asked the Minister of Technology if he will consider the transfer of the peaceful functions of the Atomic Energy Authority to a separate board.

No, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, to some extent, this development will become inevitable owing to the increased complexity both of the peaceful development of nuclear energy and of the military application?

The original Question was not quite related to the comment. The inevitability of this is not certain, of course, but in my view the existing structure of the Authority enables it to carry out its responsibilities for the civil application of atomic energy. As my hon. Friend knows, I am seeking power, through the Science and Technology Bill, to extend the research functions of the Authority outside atomic energy.

asked the Minister of Technology what review he has made of the proportion of the resources of the Atomic Energy Authority devoted to marine reactors and to power stations, respectively; and what conclusions he has reached.

The Atomic Energy Authority keeps its programme of reactor development under continuous review and keeps me informed about it. At present about one-tenth of the Authority's effort on reactor development is devoted to marine work.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an overdue proportion of the work tends to be concentrated on the Central Electricity Generating Board? Does he agree that this tends to be a bad thing and has undoubtedly led to concentration on graphite moderated reactors, which might not be the best thing? Will he keep a proportion between the work for the Generating Board and reactors for other purposes, so as to keep the balance as level as it can be kept?

Yes, Sir, I certainly will.

Now that Lord Hinton has retired from the chairmanship of the Central Electricity Generating Board, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that there is a rather better working relationship between the C.E.G.D. and the A.E.A. on their forward nuclear reactor programme, and in particular will he consider putting a member of the Board of the C.E.G.D. on the Board of the A.E.A.?

I think that the hon. Gentleman had better put down a Question about that. I do not think that the relationship between the C.E.G.B. and the A.E.A. is within my province.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in reviewing these projects he bears in mind the fact that the success of the first reactor at Dounreay must be taken advantage of at the earliest possible moment in proceeding with the programme to produce a prototype commercial fast reactor?

Provided that that question is not designed to commit me, I certainly will.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress his Department has made in its proposed sponsorship of four key industries, announced towards the end of 1964; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress he has made in stimulating the development of the automation, electronics, computer and machine tool industries.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in sponsoring four key industries, as announced at the end of 1964.

I dealt with the computer industry in my statement yesterday. My Department has been studying the machine tool industry and I hope to make a statement in due course. We are also studying the problems of the electronics and telecommunications industries and discussing them with the representatives of these industries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while his statement yesterday seemed balanced and fairly non-Socialistic, we on this side of the House are rather suspicious of his "sponsorship" intentions, particularly since, last May in Tribune, he said that there was a very good case for public ownership going straight away into some of these new, modern industries and that they should not be held up?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be responsible for what is written in Tribune any more than I am responsible for what is written anywhere else. If there were a case for public ownership of any section of the industries which I sponsor, I should not hesitate to come out openly with that point of view.

Would my right hon. Friend—

Take your hand out of my pocket.

The hon. Member who said that should speak up or mind his own business as far as my hands are concerned. [Interruption.] I do not think that hon. Members opposite are competent to start telling hon. Members to take their hands out of their pockets. As far as I know, there is no comment in Standing Orders which refers to hands.

Order. The hon. Gentleman was called to ask a question. I should be obliged if he would do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous stimulus that his statement yesterday created throughout the country and the great response there has been throughout the computer industry? Will he look into the possibility of making a similar statement in order to create such a stimulus for the machine tool industry.

Of course I was aware that there was a great deal of interest in what I was likely to say about computers and I was a little surprised and pleased when some of the journals not normally noted for their support of me endorsed what had been done in the interests of the country. I said that we were studying the machine tool industry, and there are later Questions about this subject.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us on this side of the House who for many years have been intimately connected with the application of machine tools welcome the belated interest now shown by hon. Members opposite in my right hon. Friend's appointment? Does he not agree that that interest justifies his appointment?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facts about the machine tool industry which he gave in January, besides being wrong, gave the impression that he was suggesting that the machine tool industry was failing the nation? As the figures published yesterday show that the exports of the machine tool industry have increased by no less than 30 per cent. over last year, will he not agree that the machine tool industry is now showing great enterprise?

