement of his fuel policy in the House of Commons?

I will take the earliest possible opportunity to do that.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered Question 20 either now or in a previous Answer. How does he intend to cause consumption to meet production?

I have said that I am not in a position to give a full answer on the implementation of our fuel policy. I will do so at the earliest possible moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Order. Hon. Members had better wait until they are called. Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Did the right hon. Gentleman see the B.B.C. programme "Panorama" last night? In view of some of the statements made on that programme, could he do a little more to allay anxiety, particularly in the Welsh coal industry, than so far he has been able to do?

I think that the statement which I made last week, to which apparently the hon. Member took exception, did quite a lot to allay anxiety in the Welsh coalfields as well as elsewhere.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there was much more anxiety among the mining community when hon. and right hon. Members opposite were in office?

Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's reference to his so-called happy meeting with the National Union of Mineworkers before he made his statement, may I ask whether he noticed the statement of the President of the National Union of Mineworkers, after his own statement, that it was not a complete reaffirmation of the coal policy of the Labour Party before the election?

I noticed what Mr. Ford said about it. I have discussed the question with him. He is happy about the statement which I made and he is quite sure that it gives greater security than the miners had felt previously.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a further statement on the progress of his discussions on the formulation of a national fuel policy.

asked the Minister of Power what progress he has made in his discussions with the chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries on a long-term co-ordinated fuel policy.

asked the Minister of Power what progress is being made in the co-ordination of industries producing the energy resources of the nation; and whether he will make a statement.

I have, at this stage, nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on 9th February.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Coal Board is engaged on a very big capital investment programme based on the production target of 240 million tons annually given to it by the party opposite and that, therefore, if it is now asked to accept a target of less than 200 million tons annually, it will be caught in a vicious circle of spiralling prices and reduced demand? Will my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he will—bear this most important point in mind when formulating his policy?

My hon. Friend will remember that I gave an answer earlier in which I pointed out that some of the problems which the National Coal Board now has stem from the period when it was asked to produce 240 million tons. I am well aware of the point, and I shall keep it in mind while we are discussing the capital reconstruction upon which we are now engaged.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he says that he has nothing to add to the reply which he gave me last week, he is simply adding nothing to nothing? Does not he think that this comes ill from the spokesman of a party which said that when it came into office it would produce immediately a co-ordinated fuel policy?

In view of what the hon. Gentleman says, I fail to see why he should bother the House by discussing nothing.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will undertake a review of the investigations made into the possibilities of supplying power by means of water barrages; and whether he will give further consideration to developing such schemes, having regard to the increased cost of power from other sources.

No, Sir. The power supply aspects are kept under review by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Scottish Electricity Boards, which have regard to all relevant factors in drawing up their capital development programmes.

Will the hon. Gentleman see that the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Scottish Electricity Board take note of the work being done by Mr. E. M. Wilson in the Department of Civil Engineering at Sheffield University on a barrage for the Solway Firth, plans for another barrage across Morecambe Bay and so on, and will he bear in mind that these plans may, within two or three years, perhaps, bring electricity to this country as economically as that generated by any other power?

My right hon. Friend is well aware of these projects at Sheffield, but, as I told the hon. Gentleman on 8th December, the Generating Board estimates that in the most promising schemes so far proposed in this country the cost of generating electricity by tidal barrage would not be competitive.

As one of the projects suggested by the researchers at Sheffield would use the Severn channel bore, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that nothing is done to build a jetty which would interfere with this bore?

asked the Minister of Power how soon he expects to be able to assess the prospects of oil or natural gas being found in commercial quantities in the North Sea.

This will depend on the results of exploration, but it could take up to five years or more.

Will the Minister bear in mind that international experience of the development of oilfields suggests that fuel obtained in this way can very rapidly change the whole fuel economy of the country which benefits from it, and will he, therefore, be careful not to commit himself to any firm figures for fuel from other areas of the economy before he has found out what is likely to be obtained from the North Sea?

Those matters will be taken into consideration.

As the North Sea is not private property, will my right hon. Friend set up a public body with its centre at the nearest point on land, say, at Aberdeen, to control and exploit any benefits which may result from the discovery of oil or gas under the North Sea?

I doubt that the Gas Council, which already has such powers, would take very kindly to that suggestion, even if it were based on Aberdeen. But it is the fact that exploration is now going ahead. The shipyards have gained appreciably in orders for drilling rigs and so forth, to the extent of about £10½ million, I think, and I hope that we shall get good results from the £80 million now invested in the project.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, again read the words of his party at the election and express his thanks to the previous Government for getting on with this very important work?

