asked the Minister of Power what is his policy on the protection of home producers of coal against imported oil.

asked the Minister of Power when he will make a statement on the detailed provisions of his national fuel policy.

asked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to reduce the burden of interest charges carried directly by the National Coal Board, in order to assist the development of a realistic general fuel and power price structure.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he has taken, following Her Majesty's Government's study of methods to assist the industry, in maintaining the present size of the coal industry.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a further statement on the progress he is making towards capital reconstruction of the finances of the National Coal Board.

asked the Minister of Power if he will now make a statement setting out his national fuel policy.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he proposes to take to reduce net imports of fuel oil and gas oil from refineries abroad by encouraging greater use of home-produced coal.

I am proposing to make a statement in the next few clays on the steps I am taking to assist the coal industry in the short term. As to the longer term, I would ask my hon. Friends and the hon. Members to await the outcome of the review of fuel policy I have in hand.

In view of the Minister's intended statement in a few days" time, will he bear in mind that, while it is appreciated that Lord Robens wishes to spread his costs over as large a production as possible, there is nothing sacrosanct about the figure of 200 million tons of coal if the country cannot use it? In making his statement, will he bear in mind the need of British industry for the cheapest possible fuel from wherever it is bought?

Those points were covered in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 9th February.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are all very glad that his coyness on this subject is coming to an end. Can he give us some assurance that his statement will be made in the House and that it will be a comprehensive statement on all aspects of fuel policy?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman should have noticed my naturally coy disposition. I said that the statement on coal which I would make in a few days would be essentially a short-term statement. I cannot anticipate the date of the longer-term statement.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the unfair and arbitrary burden of interest charges as between the fuel industries makes a proper comparison of the fuel industries impossible?

Yes, and I have said that we are looking at that matter as it affects the coal industry.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the coal industry has done great service to this country, and particularly to industrialists, and was the only industry which about the time of the last Budget provided cheap fuel for the steel industry? Will he also bear in mind that what the people of this country and especially the miners are looking for is not a politician's answer but a statesman' answer, and will he also bear in mind—

Order. I think the Minister had better give his statesman's answer as far as we have got.

The most statesmanlike reply I can give is that not only has the coal industry served the nation very well in the past, but that it will continue to do so in future.

Has the right hon. Gentleman decided, like the First Secretary of State with his national plan, to keep his long-term fuel policy secret from the public and to release only selected bits of it when it suits him?

The long-term policy which I am working on is to be incorporated in the national plan.

Later—

On a point of order, may I have an answer to Question No. 30?

It was answered with Question No. 1, possibly in the possible absence of the hon. Member.

But there is no conceivable connection between Question No.1 and this Question.

That may well be, but it is not a proposition on which I can become involved in argument. It was so answered.

asked the Minister of Power what smokeless zones are now in operation in the Ilford area; and what information he has about the sufficiency of fuel supplies.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government informs me that five smoke control orders are now in operation in the Ilford area and a further order will be operative from August this year. Smokeless fuels generally are, and should continue to be, in good supply in the area.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he had with the National Coal Board on the fixing of zone-delivered prices of rail-and road-borne domestic coal.

The National Coal Board consults my right hon. Friend as a matter of course on any proposal to change the general level of coal prices.

Is the Minister aware that the National Coal Board spread the recent 4 per cent. increase in rail freight increases for coal over road-borne as well as rail-borne supplies, with the result of concealing the true cost of relative systems of delivery? Is not this a bad case of two nationalised industries suppressing the results of competition from private enterprise?

I cannot accept any of the remarks made by the hon. Member. I understand that there have been changes in the freight costs, but the hon. Member must remember that the pithead element of the price of coal has been largely stable since May, 1962.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent he is prepared to exercise his statutory power of requiring information from the National Coal Board so as to give information in answer to Parliamentary Questions on pit closures and the numbers being made redundant as a consequence.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent he is prepared to alter his practice so as to exercise his statutory power to require information from nationalised industries so as to give information in answer to Parliamentary Questions on the administration and policies of those industries.

