asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will place before the price review body the current increases in prices charged by Government Departments and nationalised industries.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether in his inquiry into increased prices he intends to investigate the recent increase in prices in the nationalised industries.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that there is no element of inflation in the recent increases in prices announced by nationalised industries.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make inquiries into the recent price increases announced by the nationalised industries.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will take steps to put before the price review body the current price increases charged by nationalised industries and in Government Departments.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will ask the chairman of the nationalised industries to explain the reasons for their recent and proposed rises in prices and charges.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the proposed price review body will be empowered to consider current increases in prices charged by Government departments and publicly-owned industries.

The reasons for recent increases in prices and charges affecting the public at large have already been explained by the nationalised industries concerned to the Ministers responsible. My right hon. Friend sees no need at present for further investigation.

Does that mean, therefore, that the Minister agrees with the dictum of Lord Robens that in the case of nationalised industries increased wages costs are properly absorbed if one-third is dealt with by increased efficiency and two-thirds are put to deficit and saddled upon the taxpayer?

The question of the position of the National Coal Board is at present under investigation, which, of course, had been left for far too long by the previous Administration.

Is the Minister aware that despite the capital investment of £4,500 million in the last 10 years in the nationalised electricity, coal and gas industries, the average price rise is 34 per cent, in the nationalised industries? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State to take more care of the beam in his own eye and less of the mote in the eyes of his brothers and to do something about the nationalised industries?

I would have thought that in the case of some of the nationalised industries, particularly electricity, the price rise has been much less than in most other commodities. In the case of the gas industry, there has been a reduction in price by one board recently and there may well be reductions in price by other boards.

Will the Minister tell his right hon. Friend that the increase in charges by nationalised industries has not only increased the cost of manufactures but will also very greatly increase the household expenditure of the average consumer? It is therefore inflationary. If the First Secretary is doing nothing about it, as I presume from the Minister's answer, it is high time that he did.

As I said, I have no reason to believe that, taking the nationalised industries as a whole, their price rises have been higher than other commodities in general use. I would have thought that the prices and rates of the nationalised industries are much more under public control than those of any other private industry.

Is the Minister aware that his reply is most unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that a lot of my constituents are very worried about the recent electricity increases, and will he tell his right hon. Friend that his outbursts would be taken a little more seriously if he treated nationalised industries in the same way as he treats the private sector?

This is exactly what my right hon. Friend is doing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to inform his constituents that one of the reasons for the price rise by the electricity board referred to is the very high target return on capital imposed by the previous Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for years the private sector has been sustained and underpinned by the public sector due to the policies of the last Government? In order to get the position quite clear, will he consider giving us a comparison in price rises between the private and public sectors within the last 12 months?

That is something which might be considered. It is a fact that, at any rate in the early years of the previous Administration, the prices in nationalised industries were artificially held down to the advantage of the private sector. It was not until the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries drew attention to this interference by Ministers with the price fixing of the nationalised industries that the previous Administration forced the nationalised industries to raise their prices.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that there have been very substantial price rises in many solid fuels in recent months? As the First Secretary is taking on inquisitorial powers over private enterprise, it is a pity that he is not here to answer Questions on this subject.

I am not the Economic Secretary; I am the Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs. I think that my right hon. Friend has confidence in my capacity to answer Questions. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the nationalised industries are subject to a considerable degree of Ministerial inquiry, he should think again.

Is not the Minister of State saying that if he and his colleagues are happy about the nationalised industries and their prices, nothing more needs to be done? Is not this completely unsatisfactory? Just because the Government are satisfied with the prices charged by the nationalised industries, that is no reason why they should not go through this procedure. Secondly, while we are pleased to welcome the Minister of State here to answer Questions, would he convey to his right hon. Friend that, since he is the head of the Department and this is the first occasion in seven weeks on which he is top of the list, the House of Commons expects him to be here to answer Questions?

The only part of that supplementary question which needs a reply is whether or not the procedure for private industry should be adopted, for nationalised industries. The answer which I gave was, yes; where we think it necessary it will be adopted.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, when he expects to announce the Government's long-term development plan.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now make a statement on the Government's plan to deal with long-term economic weaknesses.

