asked the Minister of Power (1) what decision he has reached about the most suitable reactor system for the second nuclear power programme;

asked the Minister of Power when he expects electricity produced by nuclear energy to be on parity with coal produced in Yorkshire and the East Midlands.

asked the Minister of Power whether the lowest advanced gas-cooled reactor tender for Dungeness B nuclear power station would generate electricity at a cost below that of the best conventional stations; and what further economies would follow if a second order were placed for the same equipment.

asked the Minister of Power whether a decision has now been taken on the type of nuclear power reactor; to what extent consideration has been given to the needs of the atomic energy industry in this country; and if he will make a statement.

With permission, I will make a statement at the end of Questions.

asked the Minister of Power what compensation is being paid by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the area boards for the erection of poles and pylons across agricultural land; and whether he will seek power to revise the existing rates.

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a recent Electricity Council Press release giving details of increased rates which were introduced from 1st April this year, after discussions between the boards and the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. As the Press release states, the parties have agreed to conduct an immediate joint investigation to see whether further revision is now necessary.

I thank the Minister for his reply and the information that there will be increases. Will he bear in mind that the most important difficulty relates to the siting of these poles and pylons and that what is needed is a little thought and the placing of them in hedgerows and places where they do not interfere with agricultural land? Is he aware that this has not been done in the past? Will he look into the matter to see what can be done to take the poles and pylons out of the fields and put them in the hedgerows?

In the discussions to which I have referred the appropriate organisations will bring this kind of thing to the notice of the Board.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the increases were applied to Scotland as well as to England?

I could not answer that with-out notice.

Is the Minister aware that last week in my constituency one of these new 110 foot pylons collapsed killing one man and injuring five others? Will the compensation produce an element of danger money for those living round about, or does he intend to make the process of erecting the pylons safer?

I heard about that accident and I am sorry about it. I do not think that I can form an opinion about it now. As I have said, discussions are taking place now, and all relevant matters concerning safety will be discussed with the appropriate authority.

asked the Minister of Power what research is being carried out into reducing the cost of main underground electricity transmission lines.

The Electricity Council and boards are seeking to reduce the cost by developing cheaper methods of insulation, including the use of plastics and gas-filled cables. They are also studying the feasibility of using super conductors, although there are considerable technical problems to be overcome before this method is likely to be practicable, and ways of reducing the cost of transmitting electricity underground by direct current.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there is any prospect of this research reducing substantially the price differential of 18 to 20 times between the alternative methods? Secondly, can he confirm that the amount spent by the Central Electricity Generating Board on research in this field is about £100,000 to £200,000? Is he satisfied that that is a sufficiently high priority?

On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am satisfied that no promising project is being neglected. On the first part, it is difficult to estimate how much the ratio between the cost of overhead lines and that of underground cable may be reduced as a result of research. We hope that reductions would be made, but even on the most optimistic estimate the capital cost of high voltage cable will still be much greater than that of overhead lines.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that if these high voltage overhead lines were placed underground it would add enormously to the industrial costs of this country?

I am sure the House knows that it costs about £1 million a mile for a 400 kV cable to go underground compared with £54,000 for overhead lines. Those are some of the figures involved.

asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to widen the representation on area gas boards.

At present my right hon. Friend sees no need to alter the arrangements whereby suitable persons are selected for appointment from the wide categories named in section 5 of the Gas Act, 1948.

Will my right hon. Friend spread his net a little wider and see that there is greater representation of consumers and trade unionists on the gas boards?

As regards the con-consumers, the chairman of the gas consultative council for the area is an ex-officio member of the board. There is also a trade union member on each board.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that there is a growing feeling in many of the nationalised industries that not only should the boards' membership be increased, but that there should be some attempt at democratisation of the whole industry, and that the sooner we begin to have a little more confidence in the people in the industries to participate in the organisation and running of the industries the quicker it will reach even greater efficiency than it has at present?

As my hon. Friend is aware, there is consultative machinery in the gas industry for consultation on all matters affecting safety, health, welfare and matters of that kind, but the Government's mind is quite open on the question of direct representation of workers on the boards.

asked the Minister of Power by what criteria the nationalised industries are to judge whether they use coal or oil.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he made of the additional consumption of coal by local authorities as a result of his recently announced short-term measures.

asked the Minister of Power how much of the extra 4 to 7 million tons of coal will be used by the gas and electricity industries, respectively.

