asked the Minister of Power whether he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the Central Electricity Generating Board, requiring that labour employed by its contractors for new power stations be recruited from areas where unemployment levels are above the national average.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very surprising and disappointing Answer? To eschew any sort of direction to the C.E.G.B. in this context is inimical to sound planning. Will he not undertake, when his Ministry is responsible for such huge volumes of national expenditure, that it should exercise some supervision as to how it is deployed regionally and locally?

There would be severe practical difficulties in the Board attempting to control where its contractors recruited labour. Such control is not normally exercised by other industries. For the major projects the Board's contractors usually find it necessary to recruit labour from other districts so limiting the effect on the locality concerned.

asked the Minister of Power how much water it is proposed to extract from the River Ouse when the projected Drax power station is in operation; and how much of this water will be returned.

A 3,000 megawatts station operating at full load would require up to 62 million gallons of water a day, of which 40 million gallons would be returned. If the capacity of the station is increased to 4,000 megawatts the figures would be 84 and 54 million respectively.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that this represents a very considerable dip into the Ouse locally, and can he assure us that his right hon. Friend the Minister has had consultations particularly with the local shipbuilding firm in regard to the effect that this will have on its launchings, and, if not, will he undertake to do so?

I am not aware of that aspect of the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman. I will certainly look at it, but I understand that the river authorities are concerned about siltation which may be caused by the extraction of water, and the terms of an indemnity to be given by the Board have already been agreed for a 3,000 megawatts station. The extension of this for a 4,000 megawatts station is under consideration. Perhaps that meets some of the aspects raised by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals have now been put to him by the Central Electricity Generating Board for sanctioning its new hydraulic power station at Bucks Mill, North Devon.

None, Sir.

Will the Minister bear in mind that that is a very disappointing Answer? We are looking forward to this project very much in North Devon. When it does come down there, as I hope it will, will he pay particular attention to the disposal of the waste product from this project, and instead of dumping it into the sea consider using it to make a permanent breakwater for that coast, which will be a tremendous benefit for the district?

On the first part of the supplementary question, what I intended to say was that no proposals had been made. The C.E.G.B. announced in July, 1964, that it was carrying out exploratory surveys at two sites. The Board's investigations are continuing but it is not ready to put forward any proposals. As for the second part of the supplementary question, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been discussing this matter with the Board and also that there are real technical difficulties arising from the suggestion put before the House just now, first relating to cost and, secondly, because the excavated material may be too small without some concrete buttressing or protection to do the work he indicates. I have told him that no decision has been made on this matter.

When is this to be expected? It is an important matter for the West Country. It has been dragging on for so long and we should like to know when it will be decided.

I have nothing to add to what I said earlier, namely, that the Board's investigations are continuing. This announcement was made as late as July, 1964.

asked the Minister of Power (1) what is his estimate of the number of building, civil engineering and allied service operatives required for the construction of the second nuclear power station, Dungeness B;

(2) what is his estimate of the number of additional personnel required to operate the second nuclear power station. Dungeness B.

I am asking the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to write to the hon. Member.

As this Question has been on the Order Paper for some time, does not the hon. Member agree that it would have been possible for a letter to have been written before the Question was asked? What consultations is he having with his colleague, the Minister of Education, about school facilities for the children of employees in this power station?

I would have thought that it would have been a matter of courtesy to the House to answer the hon. Member's Question first of all. As for the second part of his supplementary question, that is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that he has not answered my hon. Friend's Question at all? Does he not think that this House has a right to know what the answer is? Surely it is a shocking way to behave to get the Board to write to my hon. Friend and not to answer today. Is it that he cannot find out, or is he too darned incompetent to do so?

The hon. Member is responsible for his own choice of words. Having regard to the fact that he also has held office I would have thought that he would know how far a Minister's responsibility goes for the details of the day-to-day running of a nationalised industry. Having regard to his responsibility for his own words, I have nothing else to add.

asked the Minister of Power what further economies would follow if a second order were placed for the winning design tendered for the nuclear power station at Dungeness B.

A number of factors, such as its siting, would affect the costs of a second station and an estimate would be very speculative, although I expect that there would be economies.

I think that the Minister has slightly misunderstood what information I am seeking. I understand that by using the same design twice there are major economies. Some reports have said that the economies may be as much as 10 per cent. If so, is the Minister considering changing the existing practice of commissioning one offer for each design and having a major run on the break-through design—which seems to be much more competitive?

The hon. Member is right in that a repeat order for a Dungeness B type of power station could be expected to realise economies. For example, the design cost would be spread over more than one station. Probably there would also be manufacturing economies. The cost of the second station cannot be known until tenders have been invited and received. The Board has as yet not put forward any proposals for a nuclear station to follow Dungeness B.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that if we could get a standard gas-cooled reactor of 600 megawatts and this became an exportable product as well, not only should we improve our own power supply but we should also build up a very promising export market in this way? Will he, therefore, as soon as possible, in co-operation with the Atomic Energy Authority and the Minister of Technology, come to some agreed settlement about this so that everyone knows where they stand?