I have no present intention of departing from previous practice in this respect.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that under the Act he is empowered to direct the Board on matters of general policy? Is not this matter of closure of pits one not only of general, but of national, policy? What is the sense of referring hon. Members to the National Coal Board in matters of this kind when we receive only stereotyped and valueless replies?

I am answering according to the rules which the House has laid down and the arrangements, which will continue to be operated, as announced in the House on 31st July, 1963, by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about answering Questions seeking statistical information on a national basis about a nationalised industry.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there appears to have grown up in the last two years a kind of restrictive practice with regard to a answering questions on the policy of the nationalised industries? Will he also take note of the fact that when I tried to put down a simple Question on the provision of a coal-fired power station in the County of Durham I was advised that it was not in order? It appears to be the case that in the past Ministers have been sheltered from hon. Members" questions.

This is not a question for my Ministry but a matter of the way in which the House decided, in years gone by, how we should answer Questions on the nationalised industries. I am not trying to reduce the extent of that obligation. I am merely conforming to the previous procedure.

My right hon. Friend is placing far too rigid an interpretation on what was declared then. When I was Minister of Fuel and Power, I was responsible for this Act going through the House, and I answered Questions on matters of this sort.

There is not the slightest effort on the part of my Ministry to reduce the number of Questions we answer. We are simply carrying out the procedure which the House has accepted for many years.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that Polish coal is being sold abroad at prices that do not cover the freight from pit to port, if his consent was given to the National Coal Board's contract to Italy for one million tons of coking coal; to what extent it is subsidised; on what terms it will be sold; and if he will make a statement.

The export of coal is a commercial matter for the National Coal Board. The terms of sale are a matter for settlement between buyer and seller. There is no question of a subsidy from Her Majesty's Government.

In view of the fact that Polish coal is being sold in Europe at less than the cost of transport from the pithead to the port of reception, how can British coal be sold in Europe without a subsidy? Will the Minister say how much subsidy this contract has involved?

I have replied that there is no question of a subsidy from Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board to hold an inquiry into the increase of absenteeism in the industry.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Member not aware of the alarming increase in absenteeism that is taking place in the coal industry at present? Is he aware that it now amounts to 20 per cent. and is adding up to 10s. a ton to the price of coal? Is not he further aware that it is acknowledged throughout the industry that a good deal of the sickness and injury claims are false? Will he assure us that no regard will be paid to claims made upon the coal industry for increased wages and salaries until the National Union of Mineworkers has put its house in order?

The problem of absenteeism is a matter of day-to-day judgment for the Board.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the mineworkers would not mind his publishing figures in respect of absenteeism if similar figures were published in respect of every other industry? What the miners are fed up to the back teeth with is dogs barking before they are hurt.—[Interruption.] This is short and sweet. If my hon. Friend publishes these figures will he also see that figures concerning industrialists and bosses in other industries are published?

There are quite a few industrialists and quite a few bosses outside the industry with which this Question deals.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the electricity boards to provide proper earthing systems at no charge to the consumer in cases where earthing to metallic water pipes has become ineffective as a result of the introduction of plastic pipes.

No, Sir. The boards have undertaken to warn consumers where they are aware that earthing may have become impaired, and are prepared to give them any necessary help in putting it right. In many cases they will do this tree of charge, but they must reserve the right to make a charge where circumstances justify this.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that there have already been a number of serious accidents as a result of the change from metal pipes to plastic pipes? Is he aware that cases of hardship have arisen where people on a limited income are unable to afford to make the necessary alterations or to permit the electricity board to do this on their behalf? There is a considerable public danger, and this is a matter which requires urgent attention.

Whether the boards make a charge must be left to their discretion and commercial judgment, and as the circumstances of individual cases vary it would be inappropriate to make a general direction. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any example of difficulty in mind, I certainly undertake to consider it.

asked the Minister of Power what decision has been reached about the second nuclear power programme.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on future developments of nuclear power in the electricity supply industry.

I have nothing to add to the replies I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) on 1st December and to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 26th February.

When will the Government reach a decision about this, and what is the reason for the delay? Is it because of the high capital expenditure involved, or because the Government cannot make up their mind between the different reactor systems involved?