I cannot usefully add to the statement I made on the 12th April and the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on 15th April.

Does the Minister not agree that that statement on 12th April amounted to grave interference in the duty of nationalised industries to use their commercial judgment? Secondly, is it not in direct conflict with the White Paper on Prices and Incomes?

No. I think that I broadly answered this, as I said, in my reply to the hon. Member for Yeovil. Of course, the nationalised industries have a duty to break even on a year-to-year basis, but they also have other duties of a social nature, which were recognised in the former Government's White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries.

The right hon. Gentleman is becoming almost as skilled as his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at not answering Questions. Will he not recollect that he made this statement, which appeared at the time to be somewhat meaningless, six weeks ago? He has had plenty of time to consult these industries and the House is entitled now to ask him what contributions the gas and electricity industries, respectively, are making to maintaining the consumption of coal at 4 to 7 million tons above what it would otherwise have been? Would he answer?

My skill in answering is a direct reflection of the lack of skill of hon. Members opposite in asking. The electricity industry, which, as I have said, is by far the biggest customer of the Coal Board, will naturally make the bigger contribution. Discussions are still going on between the Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board as to the actual amounts, but they are ordering forward and stocking more than would otherwise be the case.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the effect on the rates of the uneconomic extra consumption of coal by local authorities?

No, Sir, I have not.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that where an installation either of a nationalised industry or of a local authority is operating in an area surrounded by a large number of coal-fields, it makes economic sense in the long term, and is in agreement with the best principles of location of industry, to make use of coal? Will he encourage that policy as much as possible?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an illustration of what I have said, that for many years ahead the electricity industry will increase its demand on coal. If the proper orders for coal were not placed now it may not be able to spend the capital to increase the level of supply.

Do the right hon. Gentleman's answers mean that he is pushing the Central Electricity Generating Board into altering its "merit table" for power stations? If so, will he say whether or not he intends to issue a public instruction or directive?

The answer to the first part of the question is "No, Sir."

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the outcome of the action taken by the nationalised power industries to prevent the exploitation of sub-tenants, by excessive charges for using electric power or gas.

As regards gas, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. Albert Evans) on 29th April. Of the fourteen electricity boards, twelve, including the two Scottish Boards, have so far fixed maximum charges for electricity re-sold for domestic purposes.

There are still a large number of landlords and owners of property in this country who are exploiting tenants not only by high rents but also by having slot meters in houses. Will my right hon. Friend try to get them to do something to stop this ruthless exploitation?

My hon. Friend will remember that we have taken a good deal of action on this issue. As I have pointed out, 12 of the boards have so far fixed the maximum price in line with the statement which I made to the House.

asked the Minister of Power what are his plans for the extension of steel strip mill capacity; and if he will make a statement.

The Iron and Steel Board informs me that strip mill capacity is at present adequate but that some small addition, of the order of 250,000 tons, may be required by about 1970. The Board is considering how this should be provided.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the economies to be obtained from the integration of steel work capacity is one of the main arguments for nationalisation of the industry, and that this can largely come about through the concentration of productive resources? Will he make sure that, when the expansion of steel strip mill capacity is made, the principles of such concentration are followed?

That is my intention.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the political sword of Damocles which is hanging over this industry will not prevent the increase in strip capacity from being provided?

No matter what attitude one takes to the industry, I do not think that anybody can say that they have not gone ahead with their programme as planned. We made it abundantly clear months ago that any such development would be taken very much into account.

asked the Minister of Power if he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the electricity boards that their employees' wages are always to be paid promptly, and that, in an emergency, special arrangements are to be made for doing this.

No, Sir. The boards have the importance of this matter well in mind and special arrangements are already in operation.

Would my hon. Friend say what special arrangements are in operation at the power station at Barking? Is he aware that many of my constituents—including the wages clerks, who regret the present situation as much as anyone—are now drawing their pay more than a week late? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is he aware that this is the first official dispute in the history of the clerical side of this industry, and is it not up to the board to agree to reopen negotiations?