I should love to find something to thank the last Government for, but as yet I have not yet found it.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the prospective discoveries of oil or gas under the North Sea will be publicly owned assets, and will he assure the House that he will not allow their exploitation by private interests against the public interest?

I hope my hon. Friend realises that all gas or oil emanating from the North Sea is the property of the nation and that only the Gas Council can use the gas. I have not the slightest intention of changing that position.

asked the Minister of Power if, in settling the general research programme of the electricity industry, he will request them to inquire into the many breakdowns in supply, causing power cuts with consequent inconvenience to private users and farmers, especially every time there are gales or snow.

The boards already investigate the causes of interruptions and constantly seek ways of safeguarding supplies in their research programmes, which are settled in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these interruptions have been very frequent this winter in Somerset and Dorset, sometimes lasting for more than 24 hours on end, and that they are highly inconvenient for my constituents and for farmers particularly who rely on electricity for milking?

I am aware that there were several interruptions in the south and south-west of England on 27th December. These were due to ice forming on overhead lines. The board has expressed regret for the inconvenience caused to consumers, and the local Press praised the efforts of its engineers to restore supplies in difficult conditions.

asked the Minister of Power whether, in view of the fact that Richard Thomas and Baldwins is now the only major steel company in the United Kingdom making a loss, he will reconsider the Government's decision to nationalise the steel industry.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that was a very unsatisfactory reply? Would not he agree that the loss made by Richard Thomas and Baldwins is a clear indication of what is likely to happen to the rest of the industry if it should be nationalised? Is it not significant that the only company that will not allow financial journalists to attend its annual general meeting is Richard Thomas and Baldwins? Does not this demonstrate the utter folly of the Government's determination to sacrifice this industry for the sake of party politics?

As recently as 24th March last the then Prime Minister told the House that he had the greatest confidence in the management of Richard Thomas and Baldwins. Apart from that, it made substantial profits in each of the ten years from nationalisation to 1960–61, after which the Spencer works began to affect the results. But the net profits after tax varied between £3·6 million in 1957–58 and £8·8 million in 1959–60. So much for the so-called failure.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box)? Why does Richard Thomas and Baldwins, alone amongst steel companies, not allow financial journalists to attend its annual general meetings? Is it because there is too much to hide?

Whether or not financial journalists attend these meetings is not the subject of the Question on the Order Paper. I was asked to answer about the loss being incurred at the Spencer works. At the same time, Colvilles built its own strip mill at Ravenscraig, and this is also incurring losses. Earlier this month Sir Andrew McCance said about that:

"While the returns from the strip division are better than those of last year, which was the first year the strip mill operated, they are insufficient to meet the interest on the Government loan."

Is it not the case that the only reason that Richard Thomas and Baldwins has made a temporary loss has been fully revealed in its accounts, published for the nation? Is it not because Richard Thomas and Baldwins was the only steel company in the country which had the enterprise to go ahead and build the biggest new steelworks in the country when private enterprise was too cowardly to embark upon the task?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The House will be delighted to know that Richard Thomas and Baldwins exported nearly twice as high a proportion of its strip mill products as the other steel companies owning strip mills, and that its exports are at a very competitive price which has affected its sales position.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is making matters worse? The more he claims that the firm is efficient—when the results show that it is not—the more reason there is for letting financial journalists into the A.G.M.? Will he answer that point now and not dodge it?

The Government are not responsible for who goes into this kind of meeting. When the right hon. Gentleman learns the difference between a billet and a bull's foot he will find that this is the most efficient strip mill in the world.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that financial journalists are not permitted to examine the accounts of the Conservative Party?

rose—

Order. If the hon. Member desires to give notice I will hear him, otherwise we have finished with the Question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Power how much capital has been invested in the past 10 years in the coal industry; and what has been the percentage increase in the price of coal in these years.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement regarding the total amount of capital investmnet by the National Coal Board in the last 10 years; and what was the percentage increase in the cost per ton of coal during this period.

Expenditure on fixed assets in the 10¼ years ended 28th March, 1964, totalled £981 million, in large part for replacement of existing assets. During this period average pithead proceeds and costs have risen by about 45 per cent.

In spite of the rationalisation which has taken place in the coal industry, and, indeed, bearing in mind the capital employed, do not these figures underline the fact that the time has come for an urgent independent inquiry into the structure of the nationalised industries? When the Parliamentary Secretary said that the time had not come for the gas industry, did he have in mind other industries where there might be an inquiry into the capital structure?