The preparation of the economic development plan for the next five years is going ahead and it should be complete in the summer or early autumn.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the verdict of the Economist that this plan, when published, will be merely a public relations exercise? Is the delay due to the fact that his hon. Friend cannot reach agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I think that the editorial writers of the Economist might wait until they see what the plan contains. If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that in a matter of four months we can produce a plan for the economy after all the years that hon. Members opposite were in office, I do not think his own personal experience is of much value to him.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on assuming his office? Would he agree that to produce a plan of this sort within six months is more than an exercise in public relations when one considers the record of the previous Administration?

I assure my hon. Friend that this matter is being proceeded with as fast as possible in my Department. However, it requires a very great deal of work.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to industry now that when this plan comes forward from the Government it will interfere with private industry as little as is humanly possible?

Our experience is that private industry, on the whole, welcomes the setting of these sorts of targets so that it has some idea of what it should do in the next four or five years.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the public-spirited attitude of some private firms in releasing personnel to my right hon. Friend's Department in order to prepare the plan is in striking contrast to the sour attitude of some hon. Members opposite?

That is certainly very true.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the functions of the proposed planning boards in England and Wales will be the same as those of the proposed Scottish planning board.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the composition and terms of reference of the economic planning boards in England, Wales and Scotland will be identical.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he proposes a different membership for the economic planning boards in Wales and Scotland from those in the six English regions.

There will be no difference in the functions of the board in England, Scotland and Wales. In Scotland and Wales the chairmen of the boards will be officials of the Scottish and Welsh Offices and not of the Department of Economic Affairs and some Departmental functions will be represented by the Scottish and Welsh Departments rather than by Departments which cover the whole country.

Who will co-ordinate the activities of all these boards? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any voice in this matter?

As I say, the chairmen of the boards, with the exception of those for Scotland and Wales, will be civil servants from the Department of Economic Affairs. We shall be responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the boards. All Government Departments will be involved in the overall policy with which the boards will be concerned.

Is my hon. Friend aware how pleased we on this side of the House are that the Government are taking effective steps to bring new industry and employment to areas of under-employment? Will he let me know when the Government hope to announce the plans for the South-East?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper about the Government's intentions on the South-East.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, in his inquiry into increased prices, he intends to investigate the recent increases in the cost of publications charged by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

No, Sir.

Did not the hon. Gentleman say a few minutes ago that he might refer Government Departments to the National Board for Prices and Incomes? If so, is he aware that the Stationery Office put up the cost of the Ministry of Labour Gazette by 40 per cent. between December and January? Is not that a disgraceful example to the rest of industry in private control?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of my right hon. Friend's new board. It is not to say that there shall be no price increases but that they have to be justified. I understand that there has been no general increase in the price of Stationery Office publications since 1961.

Should not this particular example be justified?

No.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will initiate a review of the various schemes for tidal barrages, particularly on the north-west coast of the United Kingdom, such review to take into account up-to-date figures with regard to the economic benefits such barrages could bring in respect of water and power supplies and better road communications.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he proposes to take to investigate the case for the Morecambe barrage and other similar barrage schemes.

Proposals for barrage schemes in the Solway Firth, Morecambe Bay and the Dee Estuary are already being carefully examined in the context of regional economic planning. It is hoped to make a statement shortly about the Government's conclusions.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is not just a matter of the generation of electricity, although barrages may be on the verge of being economic for the purpose, but that, taking into account the use of barrages for roads and the conservation of water, they may well be fully economic in the future.

We recognise that. There are very many factors which should be taken into account.

The first study for the Morecambe scheme, in particular, was put in hand by us when we were in power and would have helped us to decide whether there should be a full feasibility study of the scheme, which might cost up to £250,000. The result of that study was expected last October. Has it been received? Will the hon. Gentleman be able to announce a decision about the next stage of the feasibility study in his statement?

That is certainly what we wish to do. There is no wish on our part to delay matters. But it was most important to consider all these schemes together and not the merit of any one of them in isolation.