I understand that there has been a difficulty at Barking and that some delays in the payment of wages have occurred as a result of the work to rule and ban on overtime for clerical and administrative workers. I understand that the boards are doing their best to avoid delays by making emergency arrangements, including the provision of advances on account.

asked the Minister of power if he will, in the public interest, give a general direction to the North Thames Gas Board not to close down their lighterage firms without full prior consultation with the trade unions and employees concerned; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir; this is a matter for the Board, which is already engaged in consultations with the union concerned.

asked the Minister of Power when he intends to issue the next batch of production licences for the North Sea, and on what basis; and what have been the reasons for the delay.

I cannot yet add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 9th February.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take great care in this matter and appreciate that if he does delay decisions further on this important issue he is in danger, first, of losing the very great start which he got as a result of the actions of the former Government and, secondly, that other countries which are also interested in the Continental Shelf may step forward and take our place?

I am aware of the point the hon. Gentleman makes. The area for which applications will be invited, as well as the timing of them, will depend on agreements with the other States to which he referred, which are States on the borders of the United Kingdom. Up to now we have reached agreement with Norway, but negotiations are still proceeding with Denmark and Holland. I could not now say when those agreements will be concluded.

asked the Minister of Power if he will consult the French Government with a view to Anglo-French co-operation in the joint development of nuclear and tidal power schemes, and the further interchange of power supplies to the mutual advantage of the economies of both countries.

There are considerable exchanges between the electricity industry here and in France, and the possibility of increasing them is borne in mind. If my hon. Friend has any particular suggestions for increasing cooperation, I would be glad to look into them.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that co-operation between the French and British electricity supply industries, which are both nationalised, is just as practical and possible as cooperation between the two countries on, say, aircraft construction?

I accept from my hon. Friend that these exchanges of information are extremely valuable. Indeed, the other day I went to look at certain gas industry establishments in France.

asked the Minister of Power what is the total amount of loans made by the Exchequer to steel companies that are in private ownership, since the time of their denationalisation.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) on 11th May.

Is the Minister aware that he has been misleading the House about this—[Interruption.]—that there have, in fact, been loans of only £50 million and £27 million issued to private steel companies since nationalisation? Why does the right hon. Gentleman keep on repeating the figure of £400 million? Will he now admit that this is a misleading figure, and will he withdraw it from further utterances in the House?

I will certainly not do anything of the sort. The figure of £400 million covers the Ministry's loans to R.T.B., which were £70 million—

Nationalised.

What has that got to do with it? Hon. Gentlemen opposite must face the fact that we could not have got the necessary capacity in steel had we asked private industry to do it. Indeed, they refused point blank and the only way we managed to get it was by this huge injection of public money into the industry.

Is the Minister aware that he has repeatedly said in the House that £400 million has been put into the privately-owned steel industry? Is he aware that that is false, and will he now admit that?

In that event, will the hon. Gentleman admit that his hon. Friends are wrong in saying that the industry is privately-owned?

asked the Minister of Power what further discussions have now been held with the steel companies affected with regard to proposals, other than those laid down in the White Paper, for the future organisation of the industry.

I wrote to the President of the British Iron and Steel Federation stating that I should be very willing to receive any representations from the Federation or from the individual companies within the ambit of the Prime Minister's statement of 12th May. I have not so far received any reply.

Since the Minister says that he believes only in 100 per cent. nationalisation, how does he expect the companies to reply, and, secondly, does he not realise that this industry as well as the rest of the country no longer trusts either the Prime Minister or the present Government?

The Tories do not trust the hon. Gentleman.

I do not think that I could improve on the reply given by my hon. Friend.

rose—

I regret that I did not hear the reply which the Minister gave to my supplementary question. Would he care to repeat it?

The hon. Gentleman concluded his supplementary question by saying that the industry and the country did not trust my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Government, to which one of my hon. Friends replied that the party opposite did not trust the hon. Gentleman, either.

On a point of order. The sort of reply which the Minister just gave, which was to repeat something said on the back benches, is not really good enough. I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking, in view of the rapid increase in the sales of gas, to bring about more realistic competition with electricity by placing both industries in the same fiscal position in the matter of expected return on capital.

This is a matter for consideration as part of the review I am conducting of fuel policy. The results of that review will be taken into account when the existing five-year financial objectives come up for reexamination.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he not agree that if there is to be realistic competition between the secondary fuel industries they should carry roughly equal financial burdens and that the electricity industry is at present carrying more than the gas industry?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has in mind, but in the terms of the White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries certain objectives were agreed in consultation with each industry for an experimental period of five years, which ends in May, 1967. It would not be advantageous to attempt to change those objectives during the course of that five-year period.