I see no reason why there should be any inquiry of this type. We look at the structure from time to time. I think that, on the whole, industries in the nationalised power section are among our most successful industries.

Would it not be a good idea seriously to consider ceasing to pay compensation to those owners of coal mines whose pits are now closed?

In view of the price increases which the Minister has announced, would he take note of the exhortations of his right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and give a direction to the National Coal Board that it should absorb its costs and not increase the price of coal this year?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a later Question on this point.

asked the Minister of Power what information he has concerning the capital reconstruction of the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has received from the National Coal Board on relief from financial burdens arising from payment of interest charges.

asked the Minister of Power if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the capital reconstruction of the National Coal Board.

asked the Minister of Power, in reviewing the prospects of the coal industry, what consultations he has had with the National Coal Board on its global productivity, its declining units of production, its manpower resources, and the cost to it of social responsibilities during this period of economic change; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to support the Chairman of the National Coal Board in his efforts to promote the use of home-produced coal in preference to imported oil fuel.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will give an estimate of the anticipated production of coal during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1965; how much of this will be sold for export, for electricity, for gas, for industry and for domestic use; and what amount of coal will not be sold during that period.

The review which I am now undertaking in collaboration with the National Coal Board will cover all these aspects of the coal industry's activities, but I cannot add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 9th February.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this instance, as part of the review, there is a very strong case indeed for reducing the burden of capital charges imposed upon the industry, if only for the one reason mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)?

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that there is now an interdepartmental committee looking at the question of the capital cost of the industry. The N.C.B. is giving evidence to the Committee. I am not yet in a position to say anything else.

In view of the heavy capital expenditure incurred by the N.C.B. in its efforts to modernise this very neglected industry, will my right hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to the views of the Board on the matter of financial reconstruction?

I know that there are circumstances which came about through no fault of the Board's. In other words, it was asked to produce targets which in fact were never achieved some years ago, and it was also asked to import American coal at a very great loss to itself. These are specifically points in our examination of the present structure.

Is it the intention to maintain the N.C.B. as the second largest manufacturer of building bricks in this country?

The N.C.B. does a very fine job of work in this respect, and it is now increasing the global quantity of bricks it produces. We have asked the Board to see whether it can increase it even further, and I am very hopeful that it will be able to achieve it.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give an assurance that the National Coal Board will not be permitted to produce mining equipment if the production of this equipment would result in unemployment in any existing firm currently producing equipment for the National Coal Board.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board to make a comprehensive assessment of the engineering capacities of its central workshops and to make provision for the manufacturing of mining equipment in these establishments to an extent greater than exists at present.

My right hon. Friend would not wish to restrict the Board's freedom to produce such machinery and equipment as may appear to it to be advantageous and I do not think it needs any direction from my right hon. Friend.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the wording of the Labour Party's manifesto has already caused great anxiety amongst firms making this mining equipment? Is it not high time that he did something to dispel this anxiety?

It is for the National Coal Board in the first instance to say whether it wishes to extend its manufacturing activities under its existing powers.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, far from restricting the activities of the Board in this direction, he will seek energetically to expand them, particularly in areas like my own which are suffering from very high unemployment?

My right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider any proposals put to him in any case where Ministerial approval is needed; but, as I have said, the Board has the power and is anxious to help in reducing regional unemployment. It does so by operating the contracts preference scheme, under which tenders from firms in development districts are accepted, other things being equal.

Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is no point whatsoever in duplicating manufacturing resources which already exist? We ask him not to pursue this doctrinaire line of thought. Will he give an undertaking to the House that he will withdraw his election pledge, which has no point?

asked the Minister of Power what proposals have been made to him by the National Coal Board on further closures of pits in the County of Durham.

Individual closures are a matter for the Board after discussion with the unions, and I am asking the chairman to write to my right hon. Friend.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the last ten years 150,000 miners have been made redundant by pit closures? Will he ensure in his discussions with the National Coal Board that future closures will be carefully phased having regard to social consequences?

I think that my right hon. Friend would agree that the National Coal Board has had considerable success in looking at the social implications of this kind of thing. The number of miners registered as unemployed in County Durham in January was 1,515. This included men who had to leave the industry on medical grounds and those between the ages of 60 and 65 years who opted to retire as well as those displaced by closures.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the proposals of the National Coal Board to encrease its brick production; and what new brickworks are to be built by the National Coal Board.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent the National Coal Board proposes to contribute to the production of bricks.