In considering sympathetically, as he is doing, the feasibility scheme for the Morecambe Bay barrage, will my hon. Friend remember that that is a long-term project and that it should not hamper in any way the many short-term water requirements of the Manchester conurbation?

We certainly recognise that there is an immediate problem here. Although we are looking at the possibility of such a feasibility study, a full inquiry, which itself would be very expensive, would take some time. We will not delay in dealing with important short-term needs.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps have been taken to find alternative work for research and development teams and for operatives in the aircraft and aerospace industries.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation described to the House on 9th February the new military and civil projects inside the aircraft industry which are at present under study. We hope, of course, that changes in the aircraft programme will also enable some operatives and design staff to leave aircraft work for employment in civilian industry generally, where they are badly needed. Departments are making an urgent survey of any special problems there may be in particular localities and for particular classes of skills, where the employment position is not as strong as it is nationally.

Is my hon. Friend aware how favourably this contrasts with the behaviour of the last Government in 1960 and in 1962 at a time when there was redundancy in the industry? Will the Department consider the placing of civil research and development contracts in some of the factories concerned?

All these matters are being urgently looked into, but I must point out that there is a great shortage of labour in many branches of the engineering industry. One of the objects of making these cancellations was to get a transfer of resources into industries where they would make some money.

When my hon. Friend talks about special problems, will he say in particular what he intends to do about the great aircraft works at Baginton, near Coventry, where 5,000 men are likely to be made redundant in an area with only 2,000 vacancies within daily travelling distance?

I cannot at present make any comment on individual factories or regions. I should very much like my hon. Friend to have a word with me in about six months' time if there has been no change in the situation by then.

Is the Minister aware that many of the highly-trained scientists who have been employed in the aircraft industry will not be content to go into lesser paid jobs and that unless he does something to satisfy these men, we may lose them from the country?

As to the highly-trained scientists and engineers, I admit that there may be a special problem and I am taking a particular interest in this. I believe that it would not be difficult to give these people some sort of retraining or re-education and make them valuable in other branches of industry.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give details of the membership of the Regional Economic Council for the South-West; whether all county councils will be represented; and if members are to be elected or official.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the composition of the Regional Economic Council for the South-West.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the membership of the Regional Council for the South-West.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will announce the Government's regional plans for the South-West.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects to be able to take steps to secure the personnel for the Regional Economic Planning Council for the South-West and to give more information about its composition.

We hope to announce the membership of the Economic Planning Council for the South-West Region before the Easter Recess. On representation I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on 21st January. We told the local authority associations in December that we are prepared to consider local government officers as well as elected representatives as members of the councils.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer does not add much to the information already available? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the fear and concern of many county councils that they will have imposed upon them an organisation which may suit his right hon. Friend but does not suit them and will deny to them what they feel are the rights of representation to which they are fully entitled?

I was in the South-West for two days earlier this week, and I found little such fear but rather a real anxiety to make the new planning machinery work.

Will the Joint Under-Secretary explain the reason for this delay? Does he not recall that on page 3 of "Let's Go with Labour", the manifesto on which his party fought the General Election, appear these words:

"Labour is ready. Poised to swing its plans into instant operation".

Order. Verbatim quotations from documents, of whatever value, are out of order.

Is the Minister aware that local authorities are particularly disturbed about the planning aspects of the councils and, indeed, of the boards? Can he give an assurance that there is no intention of taking away from the local authorities the powers which they now have over the planning of development in their areas?

My right hon. Friend has already made it perfectly clear that there is certainly no intention to usurp the proper function of local authorities or to take away any of their existing powers.

If the Minister is saying that all these representatives from local bodies will be considered, will he ask his right hon. Friend why, in the National Economic Development Council, he continues to exclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

That does not arise on this Question.

As the Minister of Transport has announced that before any rail closures are proposed a regional plan is to be produced, can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us what association there will be between the two sorts of regional plans? What conversations will he have with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources on this subject?