Is the Minister telling the House that the ultimate purpose of the Government is to raise the price of gas to the level of that of electricity?

If the hon. Gentleman believes that he will believe anything.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to curb unnecessary competition in advertising between the gas and electricity industries and to create a co-ordinated advertising policy according to the best interests of the two industries and the national economy as a whole.

The scale of advertising by the nationalised fuel industries is largely a matter for the boards and councils concerned. I am, however, keeping the position under review.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the advertising costs of each of these two industries rose during the last five years of Conservative Administration by more than £1 million in each case? Is this not conclusive evidence that this competition between two go-ahead nationalised industries is getting out of control? Will my right hon. Friend take action to relate advertising to a co-ordinated fuel sales policy?

It is a nice point that my hon. Friend has made, and we must watch it, but I remind him that both industries compete with oil as well as with each other. As to the point he made about advertising, in 1963 Press and television advertising alone for all products in Britain cost more than £200 million, whereas for these industries the costs were for gas, £3·3 million, and for electricity, £2·9 million.

Would the Minister agree that while it seems reasonable for his hon. Friends to ask questions about gas and electricity, hon. Members on this side of the House are reprimanded from the back benches opposite when we ask questions about coal? Why should we be debarred from asking questions about coal when—

Order. It cannot be for the Minister to make pronouncements on these matters.

Would the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) who suggested that the consumers should ultimately be deprived of choice, which obviously postulates a high degree of advertising?

Answer.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will hold a public inquiry into the proposed line of the 400 kV. overhead power line from Gloucester to Ystradgynlais.

My right hon. Friend proposes to hold a public inquiry into the contentious parts of the proposed line in Herefordshire and Monmouthshire.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me when this inquiry is to take place, and, in view of the long correspondence I have had with his right hon. Friend and his predecessor, why I have not been told about this yet?

My right hon. Friend will announce the arrangements for the inquiry as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board that no colliery employing more than 400 men shall be closed until satisfactory arrangements are made for the redeployment of manpower.

No, Sir, but the National Coal Board consults the unions about individual closures in accordance with the intentions of the Nationalisation Act and has been largely successful in finding men other jobs within the industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that no one would deny that the National Coal Board has had considerable success in redeploying manpower declared redundant as a result of closures of collieries? Nevertheless, does not he recognise that, in the case of large collieries, a great deal of hardship is caused, not only by short-term or long-term redundancy, but by a considerable reduction in wages, even when the men are redeployed within the industry? Will he give an undertaking that he will take an active interest in collieries employing more than 400 men in order to see that this kind of hardship is reduced to the absolute minimum?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his supplementary question. He will know that my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene in individual closures. As for the redeployment of men, I know that the Departments which are concerned with employment and planning keep these matters to the fore at all times.

Can the Minister say how many pits employ more than 400 men? Does not he agree that no nationalised industry can be run exclusively in the interests of its workers?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question on that subject.

asked the Minister of Power how many uneconomic coal mines are operated by the National Coal Board.

About half the Board's output comes from profitable pits and half from pits that are making losses.

That information is a great shock to everyone in this House and probably in the country as a whole. Can the Minister assure us that when he brings in his forthcoming policy he intends to introduce a state of affairs to ensure that the taxpayers do not have to go on supporting an uneconomic industry which cannot compete with its rivals?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should look a little more closely at the industry. Many of the pits which are just economic today may well be thoroughly economic in a few weeks when they have been further reorganised and capital has been put into them. It is also the case that if on a given day we closed down all the pits which were uneconomic there would be a severe shortage of energy in Great Britain the day after.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country is very grateful that this industry is showing a measure of social responsibility? Does he recognise that had it been under private ownership every one of the pits would have been closed and there would have been tens of thousands of men walking the streets, as there were in the 1920s and the 1930s? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that when he comes to reconstruct on the capital side of the industry due regard will be had to the fact that it was geared to an annual production of 240 million tons for which the party opposite was responsible?