Current plans provide for an increase to 550 million bricks in 1966–67 compared with 488 million in 1963–64. This includes the production from two new brickworks which are under construction at Desford and Throckley. The possibility of constructing further plants is being considered.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and say how pleased we all are on both sides of the House and outside that the Brickworks Executive of the National Coal Board is making such an important contribution to the supply of bricks for the nation's housing and other building drives? Is he aware that resources will be needed at the old brickworks of the National Coal Board to improve the working conditions of the men employed there and to encourage recruitment? Also, will he ensure that if the Coal Board wishes to set up modern brickworks, for instance in Scotland, the necessary capital resources will be available?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Board is responsible for framing its own programmes of investment. The Minister has to approve the lines and will bear in mind the needs of brick production throughout the country.

Does it not gladden my hon. Friend's heart to know that this extension of public enterprise will be well received by an important body of Tory supporters—namely, those Tory builders who have been frustrated for so long by limitations of brick supplies?

How many of these bricks have been allocated for the Government's brick-dropping programme?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, although the last Government made substantial plans for house building we discovered that there was a countrywide shortage of bricks.

asked the Prime Minister if he will bring education in Wales within the executive authority of the Secretary of State for Wales.

I see no reason for modifying the arrangements I explained in some detail in the answer I gave to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) on 19th November.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his creation of the office of Secretary of State for Wales led in Wales to expectations of far greater constitutional changes than those so far announced? Will he recognise that the long-standing autonomy of the Welsh Department of the Education Ministry and the vital question of the Welsh language together create a very strong case for this transfer?

What we have to consider here is what would be best for education in Wales. I think that the solution, which was announced after a great deal of thought and consultation, on 19th November, was the right one. We all recognise the very distinguished work done by the Board of Education in Wales under Sir Ben Bowen Thomas and others over the years. We shall now have a Minister in the Cabinet and in the House capable of speaking in the interest of education in Wales.

When will the House have a transfer of functions Order in regard to Wales? We have been waiting for it for far too long.

I would like notice of that question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious and appalling conditions of schools in Wales reported in the school building survey for 1962?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the survey taken in 1962 but which was not, in fact, published until 1965, yes, I am aware of it.

The Prime Minister has appointed three Ministers to the Welsh Department but at the moment they have very little executive responsibility. All shades of opinion in the Principality are concerned about education, so surely responsibility for education in Wales is an obvious case for transfer to the Secretary of State?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows—because, originally, my statement in November was in reply to a Question by him—there has been a very substantial degree of transfer. But in studying every single function we have to consider whether the interest of Wales would be better served by transfer, as in some cases, or by keeping the central machinery. Sometimes, trying to run a service for Wales as a separate undertaking would mean less good for Wales.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state the Government's policy regarding the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Economic Community.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Economic Community.

There is no reason to suppose that the circumstances which led to the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations have changed. The position of Her Majesty's Government is and remains that, if a favourable opportunity were to arise for negotiating entry into the European Economic Community, we would be prepared to negotiate if and only if the necessary conditions relating to essential British and Commonwealth interests could be fulfilled. At the same time we are most anxious to do anything in our power to avoid the further economic division of Europe, and to do all we can to build a bridge between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that his Answer hardly creates the impression of an adventurous, forward-looking Administration ready to contemplate change but rather an inward-looking, old-fashioned, tired Administration? Will he say definitely whether his Government will still prescribe the very far-reaching and rigid conditions upon which they insisted when in Opposition and which created the impression that they would far prefer to remain unattached to Europe?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has so much more vigour putting Questions from that side of the House than he ever had from this. He referred to adventurousness, change and so on. If by "adventurous" he means the terms on which the previous Government were prepared to enter Europe, I am quite sure that on considering those terms the whole House would feel that the last Government were wrong in the terms which they were prepared to take, as we made clear in the debate even before the breakdown. We have stated the conditions—I do not need to detail them again today—but I made it clear at the beginning, and I am sure that the whole House would agree, that there is no immediate issue coming up. This is not a practical possibility now. What we have to do meanwhile, instead of sulking in our tents as some did after the last breakdown—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, cancelling Royal visits to Paris and peevish and pettish remarks from this Box—is to concentrate on finding functional means of improving our relations with Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "Concord."] Those hon. Members who are shouting "Concord" are not exactly expressing the view which we are finding in our discussions with the French Government on aircraft developments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer has been received with great satisfaction on this side of the House? Will he reaffirm that the primary responsibility of the British Government is not to the European Economic Community, but to the Commonwealth of Nations?