As my right hon. Friend has made clear, the purpose of the boards is to make sure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing, which has certainly not been the case in the past. We shall take full account of the needs of communications, whether rail or road, in all our regional planning.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what he attributes the recent rise in prices; and what measures he proposes to remedy this.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what replies he has received to the letters he sent to 18 trade associations and individual companies to find out why prices had gone up; whether the price review body will sit in different regions of Great Britain; what will be its personnel and procedure; and how he will implement its recommendations.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what replies he has received to his inquiries regarding higher prices.

The replies received give reasons that vary according to the circumstances of the industry or trade. But higher labour costs feature in nearly all of them. This is one of the reasons why, as announced by my right hon. Friend on 11th February, we are setting up the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Details of the arrangements to be made are given in the White Paper on the Machinery of Prices and Incomes Policy (Cmnd. 2577).

Would the Minister of State care to acknowledge that his right hon. Friends are also making their contribution to the rising cost of everything by the petrol tax, the higher Bank Rate, higher local authority interest rates, Income Tax which is to come in April and National Insurance contributions? Do not all these things add to the rising cost of everything, too?

There are, no doubt, a number of factors which increase costs. It is to ensure that price rises are based on genuine increases of cost and not upon excessive profits that we are setting up the board.[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]

What evidence is there in my hon. Friend's Department of a deliberate conspiracy by manufacturers and retailers to sabotage the efforts of the Government to get an incomes policy?

One of the gratifying things about this is that we have a good deal of support from manufacturers and from some very considerable retailers. There is no doubt that the better, most progressive and moat efficient manufacturers and retailers are supporting what the Government are doing.

Does the Minister of State recall that the Labour Party's election manifesto said that the success of the national plan would depend upon the new and relevant policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

I am sure that the hon. Member will help me. What he was saying sounded like a verbatim quotation. If he tells me that it was not, I will not stop him.

It was an abbreviation, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat the question. Does not the Minister recall that part of his party's election manifesto was based upon saying that the national plan could not succeed without their new and relevant measures to check the persistent rise in prices? Why have the party opposite abandoned this in practice?

That is an extraordinary supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is extremely easy to answer. We have just set up the machinery for dealing with those very matters.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) what plans he has for negotiating a statement of intent concerning incomes policy with that section of the population who are neither trade unionists nor employers;

In addition to detailed discussions with the T.U.C. and the four national employers' organisations, the responsible Ministers have had talks with the main groups not directly represented in the discussions. There has also been general discussion on prices and incomes policy on N.E.D.C. In all these talks the Government have throughout had in mind the interests of the community as a whole and not just of particular sections.

Is the Minister aware that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory Answer? Is he aware that there are millions of people who are neither trade unionists nor employers and that they are sick and tired of those two bodies coming to arrangements, often under the threat of economic blackmail, which impose a burden the result of which invariably falls upon the shoulders of this other section of the population? Will the Minister please initiate discussions with this section of the population, who are neither trade unionists nor employers, about an incomes policy? As to the price review body, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that independent people are appointed to it to represent the points of view of that section of the population who are neither trade unionists nor employers?

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for answering his own question for me. If he reads the White Paper, he will find that this is exactly what we are doing.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the mere setting up of a price review body does not absolve the Government from the responsibility of carrying out a nationally sound economic policy? Is he further aware that the Socialist paradise of Sweden has had a price review body since 1957, yet in the last 12 years the cost of living there has gone up faster than in this country?

I am aware of both those things, and also of the fact that the rate of economic growth in Sweden is very much greater than it has been in this country.

We know that only in the nationalised industries are the interests of the consumers taken care of, but will my hon. Friend ensure that the interests of the consumers are taken care of in other sections of the economy?

Certainly that is the intention.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the total staff of his Department in each grade.

Three hundred and fifty-eight, including eight part-time staff. With permission I will circulate the analysis by grades in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does the hon. Gentleman say that there has been a corresponding reduction in other Departments? Is not there something to be said for taking on more typists to get around to writing to the nationalised industries?

The answer to the substantial part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is 20 from the Treasury, and 65 from the Board of Trade.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many persons employed in his Ministry are on loan from industry? Is it not true that these persons are not paid by the Government, but are still being paid by industry? Is it not incorrect trade union practice that men should be employed and not paid by their proper employers?