It is not a bad idea for the Government to wait until they have received the views of the A.E.A. and other interested parties. We have not yet reached that point. The tenders must go through a meticulous and detailed examination. However, as I have told the House before, the moment we make a decision we will advise the House on it.

But does not the Minister recall that he promised the House a statement in February? We have now gone past February. Will he bear in mind that it is urgent that a decision should be made in this very important matter as soon as possible?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two or three things. What I said was that the tenders were received on 1st February. I have certainly never said to the House that we could give a decision in February. This is a long and complicated process. I repeat that I will make a statement as soon as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, because the former Administration hurried their decision on nuclear power, they wasted several hundred million pounds of the nation"s money and that we would be best off if he took his time on this issue?

asked the Minister of Power what he estimates will be the capital requirements of the coal, gas and electrical industries over the next five years.

Estimates of the industries" capital expenditure in 1965–66 are given in the White Paper, Loans from the Consolidated Fund, 1956–66. I am not in a position to give figures for any later year. My Department is currently engaged in its yearly examination of the industries' programmes with a view to determining the industries' capital allocations for 1966–67 and to settling provisional allocations for 1967–68.

Is it fair for these capital requirements to be met out of current charges? Cannot they be met by loans to which the public have subscribed and possibly tax free?

I should have thought that the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member had a lot to do with the present system. At present I have no intention of changing it.

asked the Minister of Power if he will seek to amend the Electricity Act, 1957, so as to restore to the electricity boards, and particularly to the Central Electricity Generating Board, the right to manufacture plant and equipment.

Yes, Sir, as an opportunity arises.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this was a very valuable reserve power for the supply authorities and that it greatly assisted them in their contractual dealings with the manufacturers?

I appreciate that.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any request from the electricity industry for the restoration of such powers? Will he change his mind in view of the very strong arguments against the proposals of his hon. Friend?

The powers in the 1947 Act were never used, and we have not yet received any request from the boards to restore them. These are very important reserve powers and we have undertaken to introduce legislation, when such legislation is required, to remove the statutory limits which impede the nationalised industries.

asked the Minister of Power what gross profit was earned by the Southern Electricity Board in the year ended 31st March, 1964; and what is the estimated additional revenue likely to be obtained by recently announced increased charges to consumers.

The board's accounts published for the year ended 31st March, 1964, showed a trading surplus of just over £8 million (after depreciation but before interest). On the second part of the Question, I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

Is it not clear that the figures which the Minister has given for these additional charges imposed on my hard-hit constituents—and they will be harder hit before the afternoon is out —are quite unnecessary?

The Board considered that a price increase was needed to meet increases in costs, bulk supply tariffs, wages, and so on.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that the project to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, which is not private property, was granted under licence from the British Government to certain companies instead of being undertaken by Her Majesty's Government, if he will now take steps to rectify this by taking over the control and management of this project.

As I informed the House on 1st December, 1964, the Government have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to disturb the production licences issued last year. It would be inconsistent with that decision to take the action proposed by my hon. Friend.

My right hon. Friend has mentioned public rights. Does he realise that these licences, granted by a previous Government, gave away British national rights? Will he take steps to ensure that they are exploited by and for the British nation and not for private profit?

My hon. and learned Friend will know from his legal knowledge that the licences to which he refers are legally binding contracts on the basis of which licensees have already committed themselves to pretty substantial expenditure, much of which will benefit development districts.

Is not that a rather unsympathetic reply to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) since he is merely repeating speeches made by members of the Government during the General Election?

I apologise if I missed part of my right hon. Friend"s reply because of the noise in the House. Is he aware of a recent "Panorama" programme which spotlighted the inefficiencies and wastefulness of private enterprise to the extent that the first concessionaire is not able to make knowledge available to other concessionaires? Would my right hon. Friend have a look at this aspect of the matter with a view to ensuring that the knowledge is made available to many concessionaires in the public interest?

I believe that the people who have the licences are pretty knowledgeable in looking for oil and gas. I certainly note the point which my hon. Friend makes about the inefficiency of private enterprise.

Does the Minister agree that the expenditure is something like £80-£150 million, and would it not be better to allow this to be done by experts and not by amateurs?