There are several questions. I am not aware that the facts which I gave in January were wrong. They were far from wrong. I was speaking about the sophisticated side of the machine tool industry. The common facts are there if the hon. Gentleman wishes to look for them. There was a great expansion in the import of machine tools at the same time, a fact apparently not known to you—to the hon. Gentleman. I shall be prepared to give these facts in reply to a later Question about the machine tool industry.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was dealing with the electronics industry. Will he bear in mind that eight trade associations are involved and that it is a very complex industry—

You are connected with it.

There was an accusation, Mr. Speaker. I am not connected with any part of the electronics industry and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the accusation.

The accusation was directed at me. I ask hon. Members to help us to get on with Questions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the various component parts of the electronics industry? Is he aware tint we on this side of the House would like him to consider the matter slowly and thoroughly rather than make a quick appreciation of what is required?

I shall be delighted to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I understood that there were nine and not eight associations. I have already had some preliminary discussions with the new body representing the electronics industry. I am very pleased to hear you say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he would welcome our taking this slowly, which is in contradiction to some of the sentiments expressed in other Questions.

asked the Minister of Technology what is his policy on the industrial application of those technological advances derived from research into and development of nuclear weapons.

The Atomic Energy Authority has for some years actively promoted the industrial application of technological advances derived from all its research and development, including that in the nuclear weapons field. My object in seeking, under the Science and Technology Bill to extend the research functions of the Authority, is to increase the opportunities for such application.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be pleasure and even relief on this side of the House at his new approach? Will he deal with two matters which arise? [HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hand out of your pocket."] First, as there is no scientific or technological difference between a peaceful atom and a warlike atom, will he get rid of some of the emotional humbug which his party has talked about this subject? Secondly, now that the Labour Party has very wisely accepted the need to rely upon nuclear weapons for the defence of the country, will he use his best offices in his Ministry to assist in making these weapons the most modern and sophisticated kind?

The answer to the second part of the question is that, except in so far as I am a member of the Cabinet, responsibility for the development of weapons is not mine. I shall be prepared to discuss my own views on what ought to be done in that field. On the question, if it was one, about the emotional humbug which has coloured our thinking on this subject, while there may not be any difference between a peaceful atom and a warlike atom, their applications have a substantial difference.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure the safety of the Aldermaston marchers?

There is a Question on this subject and I shall be pleased to answer it.

asked the Minister of Technology what action he intends taking to improve the performance of the machine tool industry.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on his policy towards the machine tool industry; and what aid he proposes to give to it through his Department.

asked the Minister of Technology by what methods he intends to sponsor technological advance in the machine tool industry.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking, by Government action, to improve the performance of the machine tool industry.

asked the Minister of Technology what he is doing to improve the performance of the British machine tool industry.

asked the Minister of Technology what consideration he has given to the problems of the machine tool industry; and what action he proposes to take.

My Department is urgently carrying out a study of the machine tool industry and I hope to make a statement shortly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree that the fact that the machine tool industry increased its exports in December by 15 per cent. and in January by 30 per cent. is an outstanding record on which he as Minister should congratulate it?

I shall be seeing representatives of the machine tool industry within the next few days, subject to my engagements here. I shall convey to them the views which we hold on the industry's performance during the last few months. The criticism was that there had been a declining performance over a number of years while the figures for the imports of machine tools rose considerably between 1963 and 1964. In 1963, the import figures were £26·2 million and in 1964 they were £33·2 million. This is a difference with which I am trying to get the machine tool industry to deal.

I welcome the energy with which my right hon. Friend is tackling this crucial problem. Will he not agree that one of the very important aspects is the way in which the latest types of machine tools are introduced into industry generally? Will he consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether some financial incentives might be suggested for dealing with this problem?