The hon. Gentleman will find the figures for which he has asked in the OFFICIAL REPORT when the analysis by grades is published. The rest of his remarks seem to be typical of hon. Gentlemen opposite who object when industry helps the Government to try to achieve their objectives.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he anticipates an increase in the number of staff in his Department as work develops, or does he contemplate receiving assistance from and liaison with local government authorities in the areas concerned?

In regard to regional planning boards?

Yes.

Obviously we shall cooperate with local government authorities, but they will not provide the staff.

On a point of order. In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

We must get rid of the adverb in that form of notice.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now announce the names of the members and the terms of reference of the prices and incomes review body.

It is hoped to announce the names shortly. The terms of reference will be contained in a Royal Warrant.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what sanction the board intends to apply if its recommendations on prices or incomes are disregarded, how it can prevent inflationary wage demands, and how his right hon. Friend hopes to control prices if he does not, as I assume he does not, intend to control wages?

As my right hon. Friend has explained, it is intended that the board should operate in the first instance without further statutory powers, but if the hon. Gentleman refers to the White Paper, he will see that it was agreed by both sides of industry that if it was found necessary to take further powers in the future, we should have to take them.

Can the hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that he will not legislate to enforce wage agreements or limit wages?

I should think, yes, we could give that assurance.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not put on the board the Controller of the Stationery Office?

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is now the economic priority of the Concord project.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation said in his statement to the House of 20th January, the Government intend to press forward purposefully with the project. Economic, as well as other considerations, were taken fully into account when this decision was made.

That does not answer the Question. I asked what was the economic priority of the Concord. Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that in the White Paper of 26th October, in paragraph 13(6), the Concord was classified as of low priority? Does he realise that if the Concord is to succeed commercially, the time lead over the Americans is the essence of the whole thing? Will he give an assurance that the Government mean to press on energetically with the Concord?

The Government intend to press on energetically with the Concord. They also intend to examine its economic potential from time to time, and not to continue with an open-ended commitment.

I asked what was the economic priority now given to the Concord, and my Question has not been answered. Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is given a high priority or a low priority?

It obviously has a fairly high priority, or we would not be spending on it the money that we are doing.

asked the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how he proposes to encourage British industry to supply those manufactures which swell the import bill in time of expansion.

Through action designed to stimulate greater efficiency and competitiveness throughout British industry and to improve the standard of design and technological innovation.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the only step that has been taken so far is the negative action of imposing the surcharge? Is it not time that some proper stimulus was given to British manufacturers to decrease the need for imports?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that we have provided a rebate for exporters as well, in addition to many other measures taken to encourage exports.

Will my hon. Friend not be discouraged by the failure of hon. Gentlemen opposite to give due credit for the improvement which has been achieved in our economic position by the Government's action?

There are considerable signs that this improvement is taking place.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the only way in which manufactures from abroad can be manufactured in this country is for us to be competitive, and that everything that he and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done since they got into office has been to inflate costs? Does he appreciate that we must not continue with our present high rate of taxation if we are to be competitive with people from abroad?

The 15 per cent. surcharge certainly gave a breathing space to industry in which to become more competitive, and it is about time that some of them did so.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he will announce the chairmen and members of the regional planning boards.

The boards will consist of officials of the Departments concerned with regional planning under the chairmanship of an official of our Department. We hope that some of the boards will start work next month.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these regional economic councils will result in one of the biggest advances in planning in recent years? Is he further aware that this will help restore regional planning to its proper place in our national affairs? Finally, will he tell the House how he proposes to ensure that the members of these boards act in the interests of the whole region and not in the sectional interests of the whole region, and not in the sectional interests of the authorities which may nominate them?

Members of the boards will consist of officials of the Department concerned. My hon. Friend may be thinking of the economic planning councils. We shall certainly ensure that the membership is representative of the region, and will do the planning job that he has in mind.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how it can be guaranteed that they are fully representative if there is to be no elective process and no democratic method of selection, but merely an appointment from Whitehall, which is presumed to know best?

The Question was about the boards but the supplementary question is about the councils.

Will the First Secretary be careful not to expose too much of this planning machinery too soon, in order not to shock Members of the Liberal Party?