In view of the Minister's quite gratuitous remark about the inefficiency of private enterprise, will he kindly tell the House whom he has in mind to carry on these operations in the North Sea? Would it not be altogether more seemly if the Minister conducted himself with some appreciation?

I am sorry that the hon. Member is getting perturbed. My hon. Friend mentioned the inadequacies of private enterprise. I should have thought that since the party opposite kept 10 per cent. of our economy nationalised when they were in power, they recognised that private enterprise should be kept out of some industries.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he made, when agreeing to the new electricity charge increases in the eastern electricity area, of the resulting increase in production costs of industry.

It is not practicable to make an estimate for a particular area, but for most industries the increase in production costs is likely to be very small.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that increases in costs of electricity are up to 7 per cent.? As the Government urge private industry to absorb these increases itself, will they not urge the electricity industry also to absorb its own price increases?

The electricity industry has certainly done what it can to absorb its increased costs. This matter must be kept in proper perspective. If the Eastern Electricity Board's area were typical of the United Kingdom, the tariff increase would raise industrial costs by only one-tenth of 1 per cent.

Would not the Minister agree that the eastern and south-western electricity areas are the most difficult in the country to operate? Does he not consider that the time has come when we should have a standardised tariff throughout the country, which we were talking about in this House ten years ago?

Conditions vary from area to area. On the question of standardised tariffs, perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will issue general directions, in the national interest, to the National Coal Board, Wales Gas Board, and the Welsh Electricity Board instructing them to increase their participation it industrial exhibitions.

No. Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that none of these nationalised industries is participating in the important industrial exhibition of Wales which is due to take place next month? Is he further aware that over 1,000 overseas visitors have been invited to this exhibition, which is the largest of its kind to originate in the Principality? Will not the Minister reconsider from a prestige point of view, both of the country and of the industries, whether something cannot be done for these nationalised industries to participate in this important exhibition?

This is a matter which is best left to the commercial judgment of the Boards on the spot. I notice that the hon. Member shakes his head. A few years ago he made allegations in this House of extravagance and waste by the National Coal Board in Wales, but a year later he admitted that they no longer applied.

asked the Minister of Power if he will issue a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board requiring that they only employ contractors for new power stations who pay their work-force at rates which, including overtime, are broadly in line with average earnings in the locality.

No, Sir. The Board's contracts incorporate the normal fair wages clause in respect of minimum wages, hours and conditions and the question of actual wage rates is one for the contractors themselves and their employees.

Is the Minister aware that in disavowing responsibility in this field he has disavowed the Government's income policy in terms? Is he aware that there is an auction for local labour in the Selby area because of the construction of the Eggborough power station and that the Minister's agents are the highest bidders? Would he take steps to see that rates are kept in line with local earnings?

This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board, which incorporates a fair wages clause in its contracts. It would be impracticable and contrary to normal practice in industry for the Board to go further and attempt to control the rates paid by contractors.

asked the Minister of Power upon what estimates of the domestic consumption of solid fuel for each of the 10 years 1965 to 1975 his national fuel policy is based.

The future trend of domestic and other demand for solid fuel is one of the matters which I am examining in the course of my review of fuel policy.

Does the Minister agree that the reduction in domestic consumption last year was of the order of 10 per cent. and is likely to continue? Will he give an undertaking in his national fuel policy that there will be no attempt at direction of domestic consumers as to which fuel they are to buy?

I have no intention of trying to direct anybody about anything.

asked the Minister of Power the total public expenditure on research for the electricity industry in 1964; and how much of this was undertaken by the Central Electricity Generating Board and how much by other public corporations.

Total research expenditure by the Electricity Council and boards in 1964–65 was about £7 million, of which over £6 million was by the Central Electricity Generating Board. The Atomic Energy Authority estimates that its expenditure in 1964 on developing various reactor systems for power generation was about £18 million. Expenditure by other bodies, such as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the National Coal Board, on research of interest to the electricity industry amounted to about £½ million.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that there is no undue overlapping between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Board?