A whole range of problems affects the introduction of machine tools into industry and this is a matter which we shall be examining. There are many aspects, including the fact that a similar allowance is paid for bad as for good machine tools.

While we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will be making a statement shortly, will he give us some indication of when "shortly" is likely to be?

As soon as the facts have been ascertained, I shall provide them. I shall remember the suggestion about the electronics industry and I shall make a careful study rather than a predetermined judgment.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will visit the United States Navy at Holy Loch to discuss with them the technological benefits from the operation of nuclear-powered submarines and the development of Polaris missiles.

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons why he will not go to Holy Loch? Is it true that it is because of his antics with the C.N.D. with his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who is sitting beside him, and the Aldermaston marches and all that? Would it be because of his background that he will not go there? Will he tell the House and the country why he has done this political somersault in so short a time?

Dirty.

I am looking for the reference to that in the Question. Probably the hon. Member will reveal it sometime. The antics in which it is suggested we indulged have nothing to do with the use of technological benefits from the operation of nuclear-powered submarines and the development of Polaris missiles. I am not proposing to use in industry any underwater factories with the opportunity to fire at people from under the water.

Does the Minister realise that out of the Polaris technological advances, many advances have been made which are useful in industry and are being applied there? I refer particularly to the critical part played by the computer in civil engineering building and also at atomic power stations. Will he not, therefore, use every technological device which Polaris has thrown up?

Certainly, I shall use every device that is thrown up. Like the right hon. Member, I have been doing some visiting, too, and seeing some of the advantages which have come from the advanced techniques, particularly in electronics. This has nothing to do, however, with the question of whether I visit a Polaris submarine base.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made by the Atomic Energy Authority in the development of a nuclear reactor for marine purposes; if spectral shift is still incorporated in the design; what study he has made of the United States consolidated nuclear steam generator type now being fitted in the German s.s. "Otto Hahn" for the purposes of comparison with the British proposal; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology what study he has made of the consolidated nuclear steam generator type, constructed in the United States of America and being fitted to s.s. "Otto Hahn", for the purposes of comparison with the British proposal; and if he will make a statement.

On the first part of this Question, I refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 23rd February. If the Government decide to proceed with a prototype ship, a choice will be made between the Vulcain design which incorporates the spectral shift method of control and the alternative burnable poison pressurised water reactor. I understand that the organisation building the "Otto Hahn" is designing the reactor for this ship in collaboration with a consortium of German firms which includes the licensee of the United States design to which the hon. Members refer.

Will the Minister confirm that the Vulcain spectral shift principle is still under consideration for marine purposes? Is it not a fact that this part of the late Captain Atkins' criticisms of this reactor is valid? As we shall never get a prototype ship to sea unless we do something, will not the Minister sink his pride and that of the Atomic Energy Authority and buy American?

If you will put down a Question about purchasing American, I will try to answer that one, too. The Question which you have put—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] You will have to accept that I think of you in that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] No offence is intended, Mr. Speaker. My experience in the past has been in directing thoughts to people who did not mind. The question of the Vulcain reactor is, of course, still under review, as is the burnable poison design. The question of which is to be used, if one is to be used, is not simply a matter of whether the Vulcain or the American is the right one.

On a point of order. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was answering Question No. 28 with No. 6. Did he really mean No. 26, Mr. Speaker?

No. No. 38 was the additional number mentioned by the Minister.

Is it known when the choice between the two systems is likely to be made?

No. There are many considerations, including the question of priorities of our economic resources, too, that have to be considered.

Whilst I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman as one who has recently made bad mistakes in addressing the House in the second person plural, and wishing him the very best of luck in seeking to accustom himself, as I have had to do, may I ask him to realise that this is a matter which has very general interest in all quarters of the House? Will he keep the House informed about the progress of the investigation into this matter as soon as anything definite is known?

I will certainly be glad to do that.