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us which boards he is proposing to set up first? Secondly, can he confirm that "board" is another name for the machinery already created for dealing with the North-East and the North-West?

The councils and boards in all the six regions of England already indicated by my right hon. Friend will be announced, we hope, before the Easter Recess. We are quite satisfied that the new machinery is a most important advance on anything that has been done in the past.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will announce the Government's plans for the South-East region.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress is being made towards the implementation of the South-East Study; and with what other Departments consultation is taking place.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the review of the South-East Study will be completed.

We are making good progress on the review of policy for the South-East in consultation with all the appropriate departments. It is too soon to say when the job will be completed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most people in this region view with concern the planned increase of 3½ million people in this area? Is he further aware of the urgent need to make certain that good farming land is not irretrievably lost? Finally, will he bear in mind the urgent need to know the Government's long-term plans and, further, can he tell us whether it is true that the Channel Tunnel is likely to be abandoned?

We are looking very closely at the problem of the South-East, which is a very difficult one, and we are examining the study undertaken for the previous Government. As soon as we see that the position is clear we shall certainly make an announcement.

Can the Minister say whether general agreement has been reached with the Ministry of Housing on the general outline of these proposals?

There is full agreement with the Ministry of Housing on all matters concerning the South-East Study. Interim steps were necessary to deal with the immediate problem of London's housing. We do not intend long-term plans to be the enemy of short-term needs.

Is the Minister aware that the outcome of this review of the South-East Study is eagerly awaited in Kent, where the people were considerably disappointed that when that study of the last Government was produced it did not take into account a number of major proposals contained in the Kent Development Plan? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that he and his right hon. Friend will take into account those major points, particularly those concerning Sheppey and Aylesford?

I can give that assurance. We shall examine with the greatest care all the points raised by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members concerned with planning authorities in the South-East.

Since the majority of the 3½ million increase comes by way of natural increase, may we have an undertaking that the Government do not intend to interfere with the natural process of breeding?

Any question of interfering with the natural process of population growth is not a matter for my Department.

If we cannot decide natural processes, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the revised proposals to be announced do not accept the 3½ million increase envisaged by the previous Administration? Does he realise that it is of vital importance to diminish the pressure on London's housing?

Yes. We fully understand that the size of the population to be catered for in the 1970s and 1980s bears closely on the plans that we shall prepare. We realise in particular that the rate of migration into the South-East accepted by the previous Government is one factor in particular which must undergo the very closest scrutiny.

Does the hon. Member realise that during the election campaign his right hon. Friend rejected the whole South-East Study; that a fortnight ago his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government implemented the first half of it, and that we are now awaiting with some eagerness the moment when he himself will announce that the remainder of the study will be implemented, after an unnecessary delay?

The important thing is to make the right decisions. The previous Government produced a Study for the South-East which we regard in many respects as inadequate. We are examining it and the assumptions upon which it was based.

Questions to the Prime Minister.

On a point of order. Question No. 27 has not been reached. I presume that I shall receive a Written Reply. May I make a correction in it, by substituting "10 sq. ft." for "100 sq. ft."? This will make a tremendous difference to the type of answer that I receive.

The hon. Lady's tremendous difference will be noted.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake a Commonwealth tour as an earnest of his intention to strengthen the links between Commonwealth members and to increase trade.

It is Her Majesty's Government's policy to do everything possible to foster the Commonwealth connection, both in trade and other fields. I have already visited Canada and I have accepted invitations to visit India, Pakistan and Malaysia later in the year. In addition I have, of course, met leading statesmen from nearly every Commonwealth country.

I appreciate the energetic endeavours of my right hon. Friend in this matter, but does not he agree that in view of the ominous sounds currently being made by the Leader of the Opposition about the Common Market, which seem effectively to write off the Commonwealth, will my right hon. Friend take the advantage of this Question to announce now that he will undertake a trip of this kind to reassure our Commonwealth friends?

I do not think that it needs a visit by me to the Commonwealth to provide reassurance in relation to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that that was very effectively dealt with in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday. I am sure that the fears of my hon. Friend will be allayed when the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition answers some of the questions that my right hon. Friend put to him in his speech yesterday.