I certainly will. The fact, often lost sight of, is that if we had not nationalised the coal industry when we did there would not be a coal industry at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]

Is the Minister aware that the social costs of the Government's fuel policy were estimated in The Times on Friday at £600 million a year? Will he confirm or deny that figure? What estimate has he of the social costs?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me whether I have stopped beating my wife, I will not answer.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me how much foreign currency would be involved in importing the coal needed to make up for the loss of output from the pits? Would not he agree that this type of very narrow accounting on a single unit basis adopted by hon. Members opposite is responsible for many of the difficulties in which we find the economy today?

I agree. The balance of payments problem is bad enough now. Had it been left in that position I do not know where we should be.

Is the Minister aware that, while we all recognise that these industries have social responsibilities, he would be wholly wrong, in the interests of the country as a whole, to give way to the kind of pressure indicated in an answer to an earlier supplementary question for the coal industry to become a social service? Is he aware that it has to contribute positively to the economy?

I quite agree about its contribution to the economy. It has made a huge contribution to the economy. As a matter of fact, we are not asking for anything such as did the party opposite in finding the Lancashire cotton industry £30 million or £40 million. Nothing of that kind is being asked for.

asked the Minister of Power what research is being carried on into the underground gasification of coal.

None Sir, since it was established in 1959 after 10 years' experimental work that the commercial prospects did not justify further expenditure.

asked the Minister of Power in settling his new short-term proposals for the coal industry, what estimates he received from the gas and electricity industries, respectively, of the effect these proposals would have on their prices in future.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he made of the additional cost to the Central Electricity Generating Board of giving a preference to coal.

asked the Minister of Power, what estimate he made, before his recently announced measures to help the coal industry, of the extent to which the nationalised industries will need to increase their prices as a result of these measures.

The effect of these measures will be small in relation to the total costs of the electricity and gas industries. I should not expect any increases in prices to result.

Has not the Minister made an estimate of what will be the increase in price? Surely he realises that saddling these industries with uneconomic sources of fuel must put up their costs? Will he come clean and give the House what is his estimate of the cost? It is information that the House and the public should know.

The hon. Gentleman has got this entirely wrong. Both the electricity industry—whose demands on coal will go on increasing—and the gas industry will be heavily dependent on coal for a number of years to come. It surely is not making any exorbitant demand on them to ask that they take into account that their principal supplier should be looked after during the short period of the next two years?

How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the Government support for the declining coal industry in relation to other heat and power industries with the Prime Minister's General Election theme of greater efficiency and modernisation and the policy of the First Secretary of State of a greater stabilisation of prices?

One almost despairs of educating hon. Members opposite. This futile talk about the coal industry being some kind of declining asset with no future just is not true. It is the most efficient coal industry in the world. The coal industry of this country has a great future. If it were not the case that it is so highly efficient we should be in a shockingly bad state for energy in the near future.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the suggestion made from the benches opposite to the Prime Minister when they urged that he should buy British and that now they are changing their mind to justify the purchase of American or Middle East oil?

If the coal industry is not a declining industry, can the Minister say why he finds it necessary to afford it special protection through economic misfortunes?

I am not providing special protection through what the hon. Member describes as "economic misfortunes". I pointed out that we are improving productivity in coal at a faster rate than in almost any private industry in Britain. Because it is an extractive industry, it is necessary to contract some areas and to expand others. This is the process which is now going on.

asked the Minister of Power what research is being done into the more efficient use of coal.

Much of the research effort of the National Coal Board's Coal Research Establishment and of the British Coal Utilisation Research Association is concerned with the domestic and industrial use of coal. A large volume of work directed to the improvement of coal combustion systems and plant performance is being conducted by the Central Electricity Generating Board. The Gas Council is continuing research into new methods for the production of gas from coal.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the previous five Administrations, every Minister of Power has praised the work of the coal industry? I do not remember an annual debate on the Coal Report without great praise from the Front Bench opposite for the coal industry. Will my hon. Friend see whether there is any shortcoming in research and development by consumers of this product which is so ably retrieved from the earth by British miners?

If my hon. Friend has any particular point to draw to my attention, I shall gladly look at it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in giving general support to the Question which has been asked, this side of the House and those of us who represent coalmining areas will thoroughly resent the series of Questions from the Opposition? Are they not, in effect, sly attacks on the mining industry, whose political attitude they object to?

It cannot conceivably be for the Minister to pronounce on a matter of that kind.

asked the Minister of Power what was the total amount spent on safety measures in the coal mining industry by the Government and the National Coal Board in the years 1960 to 1964, respectively; and what is the estimated amount in 1965.