Is it still the intention of the Government, as I was told on 22nd December—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hand out of your pocket."] Is it still the intention of the Government, as I was told on 22nd December, to put the Vulcain—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Take your hand out of your pocket."] Is it still the intention of the Government, as I was told on 22nd December, to put the Vulcain in the Belgian experimental reactor BR3, or do I gather from the earlier reply that that idea has been discontinued?

The hon. Member made me comforted to know that the House could shout at him for not knowing how to conduct himself, too. Collaboration on the Vulcain reactor will continue between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Syndicat Vulcain under an agreement which lasts until 1967.

In view of the considerable further developments arising from the Padmore Report, to which there was a reference in one of the right hon. Gentleman's Answers this afternoon, will he consider laying a new White Paper to show what further thought the Government have given to the matter in the light of subsequent experience?

This, I should have thought, was a little premature in the light of the Answers I have given earlier.

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

asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made on the Vulcain reactor; and to what degree his Department is co-operating in the design and construction of such a reactor.

Good progress has been made on the joint programme with the Belgians. The experimental operation of a Vulcain-type core in the Belgian BR3 reactor will begin later this year. The A.E.A. and its Belgian associates are responsible for day-to-day management of work under the agreement, which is at present limited to research and development and does not cover the construction of a reactor.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what degree the Vulcain has been a failure, and how long it will take to get either the Vulcain or some other type of reactor to sea? Does he think that the date mentioned by the Padmore Report, 1968, can still be reached?

The question whether one gets a ship to sea depends on a lot of other considerations. As to whether the Vulcain is used, perhaps I might point out that there is more than one type of reactor, but a decision has not been taken on an economic basis as to whether this is the type of project that we should initiate first.

asked the Minister of Technology how he proposes to mobilise the resources of technology into a national plan; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on his proposals for mobilising the resources of technology on a national plan.

My proposals are being prepared on the lines indicated in the statement on 26th November by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In working them out I am proceeding in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, who is responsible for preparing the National Economic Plan of which the mobilisation of our technological resources will form a part.

In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that technology is the application of rational thought? Would he not, therefore, agree that the success of technology depends upon human attitudes—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Take your hands out of your pockets."]

Order. Unless hon. Members wish to deny other hon. Members Answers to their Questions, or the chance of Answers to them, I suggest that we address ourselves to technology and rather less to the need to say "No hands in pockets" as hon. Members get up.

What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that technology is properly understood throughout the country?

I should have thought that the very creation of the Ministry of Technology was proof of our determination to do this. We are avoiding the vulgar publicity that, apparently, would have been easy, but we are trying to make industry understand, through the use of our own Advisory Council and through approaches to sections of industry, the value of the technological approach.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that within the scientific departments that have now come under his wing there are many skilled scientists who would be able to help Government Departments which are less scientifically orientated? May I suggest that the past history of C.L.A.S.P. is a good example of what can be done when scientists co-operate within Departments? Will my right hon. Friend give thought to this idea in the future?

One of the reasons for the study which we are undertaking is to enable as to use the scientific material available to us in the best possible way.

asked the Minister of Technology by what methods he intends to sponsor technological advance in the computer industry.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he proposes to take to further technological progress in the computer industry.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he proposes to take to encourage British computer manufacturers.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement about computers which I made yesterday.

We all welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday as being helpful, but is he aware that the determining factor for success or failure in the British computer industry, with its heavy development costs, is the quantum of orders for hardware? Has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals as yet to put to the House by which, through possible commercial arrangements with some of the European countries, we can make the British home market larger?

This is the purpose of the total exercise. We are designing our efforts to encourage the creation of a suitable type of computer for the home market, with the possibility of it having export value, too.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that these questions were put down before we had knowledge of his intention to issue a statement, but now that he has published a statement in some detail, and in particular with reference to setting up of a computer tape bank, will he consider investigating the possible use of microfilm techniques to aid what he proposed in his statement so that we can really get down to the job of having a technologically efficient computer industry in this country?