I am satisfied that no promising research project is being neglected. If there is any overlapping, perhaps the hon. Member will bring it to my attention.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that the pricing policy of the Central Electricity Generating Board discriminates unfairly against large industrial users of electricity; what, in considering future proposals for increased charges, will be his policy in regard to this; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no evidence of discrimination. Consumers who consider that there is such discrimination in the pricing policies of the electricity boards may make representations to the electricity consultative council for their area.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he does not recognise that cheap energy is the basis of industrial efficiency and that the costs of electricity to large users are substantially higher than the costs of their principal competitors abroad?

I certainly accept the importance of cheap electricity.

asked the Minister of Power what are the stocks of smokeless and premium fuels in the country at the present time; and how these figures compare with three months and six months ago.

Stocks of solid smokeless fuels held by producers and merchants were 3·9 million tons at end February, against 4·9 million tons three months earlier and 4·6 million tons six months earlier.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the stocks at the present time? Is he satisfied with the rate of increase in production planned two years ago, and what steps is he taking to advise the Minister of Housing and Local Government to accelerate smoke control areas?

On the first part of the question, stocks of solid smokeless fuels have been adequate this year. The question of smokeless fuel areas is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Can my hon. Friend assure us that next winter there will be an adequate supply in the respective areas; in other words, that the distribution will be satisfactory, because of the fact that smokeless zones are not evenly spread throughout the country?

A few months ago I made a full statement on this matter to the Clean Air Council. Before a local authority applies for a smoke control order, it should satisfy itself about the prospective availability of smokeless fuel supplies in its area, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government must give approval to the scheme.

asked the Minister of Power what information he has obtained, in his review of national fuel resources, on the capital and operational costs of various methods of heating municipal housing estates and other developments; and what information he has about the use of natural gas, town gas, oil and solid fuel heating for this purpose.

These costs vary greatly from area to area and according to the type of heating required. On the second part of the question, I understand that for local authority dwellings approved in 1964 by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the main space heating appliances were in 43 per cent. for solid fuel, 27 per cent. electricity, 24 per cent. town gas and per cent. oil.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency the hospital has decided to use oil-fired heating? Will he undertake not to press for a change in that decision, as it will delay the hospital? Is he aware that there is a housing estate on the verge of my constituency which still has to make a decision, and will he advocate economic and not political considerations as being the main factor?

The issue of the hospital is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. With regard to the housing scheme, I understand that Sheffield Council has not yet made its decision.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that when municipal housing authorities are making decisions about heating schemes, they should consider not only the question of efficiency, but the political instability of the oil producing countries concerned?

It is for local authorities to choose the type or types of fuel for use on their housing estates. They are best able to judge what meets their needs.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that outside Stockholm there is a suburb inhabited by 30,000 people, which is heated by a district heating system powered by nuclear power? In view of Britain"s pre-eminence in the generation of power by nuclear means, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be worth while his Department investigating this matter with respect to large-scale units for housing schemes?

So far as that Question concerns my Department, I will look at it; so far as it concerns my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, I will draw his attention to it.

asked the Minister of Power what figures he has received from the Iron and Steel Board with regard to the net earnings of foreign exchange of the steel industry in the five years 1955 to 1959 and the five years 1960 to 1964, respectively; and if he will publish them.

I am publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table setting out the information which the Iron and Steel Board has been able to supply about the import and export of iron and steel products, and the import of raw materials used in the manufacture of iron and steel.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the first five years the balance was £78 million and that in the second five years it was £271 million? In view of this very satisfactory export performance, in increasingly competitive conditions, will the right hon. Gentleman cease to denigrate the export performance of the steel industry?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the answer that he has given to his own question. There can be no possible doubt that imports costing many hundreds of millions of pounds had to be brought in before 1961 because of the lack of capacity in the United Kingdom steel industry. Indeed, the Iron and Steel Board said in its development report of 1964:

"In view of the dependence of the British economy on exports, it is vitally important that the industry should succeed in achieving a greater volume of exports.

Will my right hon. Friend also publish the facts showing that the steel industries of the Common Market countries, the United States, and Japan, have increased their exports far more substantially than private industry steel has done in this country?

They are all privately owned.

It is the case at the moment that exports throughout the world are increasing and that our exports have increased, but I do not believe that any increase has taken place in our share of world markets.