We want the best possible relations we can get with Europe. That is why I stress again the importance of doing what we can to build bridges between E.F.T.A. and the Six, if that is possible. We want with our European neighbours, whether the Six or the Seven, to work out functional arrangements which will help to improve relations between us in any particular projects which will be of value to our country and the country concerned. However, I am perfectly certain that the House would agree that if we were faced with terms of entry in which we had to choose between accepting entry and the interests of our trading and other relationships with the Commonwealth, as we were faced in November 1962, we would be right to reject those terms.

Will the Prime Minister remember from the experience of the last Administration that delay in these matters is often very harmful and that if any suitable opportunity were to arise, it would be absolutely essential for this country to make a firm affirmation of its belief in the ideals of a united Europe, and that so far we have never done that? I believe that it is the policy of the Government to be associated with talks about a possible political community of Europe. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether when he talks of "political community" he has in mind something even looser than the Europe of States put forward by President de Gaulle?

It is highly desirable that we should be in the talks on political relations within Europe. That was the position of the previous Government and it is the position of this. How ever, if by "political unity" the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting our entering some supranational organisation where vital questions of foreign policy going far beyond Europe—and we have very vital interests far beyond Europe—or of defence were to be decided by some system of majority voting, I am sure that the whole House would unite in saying that that would not be possible for this country.

I think that we would all agree with the Prime Minister that it is necessary to build all the bridges we can between E.F.T.A. and the Common Market, and I dare say that it is not profitable to speculate as to the details of any future agreement or settlement. However, will the right hon. Gentleman in future remember that consultation with our friends and allies before the Government act is desirable and that it was conspicuously absent in the case of the Concord and the surcharge?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this. I have asked him twice what he means by "consultation" and I have still not been favoured with a reply. I asked whether he meant that the consultation was—[HON. MEMBERS: "What do you mean?"]—what we mean by it is what we did, and the right hon. Gentleman did not like it. At some time he should tell the House what he believes we ought to have done.

asked the Prime Minister what evidence he had, in formulating his policy on the subject, that sporting guns and ammunition had been used for internal security purposes in South Africa; and whether he will now lift the embargo on these weapons.

With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Conway (Mr. Peter Thomas) on 23rd of December last. The answer to the second part of the Question is: No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that when the South African Government asked the Foreign Secretary for the evidence on which this allegation was based, it was told that there was none and that this statement had slipped in by mistake? Would it not, therefore, be better for the Prime Minister now to admit this mistake and do away with the pinprick which is as irritating to manufacturers and craftsmen in this country as it is to sportsmen in South Africa?

That is not the account given to me by the then Foreign Secretary. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has further information. If so, perhaps he will tell us where from.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the view that if it is dangerous for gangsters at home to use these guns against our own people it is more dangerous for gangsters overseas to use these guns against African people?

We stated our attitude on this matter in relation to fulfilment of the United Nations resolution, and we are abiding by it.

Is it not quite clear on the evidence that the Prime Minister has that sporting guns and ammunition have not been used for repressive purposes in South Africa, and is it not quite clear that the only possible meaning that could be attached to what the Prime Minister said on 17th November last was that they had been used? Will the Prime Minister now admit that what he said then was ill considered and misleading?

Certainly not. I dealt with this question on 23rd December, when I stated exactly what I had said and exactly what I had in mind. It it perfectly well known that weapons of this kind can be used, and in different countries have been used, for internal repression and have been used in South Africa, even against the Government.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to compile a list of areas most in need of an emergency house-building programme, and concentrate all building forces on these areas in a predetermined order of priority.

A number of local authorities with the greatest housing need have been identified. By various means, including the establishment of programmes covering several years ahead and the maximum use of industrialised methods, they are being given all possible encouragement to build as many houses as they can. This is, I am sure, a more promising line of advance than an attempt to redeploy, on a national scale, the whole effort of the house-building industry.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that most people consider that housing has the first priority in social projects and that most local authorities will welcome the help and encouragement which the Government propose to give them in helping to solve a problem with which private enterprise has so far failed to deal?

I think that the line I have indicated in the Answer is the right way to tackle this problem in areas of very special housing need. My hon. Friend has Glasgow in mind, no doubt, and some of us on both sides of the House know the problems of Merseyside and many other parts of the country. The right thing to do is to identify the needs and get an adequate housing programme for some years ahead, making sure that the housing authorities have the land. Then, in order to avoid putting too much strain on the traditional building industry, we should encourage these local authorities as far as possible to use industrialised methods, for which capacity is available.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that local authorities bear in mind the evidence that private enterprise building companies build as well as and faster than direct labour?