Nothing will be excluded from the review. It is as well for my hon. Friend to recall that we are talking about establishing a national computer programme centre. This is now in the process of preliminary discussions. This is a complicated problem which must have the good will of manufacturers, programmers, and industry before one can make a success of it.

Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday, which I also welcome, may I ask whether we should assume from it that from now on no Government Department will order computers from America? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is said that the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is about to order one?

It would be improper to assume, because of my statement, that no American computers would be ordered. Our purpose will be to create the most efficient British computer industry possible in order to do away with the inevitable fact that in many cases computers have been ordered from America because there has been no suitable British computer available in this country.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what criteria Government Departments, and perhaps local authorities, use when purchasing computers?

It would be a little difficult to make a hypothetical assessment of the criteria which will be used. What was determined in the computer statement yesterday was that there would be a computer advisory unit to which we would ask people to come for guidance, and through which we would give them the benefit of our objective survey and encourage them to use British computers if this was a feasible proposition. But at the same time it must be recognised that we shall be talking to many bodies which have their own authorities. We can give them advice, but that is all, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite are suggesting that we should take more than advisory powers.

Will my right hon. Friend consider how to meet the unfair competition, particularly in the supply of computers to universities, where the terms offered by firms competing with British computer firms are often of a non-commercial kind?

This is one of the most complicated aspects of the approach to the universities. We have cases—and they must be known to all hon. Members—of computers offered almost at give-away prices to encourage the use of them. We have said openly from our Department that we think that if people are trained on American computers it tends to make them believe that they are the only ones in existence. There are good American computers. We want good British computers so that the universities can take these instead.

asked the Minister of Technology when he intends to pay a personal visit to the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Aldermaston; whether he is satisfied with the progress of research at that establishment; and if he will make a statement.

I look forward to visiting as many as possible of the Atomic Energy Authority's establishments, including Aldermaston, as opportunity offers. Research at Aldermaston is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to make his next journey to Aldermaston on foot?

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman want him to go in a gunboat?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great satisfaction—[Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear whether the question is in order if hon. Members in disorder make so much noise that I cannot hear. Do let us get on with Questions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great satisfaction that will be felt throughout the country over the fact that he remains in his present position, thus showing that he is completely behind the Government in the development of nuclear weapons?

There are two parts to that supplementary question. First, if I go on foot I shall probably be admitted. I would not think of going on Blue Streak. I have reason to believe that at least on this side of the House there is a great deal of satisfaction at my filling the post of Minister of Technology.

Will my right hon. Friend take it that we are very glad that this time when he goes he will get in, and that he will be able to teach them a lot about politics, just as he can teach the Tories about technology?

Since Blue Streak is now playing an important part in European and Commonwealth enterprises, perhaps we can arrange an experiment involving the right hon. Gentleman and Blue Streak in the direction of Aldermaston—or somewhere else.

asked the Minister of Technology what measures he is taking to encourage scientists and technologists to remain in British industry.

I believe that the formation of a Ministry of Technology with the wide range of responsibilities described by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26th November, 1964, will in itself be an encouragement to technologists and scientists. Further, we are initiating studies into the whole question of the status of engineers, and are working in close consultation with the Department of Education and Science on the supply of scientists.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that almost everything that this Government have done, from his own appointment and the increase in taxation to the havoc created in the aircraft industry, is calculated to drive these talented people abroad?

I certainly do not accept the hon. Member's opinion about that.

Can the Minister say whether there have been any recent figures concerning the emigration of technologists to the United States and elsewhere in comparison with the figures for about a year ago?

I have no recent figures. Some of the last figures available to D.S.I.R. showed a tendency for some of them to be coming back.

Is the Minister aware that his reported statement that his new job was to bring science into industry caused considerable offence to many firms which have employed scientists for years?

I am not aware of that. It is not a statement of fact. I did not make that comment—and industry has welcomed me much more than many other people have.

asked the Minister of Technology how much was spent during the last full year on Government development contracts in the electronics industry; how much of this sum was spent with wholly owned foreign companies and partly-owned foreign companies, respectfully; what were the countries involved in the ownership, and what amount of money involved relates to each foreign country concerned; and what information he has as to the amount being spent by each country concerned on development contracts with British firms.