Would the right hon. Gentleman admit that as the steel industry has recovered from nationalisation it has become a very large earner of foreign exchange?

I think the fact that the steel industry was wantonly denationalised stopped it from making a far better performance than it might have done.

asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the number of fatal accidents occurring due to gas leaks, he will state what information he received, in agreeing the general programme of the Scottish Gas Board, as to when non-noxious gas will be supplied.

The development programme of the Scottish Gas Board provides for the reduction of the carbon monoxide content of gas sent out to 5 per cent. in the next four or five years.

But is my hon. Friend aware that Scottish public opinion is disturbed at the ever-increasing number of tragedies due to gas leaks in general? Will he bear in mind that these unfortunate fatal accidents are occurring among the oldest and youngest sections of the community? Can he say that by a prescribed date we will be able to enjoy the service of non-toxic gas which will eliminate such accidents?

The figures for Scotland show that the number of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning has fallen substantially during the last two years. As regards the old people, other measures taken by the Board to prevent gas poisoning accidents include the supply of special cookers for handicapped people and regular inspection of appliances in the homes of old and handicapped persons.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the de-toxicated gas has been rendered as innocuous as it can be? Does not he agree that it still contains too high a proportion of carbon monoxide for safety?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I must point out to him that there have been substantial advances in this field in recent years, and that an average figure of 5 per cent. carbon monoxide content should be reached in Scotland within two or three years.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that much of the difficulty arises in connection with old property? Does he further agree that the position might be improved if there could be a regular inspection of gas supplies to older buildings?

I have said that the boards give every possible assistance to handicapped and old people.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the electricity boards not to require the total payment by private firms for the installation of electric cables to be made before arrangements to start the work have been settled, in view of the fact that this is not normal commercial practice; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why a consumer who is going to increase his consumption of current should be treated like this by a public monopoly? Is this not another example, like the Budget, of people having to pay for Socialism before they get it?

This is a matter that is best left to the commercial judgment of the boards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Hon. Members ask "Why?". It is in the public interest that the boards should economise on their working capital by keeping down the amount of debt accruing to them, and asking the consumer to pay a contribution in advance helps to avoid subsequent disputes and possible losses. The consumer's contribution is usually small compared with the total cost borne by the boards.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that this was the normal practice in the electricity supply industry long before nationalisation?

Authority for this dates back to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency of Cleveland his officials have shown great consideration in meeting the needs of industry in this respect?

I thank my hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his visit to the President of France.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Paris.

asked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with President de Gaulle during his recent visit to Paris on Anglo-French co-operation in the field of nuclear weapons.

asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the President of France about Anglo-French co-operation in the provision of a European nuclear deterrent.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the talks that he held with President de Gaulle, during his recent visits to Paris.

asked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with President de Gaulle during his recent visit to Paris regarding the activation of the general agreement to borrow and the reform of the international liquidity system.

I would refer hon. Members to the communiqué issued after the talks which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I had in Paris. With permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There were no discussions about Anglo-French co-operation in the production of nuclear weapons.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the House will greatly appreciate his courtesy in coming here in spite of the fact that he appears to have caught a very bad cold in Paris? If he is going to go home to bed and not hear the Budget Speech, he will have the envy as well as the sympathy of a great many hon. Members. About his visit to France: does not he agree that it is important that we should not fritter away, one by one, matters which, if taken all together, could provide a solid basis for an advance towards a united Europe?

I much appreciate the hon. Member"s sympathy. He can show it in a practical way by giving me a pair, which I have not been able to get for the last half hour, and since he has made it clear that he does not want to hear the Budget Speech, which I do. I am not sure what he, meant by talking about "frittering away".

To the extent that a number of bilateral arrangements will be made now and then with different countries, without an overall plan for an approach by this country to Europe and by Europe to this country, it appears that one may sometimes sacrifice that overall approach to individual negotiations from time to time.

I do not think that there is any question of that; indeed the negotiations with France were very much related to the negotiations that we are having with other countries.

The communiqué refers to the possibility of more fruitful relations between the E.F.T.A. countries and the E.E.C. countries. Can the Prime Minister say whether the possibility of direct talks between these two groups was discussed?