Expenditure by the Government on measures to promote safety and health in mines and quarries was approximately £1,700,000 in each of the three years 1960–61 to 1962–63; £1,900,000 in 1963–64 and £2,350,000 in 1964–65. The estimate for the current year is £2,250,000. I am asking the Chairman of the National Coal Board to write to my hon. Friend about the Board's expenditure on such measures.

Will my hon. Friend consider having discussions with the Chairman of the National Coal Board and representatives of the N.U.M. on future safety measures in the mining industry? Is he not aware that there has been a vast change in the types of machines used nowadays in the winning of coal, and that everyone, I think, feels that further safety measures should be discussed?

I am deeply aware of the concern there is about safety in the mines. My right hon. Friend asked me to look particularly at all the aspects of the problem, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, most accidents are caused, not by lack of knowledge, but by failure to apply knowledge. If there is anything that my right hon. Friend or I can do in this matter, we shall certainly do it.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the vast majority of miners are engaged on a piecework basis and that piecework and safety are a direct contradiction in terms?

asked the Minister of Power what was the number of full-time mines inspectors in the United Kingdom in the years 1960 to 1964, respectively; and what is the figure for 1965.

At the end of 1960 there were 144 full-time mines inspectors; at the end of 1961, 149 inspectors; at the end of 1962, 1963 and 1964, 153 inspectors. There has been no change in 1965.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there are rather few members of the mining inspectorate, and would he consider having discussions with the Chairman of the Coal Board and representatives of the N.U.M. to try to find some solution that will enable more inspectors to be engaged by the Board, so ensuring that every pit can be inspected more frequently during the year?

The concentration of coal production in a smaller number of mines, particularly by the Board, and the reduction in the number of men employed have reduced the need for mines inspectors, but a competition is in progress to fill vacancies and the inspectorate is expected to be up to full strength in the near future.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not a question wholly of having more inspectors but of the mineworkers themselves obeying the regulations and measures already in force?

I am well aware of that point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Power what are the productive activities of the National Coal Board, other than coal production; and what is their total valuation.

The main activities outside coal production comprise carbonisation, fuel processing, brickworks, workshops and housing. These and certain other non-colliery assets stood in the Board's 1963–64 Accounts at about £150 million.

Will my right hon. Friend say which of these non-mining productive industries are profitable?

I imagine that the Coal Board's large brick production is profitable. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite do not have a monopoly in dropping bricks. The Board is seeking to diversify activities a great deal more and we will do what we can to assist it there.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that he does not know how much of an investment of £150 million is or is not profitable? Is not that an extraordinary admission for him to make?

Not in the very least. I was saying that practically all of it was profitable, and I was trying to tell my hon. Friend which parts of it were even more profitable than others.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the return on that capital of £150 million?

Not without notice.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position reached in the negotiations for an Atlantic nuclear force.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 18th May.

As the proposals for the Atlantic nuclear force seem to be meeting with such little support from our allies, and from the Prime Minister's allies on the Left wing of his own party, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, without being too laboured or long-winded about it—[Interruption.]—whether he has any alternative plan to offer?

One reason why Questions are not as productive as they should be is that the hon. Gentleman puts the same laboured questions every week. We had all this last week and the week before. I answered this Question fully last week. This matter is being discussed at the Working Group in Paris. None of us expects real progress on the matter before the German elections.

asked the Prime Minister what have been the changes in the terms of reference of the reconstituted Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technolgy; to which Minister or Ministers it reports; and which Minister now appoints its chairman and members.

The terms of reference of the new Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology have been widened to include not only consideration of the future supply of, and demand for, scientists and technologists, but also the use made of existing scientists and technologists. The reconstituted Committee reports to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Minister of Technology jointly. Members have been appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Minister of Technology.

While thanking the Prime Minister for that answer, and saying how much we welcome the appointment of Sir Willis Jackson, may I ask whether the responsibility is entirely that of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, or is it the responsibility of the Cabinet as a whole? Has that been clarified?

Of course, all decisions are the responsibility of the Cabinet as a whole, but I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that in the past this Committee has tended to do statistical surveys of the estimated need for scientists and technologists in the future in relation to the training programme and education. In the new situation, I think that there will be general support for the view that the existing use made of Britain's scientists and technologists in the application of their discoveries to productive processes in industry is of at least equal importance, and that is, of course, the function of the Ministry of Technology.