So far as my own Department is concerned, the amount provided in the financial year 1964–65 for development contracts placed with the electronics industry by those parts of D.S.I.R. which we are taking over, amounts to about £140,000, two-thirds of which is placed with wholly British-owned companies.

Is the Minister aware that we are grateful to him for that information? Will he look carefully at the whole situation? May it not be very bad business to subsidise, in effect, research and development for foreign-owned companies whose parent arrangements prevent their competing in exports and thereby adding to British exports? Would it not be a good thing to see whether it is possible to arrange a sort of pound-for-pound reciprocity basis for dealing with this kind of thing?

It is not the best of business propositions to spend money on research and development and then to find oneself limited in the matter of exports by the parentage of the company concerned, but in many instances it is difficult to determine the exact parentage of a company, because of cross-financing. It is sometimes difficult to determine what is a British company. But we will certainly try, wherever possible, through the National Research Development Corporation, to ensure reciprocity for this kind of arrangement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the proportion of two-thirds referred to in his Answer to be substantially altered in any way as a result of his policy statement of yesterday?

It would not be possible to define this, because it is extremely difficult to know what one means by a British firm. The people involved in the electronics industry are particularly aware how difficult it is to define what is a British firm, having regard to the European financing of two of the major companies.

asked the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy with regard to Ministers retaining positions as officers in trade unions.

asked the Prime Minister what instructions he has given as to the propriety of Ministers of the Crown holding office, even though unpaid, in organisations of known political commitments.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to require all Members appointed to positions in the Government to resign all appointments, even if unpaid, which may appear to conflict with their Ministerial responsibilities.

asked the Prime Minister in what circumstances, and under what conditions, a person assuming office as a Minister may retain a position as an officer in a trade union.

The directions given to Ministers on these and similar matters are the same as those which were circulated in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 28th January, 1960. The basic principle is that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this matter he is acting clean contrary to the spirit of those directions? Is it not quite clear that in peace time the same rule of resignation should apply to trade union officers as applies to directors, and which applied under the first Labour Government? While complimenting the Minister of Technology on his prudence in retaining his present trade union job so that he can return to it, quite shortly, is it not high time that the Prime Minister made his constitutional position legitimate?

To the extent that there was a serious point in that supplementary question, the position being followed today is exactly that which was followed by Lord Attlee's Government.

Is it not clear that there is likely to be a conflict of loyalty between a member of the Cabinet and the largest trade union in the country? Is it not entirely against the spirit of the agreement that a member of the Cabinet should retain that sort of job? Why did not he resign, like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) when he took a job?

It is the duty of the Prime Minister to see whether any conflict arises. If any did I would not hesitate to act. But it is clear to the House that everything that is being done is above board and is known to the public. This is a very different thing from a Government who did not even say what pressures they were subject to, financially and otherwise.

In deciding whether the rules of prudence and the precedents point towards resignation or the retention of office with leave of absence, unpaid, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that his predecessor, Mr. MacDonald, stated that the rules of directorships should apply to the trade union organisation and offices and that, further, in the last Labour Government when a period came when the Labour Cabinet had to face some criticism of its decision about the proclamation of the emergency in 1948 and 1949, and the manning of essential industries with Service men in 1950, by that time Mr. Ernest Bevin had ceased to hold trade union office, because he resigned in 1946?

The rule that I quoted today is exactly as stated by Lord Attlee, Sir Winston Churchill, when Prime Minister—the very same words—and, indeed, by Mr. Butler—now Lord Butler—when Leader of the House. These rules are being followed. It should be recognised that there are always moments when there may be a conflict of interest, however remote. Ministers of the last Government and of the present one have both resigned from bodies such as the National Institute for Economic Research when there was even the possibility that since a Government grant might be involved Ministers might be under pressure. Every case must be judged on its merits, and in case of difficulty or doubt the Prime Minister must decide.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that as the rule has affected company directors, in particular, it has meant that directors of public companies, in almost every instance, have resigned their directorships? As the rule has, on the whole, been beneficial, would it not be equally beneficial for it to apply similarly to offices of the kind referred to in this Question?