There is a lot of competing and conflicting evidence on that subject in different parts of the country. Each local authority must be encouraged to get on with building the houses needed by any method open to it. The hon. Gentleman and I both represent Merseyside constituencies. I have just stressed the fact that there is unused capacity for industrialised housing of which Liverpool is making very full use, and other local authorities might be well advised to follow that example.

asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to visit Bonn; and if he will make a statement on the main subjects he proposes to raise.

As has been announced, I plan to visit Bonn from 7th to 9th March, after visiting Berlin on the previous day. Our discussions will cover the main subjects of common interest to our two countries.

While wishing the Prime Minister well in this important visit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a good job that we are not all so mean and narrow-gutted. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the German Government that Stalin is dead and that there is no need to keep 50,000 British troops in the Rhine to defend Germany against a threat which no longer exists? Will the right hon. Gentleman see if we can bring the British troops home?

I am sure that the discussions will be very far-ranging. As I said last week, the hopes which we have, and which the German Government and all the German people have, for ultimate reunification and easement of tension depend on any measures which can be used to secure a détente in that part of the world. I agree with the hon. Gentleman if that is what he had in mind.

Would the matters of common interest to which my right hon. Friend referred include the Common Market if it were mentioned by the German Chancellor?

As the House knows, I had a lengthy preliminary discussion with the German Chancellor when he visited Britain recently for Sir Winston Churchill's funeral. My impression when we were talking about the things which came up was that anything which either side wants to raise will certainly be discussed there. I should be very surprised if relations between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. and any measures to ease or end the economic division in Europe were not part of the subjects to be considered and discussed.

Before the Prime Minister persists in his comment on the support costs agreement of last summer, will he realise that, although it may be useful to him to take that line in order to attack the previous Administration, if he puts this interpretation on the agreement—it is not the interpretation which was meant at the time—he simply weakens his own bargaining position with the Germans? Surely it is more important that he should stand up for British interests by putting the right interpretation on this agreement instead of simply using it as an opportunity to blacken the Opposition.

I think that our bargaining power would have been very much greater on this if the right hon. Gentleman had shown at that time as much enthusiasm for standing up for British interests as he is doing now.

If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned to stand up for British interests, will he, perhaps for the first time, study the agreement and make it clear to himself and, therefore, possibly to the Germans that the agreement left the possibility of obtaining full recompense from the Germans? Will he press for that instead of merely trying to score very cheap political points?

Yes, Sir; the agreement certainly left possibilities. I should have thought that it would be better if it had been a little more watertight. Obviously, from our experience based on this, we must have a lawyer to draft it next time.

On a point of order. I heard the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South, I think, shout the word "Quisling" across the House. It seemed to me to be entirely out of order. Could I have a Ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, on that matter?

Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to tell me whether he used the word. I did not hear it if he did.

I am the Member for Central Ayrshire, not Ayrshire, South. I did use the word "Quisling", which has been used by Members opposite previously.

Perhaps I was not here then, but the hon. Gentleman must withdraw it now.

I am very willing to withdraw it if the Member who used it first also withdraws it.

This is the position for the moment. I have a complaint relating to the hon. Member, and I am obliged to him and note that he has withdrawn the word. I have no other complaint before me.

Can you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, as to why an hon. Member should be asked to withdraw a word which has honourable precedence of use? Can you tell the House exactly what the word means?

It means something which I do not regard as desirable in the interests of the House. I am not anxious to advance the compilation of a Parliamentary dictionary.

In connection with the withdrawal very readily by me of the word "Quisling", may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has used this word previously in debates on nationalisation procedures? I would ask that the work be expunged from the record since you have now ruled, Mr. Speaker, that it is unparliamentary that I should use it in relation to him.

As far as I know, the right hon. Gentleman has never used the word in my presence. But I may not have heard it. I do not have any power, except on a Motion of some kind, I imagine, to expunge something from the records of the House in previous Parliaments. The hon. Gentleman will have to take some steps about it if he wants that done, and I am at his service when I have found out what the right steps are should he want to pursue the matter further.

In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, about which I am not entirely clear, if the Prime Minister comes back from Germany without having obtained any alteration, would it be in order to call him a Quisling?

I will not rule on a hypothetical situation.