Has the right hon. Gentleman impressed on the Committee the need to pursue its current review with the utmost expedition in view of the acute and growing shortage in certain branches of scientists and technologists?

Yes, Sir. I am sure that the Committee is very well aware of that, and this, of course, means the most efficient use of the technologists and scientists who are already in industry—or, indeed, in any form of employment. I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said confirms the facts available to us and, of course, gives a very strongly different impression from some estimates made some time ago under the previous Government, when it was suggested that we had all the scientists we needed for several years ahead.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the part that the Minister of Technology could play in this matter would be very considerably simplified if the Prime Minister could further clarify the responsibility of the Minister of Technology as between, for example, the Post Office and himself in regard to telecommunications?

My right hon. Friend is perfectly clear about his responsibilities, and I am sorry if the hon. Member is not. I am quite prepared to make a further statement about it if it will help him. The duties of the Minister of Technology, particularly in those branches of the engineering industry in which he has sponsorship responsibility, are very clear and very central to the question. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would really advise taking from the Post Office all responsibility for research into telecommunications.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for up-to-date sample statistics to be made available to Government Departments.

Government Departments are well aware of the need to obtain up-to-date information and already make extensive use of sampling methods for this purpose, but I am always ready to consider improvements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that of the errors of the previous Government that of not knowing what was happening in the important field of exports and production last year was among the most grievous? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that sample statistics can materially assist here and enable the Government to make rather better predictions, and take rather better action, than were previously made?

I go along with my hon. Friend in certain of his comments. I think that the facts are fairly generally known. They did not seem to get through. Having said that, I agree with my hon. Friend that there are still very serious deficiencies in central Government statistics, particularly in relation to future export prospects and also, I think, in relation to production matters. There was very strong criticism by the Radcliffe Committee, which reported in 1959 on the adequacy of financial statistics. In all the years since then not enough has been done to improve the adequacy of financial statistics. Whether sampling will help in that case would be a rather difficult question to answer.

Could the Prime Minister say what statistics the Chancellor of the Exchequer was using on Thursday evening when he said that the credit squeeze had not yet really started?

All the statistics that are at present available. It is certainly the case—this is one of the matters which is being gone into as a matter of urgency—that the figures for bank advances, which was the basis for the last decision about special deposits, were part of the field referred to by the Radcliffe Report as quite inadquate for modern purposes.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will provide an official residence for the Paymaster-General.

No, Sir.

Would it not be more convenient for all concerned if the Paymaster-General were to move in to Number 10 on a permanent residential basis?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman one day will get over this love-hate relationship for the Paymaster-General. I really think that he has now had a good run on this. He has not got very much out of it. I feel that the rather limited time available for Questions could be better used dealing with Questions which seek information in reply to which information is given, as with Question Number 2 this afternoon.

May we now assume that the Prime Minister regards any further questions on this subject of the Paymaster-General as tedious, irrelevant, boring and more and more juvenile?

No, Sir. I will—

On a point of order. Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, you in your wisdom reproached me for using too many adjectives. The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) used four.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is right, except that I did not reprove him. I pointed out that a supplementary question containing unnecessary adjectives was actually out of order. I am of opinion that the same consideration applied to the question just asked by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and that it was out of order on another ground, but I thought that on the whole we could get on quicker if I left it alone.

Am I in order in answering it?

It excuses the Prime Minister from answering, unless he has a strong urge of an emotional character to do so.

As the First Lord of the Admiralty now has no known function, would not the Admiralty building be appropriate for the Paymaster-General?

The hon. Gentleman will find, after that very clever supplementary Question, that it was dealt with a few weeks ago.

asked the Prime Minister if, following his recent series of visits, he will make a statement on Anglo-American relations.

Anglo-American relations continue to be extremely close, and are based on frank and friendly discussions at all levels, here, in Washington and at the United Nations.

Will the Prime Minister say if those frank and friendly relations and discussions include frank and friendly remarks and points of view expressed about American aggression in Vietnam and Santo Domingo?

They cover the problems of Vietnam and of the Dominican Republic. I think that the whole House will agree that it is best conducted on that plane rather than by public statements on this question. If my hon. Friend is concerned to know what attitude we have taken about the Dominican Republic in the latest developments, she is free to study the statement made by my noble Friend, Lord Caradon, at the United Nations last Saturday—it was a very frank statement—and, indeed, to study the text of the resolution my noble Friend tabled at the Security Council last Saturday.