Where there was any question of an officer having executive functions, as a director has executive functions, there would be a conflict of that kind, but where there is no exercise of those functions the same consideration does not apply.

I agree with the Prime Minister that questions must be looked at each one on its own merits. In the case of the right hon. Gentleman, surely his reason for retaining office must be either to give or receive advice. In either case I say that there must be a conflict of interest and may I ask whether the Prime Minister will look again at the desirability of his right hon. Friend retaining this office?

I have been into this question very fully. I am not sure that it lies in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to give us this advice. He was for many years the colleague of a Minister who admitted in this House, after having been a Minister for several years, to still holding a controlling interest in a very important Government contracting firm.

Mr. Grimond.

rose—

rose—

Order. I will come back to the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). I have called the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

Is not it the case that it has not been unknown for people to give up directorships to take office and then return to those identical directorships in a manner which does seem to suppose that they have retained some possible residual interest? May I ask whether there is any difference between that and what is being done with Ministers of the present Government? May I also say to the Prime Minister that I feel there is a case for looking at the whole matter again? I fully accept that it has been dealt with according to precedent, but lately the salaries both of Ministers and Members of this House have been increased, partly to enable them to discharge their political duties without feeling that they may suffer financial embarrassment. Therefore, I believe that there is a case for looking at the whole matter again, without casting any aspersions on the conduct of the present Minister.

Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot have understood both the actual wording of the Question and the present position if he thought that there was any question of payment arising. I agree that if there were any payments it would very much change the situation. The particular case which I think the right hon. Gentleman had in mind involved no payment whatsoever. On the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I think the position must be that, as the Leader of the Opposition said, every case does raise difficulties and they have to be looked at individually. In the case I mentioned a few moments ago in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, when the Minister concerned felt there was a possible conflict of interest of course he resigned, after being for seven years a Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Second thoughts"]—with a controlling interest in a contracting firm. The right hon. Gentleman must have felt that did not involve any conflict. In the case of my right hon. Friend we must take the decision whether any conflict arises, and I am satisfied that it does not.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for sending me a letter at ten minutes past three, saying that he might use my case in answering supplementary questions. I made a statement in the House of Commons on 28th January, 1960. At the end of that statement the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said

"This was a personal statement, which we accept in the spirit in which it has been made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 381.]

Order. I am not quite certain what is happening. I called the right hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary question, in view of what had happened. I am afraid that we are not doing very well with Questions to the Prime Minister. If it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to make a personal statement about something, procedures have to be gone through. It cannot be done on an invitation to ask a question.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in that statement I said I hoped that the sale would be completed very soon, and it was, and then I should have no financial interest in the company—and I have not gone back since?

This statement I know perfectly well. I refreshed my memory about it when I saw these Questions on the Order Paper. The point I was trying to make—I think it a perfectly fair point and I did not even name the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the point is a perfectly fair one. Hon. Gentleman opposite are suggesting that my right hon. Friend, by having an unpaid appointment, has a conflict of interest. I am suggesting that if a Minister in the last Government could have been there for seven years with an admitted controlling interest before he resigned that interest, there was a question of a conflict of interest, with which the Leader of the Opposition did not seem to be concerned. I have explained the position today and no conflict of interest arises.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature—[Interruption.]—of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall—[Interruption.]—raise the matter as soon as possible.

I assume from his posture that the hon. Gentleman was giving notice.

asked the Prime Minister how many official lunches he has given at 10, Downing Street, for the furtherance of Government business, since he took office.

Twelve, Sir.