May I say that I have sent a copy of my speech to the Foreign Secretary, so that he may read it right through?

I happen to know that my right hon. Friend has read it right through—and I read at any rate the full account of it. But there are a few unanswered questions and I am sure that the country will be delighted to have a further exposition by the right hon. Gentleman whenever he is able to give it.

The right hon. Gentleman always talks a great deal about increasing Commonwealth trade. Can he tell us whether he now has a positive plan for expanding that trade?

This is not just a question of talk, because when we were in Government before we had a much higher proportion of trade with the Commonwealth than we have ever had before or since. I should be glad to remind the hon. Gentleman of the devastating way in which that proportion fell during the last 13 years, and particularly in the last five years. As I have made plain, we shall be discussing at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference this year a number of plans for reversing that trend.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when he was in power before, all the sterling area restrictions were in operation and multilateral trade and convertibility were not possible? Is he arguing that further sterling restrictions should be introduced, to enable this to happen again?

I always thought that the right hon. Gentleman did not know much about Commonwealth trade. If he thinks that the whole of the big development in Commonwealth trade at that time was due to the fact that he mentioned I would direct him, at some time, when he has a little time to spare from other pursuits, to study the effect on Commonwealth trade of the 52 long-term contracts that we had with Commonwealth countries on primary produce.

asked the Prime Minister if he will advise the appointment of a deputy Prime Minister.

My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State acts in this capacity when this is necessary, for example, because I am abroad.

Is the Prime Minister aware that a de facto coalition exists and would not he regularise this by inviting the Leader of the Liberal Party to join his Cabinet as deputy Prime Minister? Is he aware of the arrangement that has been come to by which the Liberal Party will vote vigorously against the Second Reading of the Steel Bill and absent itself during the Committee stage?

I was not aware of any such suggestion. I had not thought of making such an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman. Frankly, we are not obsessed about the Liberals as are hon. Gentlemen opposite. I did, however, notice last week that the members of the Liberal Party were as confused and ill-informed about aviation as hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the National Opinion Poll published in the Daily Mail today relating to the view taken of the leadership of, at any rate, the Conservative Party? Would not he agree that the future of that party and whether or not a deputy or indeed a successor to its leader should be found is a much more pressing and relevant issue?

Yes, Sir, but nothing that even the hon. Gentleman can say will destroy the unity with which we support the present incumbent.

asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have for requesting the continued services of Dr. Beeching when his period of service with the Railways Board comes to an end.

Her Majesty's Government have no plans for the future employment of Dr. Beeching after he leaves the British Railways Board. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport told the House on 23rd December, it is Dr. Beeching's wish to return to Imperial Chemical Industries later this year.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a very great pity if the nation lost the services of this very able gentleman? Would my right hon. Friend direct his attention to a leading article in the Financial Times of 11th February which talked about the agricultural industry needing a thorough investigation? Is he aware that Dr. Beeching seems to me to be the man for the job?

It is always interesting to try to speculate what supplementary question my hon. Friend really has in mind. So far as Dr. Beeching is concerned, while the whole House will wish him all success on the resumption of his activities with Imperial Chemical Industries, I am sure that at suitable times—in view of his vast experience in both industrial and public services—were there any invitations that any of us wanted to make to him to serve the nation in any capacity, those invitations could be put forward.

asked the Prime Minister how he arrived at the estimate of at least £250 million saving that would result from purchasing the TFX instead of the TSR2; and whether his calculation is based on the existing TFX or a developed version of it.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 9th February to the Question by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) and the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to a Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on the same date.

Is the Prime Minister aware that one of his noble Friends yesterday in another place did not even know how many TFXs might be ordered if that decision was taken? How can the right hon. Gentleman base an evaluation on this hypothetical number?

It has never been the practice to reveal details of estimates, particularly of aircraft, in a particular programme, whether we are talking about the TFX, as in this case, or the TSR2. But the cost figures were calculated on certain assumptions not only about how many TFXs would be involved but whether they would be Mark I or Mark II.