As in the recent talks in Bonn, I made it clear that until we had had discussions with our E.F.T.A. partners—and since our European partners, whether in Germany or France, would wish to have talks with their E.E.C. partners—it was not possible to speak on behalf of the group of which one is a member. These talks provided an opportunity for trying out one or two ideas, and the next step now lies with each of us talking, in E.F.T.A. and E.E.C., to see if we can come to some working arrangement.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the reason for the great success of his visit, upon which we congratulate him, was his essentially pragmatic approach to each individual problem of Anglo-French relations, in strong contrast to the policy of sulk and silence of the last two years of Tory Government?

In this kind of negotiation, particularly the one we had last week, where, as the whole House knows, there were fundamental differences of approach to a number of vitally important questions, one can get the sort of results one hopes for only by being absolutely frank about the things on which there is disagreement and by not fluffing over them in woolly communiqués, and then concentrating on those issues where we can agree and do something constructive.

We had better not go into comparisons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We should have to take into account the Concord, and other matters. I want to ask the Prime Minister rather a different question, which arises obliquely out of this but which is nevertheless important. The right hon. Gentleman discussed the question of the reunification of Germany. He will know, as we all do today, that a serious situation may possibly arise in Berlin. Will he keep the House informed in the next day or two about that?

Yes, certainly. I did not myself enter into any comparison with the past in this matter, though I am bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he may or may not be disappointed that his warnings about Anglo-French relations in connection with the Concord story do not seem to have reached General de Gaulle.

Did the right hon. Gentleman refer to Berlin?

Yes. I am sorry that my voice is not strong.

From the statement today and the communiqué it appears that there was no discussion on Britain entering the Common Market. May I ask the Prime Minister whether that is correct? Would he make clear that the type of Europe we have in mind is not a Gaullist Europe?

So far as the further development of the Community is concerned, I did hear in some detail President de Gaulle's views on how he thought that could develop. I do not think anyone thinks that there is any immediate practical possibility of entering into the Common Market. That is not on in present circumstances, as right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have made clear. What we did want to do was to minimise the danger of division of Europe and the growth of high tariff walls affecting the movement of goods and trade and to find all practical and technical means of co-operation not only in the military field but the civil field as well.

Did my right hon. Friend find himself impressed in the discussion with the French view of developments in Vietnam and will he consider the possibility of making arrangements for such discussions to continue at another level with the possibility of there emerging a joint Anglo-French view on this difficult subject?

It was clear that the views of the two countries on Vietnam were not identical. I did not see any evidence that the view expressed by the French Government was more likely to lead to a peaceful and lasting settlement than the line that we are taking.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he discussed with General de Gaulle the importance of British attendance at any talks about the future political developments in Europe?

Yes, we stressed this very strongly indeed, as we had done in Bonn earlier, though I gather there is still some doubt about whether there are to be any immediate talks on this subject even in the Six.

asked the Prime Minister what are the responsibilities of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources for oil prospecting in the United Kingdom and what is the division of responsibility between him, the Minister of Power, the First Secretary of State and the local planning authorities in this matter.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has statutory authority for licensing prospecting for petroleum (which includes both oil and natural gas) on land in Great Britain and in its territorial waters, and in the United Kingdom's share of the Continental Shelf. My right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State and the Minister of Land and Natural Resources have no responsibilities for oil prospecting. Prospecting operations on land in Great Britain may involve development requiring planning permission which has to be obtained from the local planning authorities. Oil prospecting in Northern Ireland and its territorial waters is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that his statement is welcome because it does much to dispel certain conflicting statements made previously by his right hon. Friends the Minister for Land and Natural Resources and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

No, I have not heard any such conflicting statements and so I do not think there is any need to dispel any confusion which may have arisen from them.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure, in considering which licences should be given for the exploitation of this gas, that the national interest is not neglected as it was in the case of the exploitation of oil and natural resources in the North Sea?