Does not the Prime Minister consider his reply somewhat surprising? Does not he recall the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology in another place on 28th January? In view of that speech does not he realise how much time he must have wasted and how inefficient he must have been? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of his business lunches is entirely paid by the taxpayer?

The supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman was so predictable that I have a full list of everything that my noble Friend said in another place on that occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with it seriously, I can tell him the names of the people for whom the 12 lunches were held. They were the Prime Ministers of Ceylon, Trinidad, Ireland, Denmark, India, Australia and New Zealand, the President of Burma, the President of Zambia, the King of Jordan and the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O.

rose—

Order. The House will be so indignant with itself soon because it has not got on with Questions to the Prime Minister.

asked the Prime Minister what further approaches he intends to make to the representatives of private industry to secure their cooperation in the solution of the nation's difficulties.

asked the Prime Minister what response there has been to date to the approaches he has made to the representatives of private industry to secure their co-operation in the solution of the nation's difficulties.

asked the Prime Minister what further approaches he plans to make to the representatives of private industry to secure their help in solving national difficulties.

asked the Prime Minister what consultations he is having with the leaders of private industry to seek their co-operation in solving the national economic problems.

My colleagues and I intend to continue the policies which have already secured notable co-operation from representatives of private industry, for example, in the reconstruction of the National Economic Development Council, the formation of Economic Development Committees and of Economic Planning Councils.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the co-operation he has had up to now from private industry in the solution of our national difficulties? Does not he think it regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition has not publicly repudiated the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in this regard—views which come very near to sedition?

I think that, so far as consultation and co-operation with industry is concerned, we have certainly every reason to feel satisfied with the progress made, though, as I have indicated elsewhere, I think we need—all of us—now to show more co-operation on both sides of industry to achieve the same objectives in connection with productivity and exports. So far as his reference to the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I must say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the Leader of the Opposition treats the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) with the same scorn as I do.

May I tell the Prime Minister that I do not accept that, but may I say to him that it applies to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)?

I was trying to get the right hon. Gentleman off the hook, but if he does not accept—I was trying to establish some bipartisanship on his part, but if he does not respond to it, perhaps he will now tell us whether he does agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

I have the greatest difficulty in getting through Questions to Ministers. I should be grateful if Ministers would not put Questions to other people.

While acknowledging that Ministers opposite need all the help and advice which they can get from public-spirited members of the private sector, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is true that these gentlemen are paid up to £12,000 a year, with pension allowance on top of that?

I am not sure which gentlemen the hon. Member is referring to—

The officers who are being recruited to Government service.

I was really dealing with Question No. 3. I think that the hon. Member's supplementary question is rather off-beat, in relation to a different question.

Would not the Prime Minister consider, perhaps along the same lines as the exports awards scheme, devising some scheme by which factories, managers and workers doing particularly well in regard to productivity could secure some form of award? Secondly, would the Prime Minister consider some plan for those directors who have given good service to the country for perhaps 15 years receiving some small present like silver? Would the Prime Minister consider perhaps asking the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to decide whether the words, "With Gratitude" should be put on?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the new system of awards to industry applies not only to export performance but to achievements in technology and innovation.

Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that awards such as "Hero of the Export Drive" would not have such a great appeal to businessmen as the profit motive itself? Would he also bear in mind that perhaps the biggest enemy of the export drive is too soft a home market?

I was not aware that the Committee which is making proposals under the awards scheme was likely to come out with that particular title. I would be very surprised if it did. With regard to the profit motive, I think that the whole House knows that both the previous Government and we ourselves have devoted a good deal of effort to attempts to find viable export incentives of a financial kind, but we are hemmed in, as they were, by our international obligations and, to a large extent, by our national interests in this matter. Therefore, it has not been possible to find very much in that direction, but we shall go on looking and seeing what we can find. On the question of the home market, this has been the subject of great theological argument for very many years to my knowledge, but, of course, one of the problems here is that if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the only way to get exports is to have deflation and under-capacity working in this country, I believe that that would be completely contrary to the interests of the nation.