Did the Prime Minister notice that his hon. Friend referred to "American aggression"? Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to his hon. Friend and to the House that he accepts that the Americans have not been aggressors in this matter?

The United States Government and all others concerned know exactly what is the position of Her Majesty's Government on this, which I have made clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—which I have made clear repeatedly in the House. I have made it clear repeatedly in the House that we do not consider it to be aggression. Quite honestly, Anglo-American relations can function perfectly well without the help of the hon. Gentleman.

In view of the widespread Press reports that President Johnson acts first and informs his allies afterwards, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government are fully consulted on all problems of common interest by the United States Government?

I have answered many questions on Vietnam. I do not think that I need to answer any more in that context. As to the Dominican Republic, on which I think I have answered hardly any at all, it is certainly the case that at all points our views about the handling of the situation have been made known to the President in personal talks with Mr. Dean Rusk, both by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and by myself, and in the frankest exchanges between Lord Caradon and Mr. Adlai Stevenson at the United Nations.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for changes in the near future in the long term commitments east of Suez.

At present, none, Sir.

How can we operate air power east of Suez without the strongest reconnaissance aircraft with a range of 1,500 miles? If this is not to be another example of the Prime Minister's double standards, surely we have no alternative but to buy the F.111 with our scarce money resources?

The double standards arise in the pretence that we have got the TSR2 or that it would be available in the time required. As my right hon. Friend and I have made clear many times, we are going through a very intensive review of our rôles in different possible theatres in relation to the cost, something which apparently our predecessors never did. [Interruption] This is clear in view of the escalation of defence costs in the last year or two. As soon as this is clear, I hope that we shall be able to report to the House about our conclusions. The answer I gave to the first question represents the position of the Government as at present until the review is completed.

As in the long-term our commitments for defence against aggression east of Suez can be discharged only with the co-operation of our allies on an international basis, will the Prime Minister say whether he is having any conversations with our allies, particularly with our European allies, on the question whether they are willing to bear any part of the cost of undertaking this matter?

As to our European allies, this is highly relevant in connection with the excessive share of the cost of N.A.T.O. which we bear, particularly in payments across the exchanges. That is a matter for discussion with our European allies. As to the situation east of Suez, I agree that this is a question for discussion, but in this case I would have thought with certain of our Commonwealth partners, particularly Australia and New Zealand, and with the United States.

Our commitments east of Suez, as the Prime Minister will know, are linked to definite obligations. He himself has made that clear many times. Is it not right, therefore, that we should fulfil these, both in the case of Malayasia and in the case of the Gulf, which are the particular obligations? The Prime Minister has now been telling us for about four months that a review is in progress. Can he tell us when we shall have a statement about the defence situation?

We are fulfilling the obligations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as I think the House will understand, but if one totals up all the obligations we have and all the other rôles which we have assumed, I think that the right hon. Gentleman may possibly agree that no one ever related these total rôles to the total economic possibilities or to the defence costs required to meet them. That is why we are having a review. I do not apologise that it has taken more than four months. The surprising think to me is that it has never been done before.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that our rôle east of Suez does not necessarily mean that we need this type of plane or any other?

In view of the most valuable services rendered my Mr. Gordon Walker in his outstanding diplomatic visits to Vietnam, China and elsewhere, may I ask whether it would not be possible, at a reduced price, to send Mr. Gordon Walker again to examine the whole problem of the Labour Party's rôle east of Suez?

Mr. Gordon Walker's visit was extremely productive in the plans in relation to Cambodia. I am bound to say, and I am sure that I have the full support of the Front Bench opposite, that Mr. Gordon Walker's journeys abroad have been far more satisfactory to this country than those of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates).

Would the Prime Minister make it clear that this review of which he has spoken includes the question of both naval and air bases?

Yes, Sir. It will certainly cover that, and of course hon. and right hon. Gentlemen know the enormous intricacy of this question. One cannot divide it into theatres. The Middle East is obviously important not only as a base for that area but as a staging post for dealing with our obligations further east. Certainly that and the whole question of our striking power and the rest is at the very centre of this, but I have already said that we have also to look at it in relation to costs and economic development.