Fortunately, I do not have to issue the licences in this case, so the question does not arise. It is done by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in many newly independent Commonwealth countries the designation of the United Kingdom Government's representatives as High Commissioners often confuses British residents and citizens of the country to which they are accredited and leads to the belief that they have powers beyond those of the head of a diplomatic mission; and whether, at least in the case of those countries which are republics, he will discuss with their Heads of Government the possibility of describing the British High Commissioners and their High Commissioners as Ambassadors.

No, Sir. I think that any confusion that may occur in the minds of British residents and others is due more to temporary problems in the first days of independence than to mistaken inferences from the title "High Commissioner".

Will the Prime Minister look at this again? Is he aware that more than one former High Commissioner believes that the dignity attached to the title "High Commissioner" is bought at too high a cost in misunderstanding in the country? Further, as since 1st January we have had a combined diplomatic service, would not he consider that is relevant?

Quite apart from the difficulty of the juridical problem of ambassadors being accredited to a country with a different Head of State from ourselves, I should have thought that there was some advantage—as I think the whole House would feel—in maintaining the special title to mark the special relationship within the Commonwealth.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not agree that there has always been and there should always remain a special intimate relationship between Commonwealth countries and ourselves and that in some ways a High Commissioner enjoys a superior status to an ambassador? For this reason is he aware that we on this side of the House would entirely agree that he should set his hand against deadly uniformity?

While agreeing with that, I do accept, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend, that there have been difficulties particularly in the early days. My hon. Friend, one of the few in this House who has had experience of being a High Commissioner, is aware of that. I still think that there is a case for keeping things as they are.

asked the Prime Minister what facilities were provided by Her Majesty's Government to Mr. Terence Robertson, the author of a recently published book on the Suez crisis of 1956.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) on 2nd March.

May I tempt my right hon. Friend to go a little further than he did in those characteristically diffident answers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does he appreciate that the most serious accusation made in this book is attributed to the French Prime Minister, M. Pineau, who makes the direct accusation of collusion against the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)? Does not my right hon. Friend think that an opportunity should be given to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral to clear his good name?

Order. We cannot, under our rules, get out of the difficulty about making accusations against another hon. Member"s honesty by putting words into the mouth of another.

Does not my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—think that it would be desirable to provide facilities for Mr. Terence Robertson, and anyone else, who can help to clear up the mystery? Will you tell me, Mr. Speaker, how that is out of order?

I am sorry, I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Member, but I did not hear the last three words he then uttered owing to some odd echo in the amplifying mechanism. If he was saying that he wanted to know how he was out of order, the answer is that it depends on the implication of the word "collusion". In the circumstances it appeared to me to have a certain tang.

May I take it, Mr. Speaker, that I am now in order in answering the second supplementary question put by my hon. Friend? To be quite honest, I will tell my hon. Friend that since I last answered Questions on this subject I have been so busy that I have read only 20 pages of the book. I hope to make some progress in the course of the next 24 hours after which I hope to be able to help him on this point. To be honest, I have not reached the point in the book to which he was referring but I have expressed the view that it is up to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) to stop all these questions by making a simple statement of the truth.

Is not it a pity in many ways that Mr. Robertson was not given a certain amount of official help which would have enabled him to present a less biased account of the Suez operation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever else is said about the Suez operation one thing is certain, that it forestalled a large-scale Egyptian attack—

Order. The question relates to facilities being given for a book. It does not enable us to refight the Suez operation.

In answer to that part of the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question which referred to facilities, I am not certain that would have been the position had it been possible to give facilities. I do not know what would have come out of it. I have not seen the record myself and that is why I hope that it will be cleared one day or another by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider the operation of the 50-year rule governing the examination of Cabinet papers and comparative historical material; and whether he will propose that the period concerned should be reduced to 25 years.

I am considering this whole question at the moment and will make a statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for considering all my propositions so carefully. Would he take into account that if he would adopt the proposition which I make in the Question, we should at least be able to find out the truth about Munich, even if we had to wait a little longer for Suez?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his arithmetic, which I think is right, but he should not get the impression that I have only looked at this since he put down the Question. I have been looking at it for some little time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no need to look into Cabinet papers to find out that the Labour Party wanted to go to war over Munich, having consistently voted against every proposal to increase our armaments?