The Prime Minister is aware that the American aircraft industry would be prepared to drop the price of the TFX to any extent necessary to put the British Aircraft Corporation out of competitive business?

This I think was dealt with fully in the aviation debate last week. What I think is even more interesting, from the point of view of defence controversy, is that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has decided to drop his right hon. Friend as defence spokesman.

asked the Prime Minister whether his estimate of £300 million for the research and development cost of the TSR2 includes the cost of the 20 pre-production aircraft or only of the first nine.

The estimate includes the full cost only of the first nine aircraft.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we are grateful to him for answering at least this Question? Why must the right hon. Gentleman slavishly copy the previous Tory Government's policy of refusing to give any information on these matters so that we may form a balanced judgment of them in this House?

Partly because, as I have explained—and as I explained during the debate on the censure Motion a fortnight ago and as my right hon. Friend explained last week—there is a great deal as yet that is still unknown about the potentialities both of the TFX Mark I and the possible potentialities of the TFX Mark II, and about the TSR2 as well.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister is going a little further than perhaps would be wise in quoting figures and prices for these numbers of aircraft. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree?

I was not quoting prices, but a broad estimate of saving which might be involved if a certain decision were taken. Indeed, I think that the time has come, if it is not overdue, when the House, when considering major expenditure programmes, should have some regard to costs and the position of the taxpayer. This has not been the position for several years, and we think it about time that it was.

Are we to take the word of the right hon. Gentleman for the saving which he says may be produced, or can we have some justification of it?

If the hon. Gentleman has any other estimates, the House would be prepared to receive them. We stated them on the basis of all the best information available to the Government who have responsibility in these matters both in respect of seeing that the Defence Services are properly equipped and that the taxpayer has a proper protection against excessive expenditure.

asked the Prime Minister what initiatives are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to seek ways and means for a peaceful settlement to the present conflict between Malaysia and Indonesia, in particular by means of a possible conference of the two countries under the chairmanship of Pakistan.

The British Government have consistently maintained that they would welcome a peaceful settlement of the dispute arising from Indonesia's policy of armed hostility towards Malaysia on a basis which ensured respect for Malaysia's independence and territorial integrity.

In view of the fact that the guerrilla activities have diminished within the past few weeks, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this presents a further opportunity for some initiative on the part of our Government; and also, if Pakistan is not an acceptable country, could not we consider the offer of Algeria, which is also a Moslem country, and which could be acceptable to Malaysia and Indonesia which are both Moslem countries?

The position of the Government, and I am sure of the whole House, is that we should welcome any initiative which might lead to a settlement and an end of this confrontation, provided there was no question of a settlement interfering with Malaysia as it is at present constituted. There have been a number of suggestions for mediation. We have to make clear so far as we are concerned that we would welcome anything which would produce an honourable settlement but we cannot get into the position of ourselves negotiating which would give the Indonesians just the argument they are looking for to suggest that Malaysia is in some way in a tutelary position, which is not the case. She is a self-governing member of the Commonwealth. We have promised her full support and given her full support and it could well be that that support may have something to do with the recent diminution of activity.

Nevertheless, would my right hon. Friend recall that it was the stated policy of the Labour Party when in Opposition and also the agreed policy of the Conservative Party when in Government that this problem requires a political solution as soon as possible? Would not he also agree that, while of course we guarantee the security of the Federation of Malaysia, we must not be too restrictive and cautious in suggesting a political initiative in view of the fact that we are largely responsible through our own men for the defence of the Federation of Malaysia?

Of course, this requires a political solution and so does every other piece of trouble of a similar character going on in any part of the world. Of course, a political solution is necessary. This is not in the ordinary sense a war. There is no real basis of dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia. This is infiltration into Malaysian territory by units from Indonesia. The whole trouble arises from the fact that Indonesia, as we saw by her conduct at the United Nations, does not recognise the existence of Malaysia and that is one of the difficulties about a political solution which we all want to achieve.

Will the Prime Minister understand that while we all want a political settlement, as long as he sticks to the principles and the practice which he enunciated just now at the Box, he will have the full support of this side of the House?