I do not disagree with what the hon. Member says. As yet the Board is still engaged in its pre-contract negotiations and until these are concluded I have nothing to add.

When will the House get details of the successful tender? They do not seem to be forthcoming from any other source, as the Minister forecast in his original statement. Many of us want to see them, so that we can reach an informed judgment.

I have been making inquiries on that point and I think that the hon. Member will find that far more detail will be given at the end of this month.

asked the Minister of Power what experiments are being carried out into the camouflaging of electricity pylons with a view to lessening their adverse effect upon the beauty of the countryside; and if he will make a statement on his conclusions on the results that are so far available to him.

Experiments with camouflage painting in 1960 led to the conclusion that, for the majority of conditions, the natural grey of weathered galvanised steel rendered towers least noticeable.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that as fast as we build up the tourist industry and increase the amount of overseas and foreign exchange revenue derived therefrom the electricity boards are doing their utmost to spoil the look of the countryside which the tourists come here to see? Will he consider this as a matter of some urgency and, if necessary, appoint a special amenity committee to look into the matter and advise him on how to site pylons and how to disguise them in future?

I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates the importance of taking electricity to every part of the country. As to looking at the matter closely, certain experiments were carried out by the Central Electricity Generating Board as far back as 1960, when it had the assistance of the war-time Chief Development Officer of the Army School of Camouflage. Various colours and combinations of colours were tried, but in the changing conditions none was successful in merging towers into their backgrounds. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England reached the same conclusion as the Central Electricity Generating Board—that weathered grey or galvanised steel were the best to use.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the cost involved in this work should be the responsibility of the Government, in view of the considerable expenditure involved in activities of this kind? When deciding these issues, will he remember that for many years private enterprise left huge mountains of derelict refuse throughout the country and did not spend a penny on clearing it up? Since the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board are spending a considerable amount of money to prevent the countryside from being spoilt, will my hon. Friend make representations to his right hon. Friends in other Ministries and persuade them to bear some of this cost?

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is great concern about the amenity aspect of pylons? Everyone recognises that they are necessary, but is he satisfied with the design of pylons from the aesthetic point of view and would it not be advantageous if further thought were given to improving their design?

If the hon. Gentleman has any specific point to make about design, I would be very interested to hear it. I am sure that all these matters are borne in mind by the Central Electricity Generating Board in its desire to minimise the impact of these very necessary towers on beautiful parts of the country.

If these pylons are to be camouflaged or repainted in this way, would my hon. Friend give an assurance that they will not be painted in antinationalisation Tory colours?

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that increased electricity charges in the South-East are the result of the obligations imposed on the electricity supply industry by the last Government's White Paper, The Financial Obligations of the Nationalised Industries; and if he will seek to reverse the policy contained in that White Paper.

I cannot altogether agree with my hon. Friend's assumption and would refer him to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) on 22nd December, 1964.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that had it been in order I would have preferred to have asked him to what extent this policy has resulted in these charges? Can he give that information?

The South-East Board introduced new tariffs in 1962 and again in 1963 at levels which were then calculated to enable it to reach its target as agreed with the Government under the White Paper policy. The increase in April, 1965, was due to increased costs and not to any change in the target.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals have been put to him for a new power station at Portishead, Bristol; and how far the fuelling of the station would be assisted by the construction of the new Portbury dock.

None, Sir. It is too early to say what assistance a new Port-bury Dock might provide.

Is my hon. Friend saying that no proposals of any kind have been before his Department?

I am merely saying that the Central Electricity Generating Board recently announced that it was investigating an area near Portishead as a possible site for a power station. There are no proposals as yet.

Since Portishead is in my constituency, would the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that, in the event of this proposal coming forward, Portishead Council will be consulted from the earliest stages and that any plans will be subject to the normal planning procedures? Is he aware that Portishead Council has stated on a number of occasions that it is not opposed in principle to further industrial development, provided it takes place in the industrial area of Portishead?

I am sure that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind. All I can say at the moment is that if the Board proposed to proceed with the construction of a third station the Ministry of Transport and the National Ports Council would be consulted.

Am I to take it from the Parliamentary Secretary's previous reply that there is to be a new Portbury Dock?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer he would have understood it was recently announced that the Central Electricity Generating Board was investigating the area near Portishead as a possible site for a new power station.

asked the Minister of Power when he proposes to introduce into the House the Government's Bill to renationalise the steel industry.

I have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24th June and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 6th July.

Can the Minister tell us whether his recent statement that the Government intended to press ahead with the nationalisation of the steel industry was an expression of personal opinion? If not, what other members of the Government agree with the right hon. Gentleman in this approach?

There is strict unanimity throughout the whole Government on that matter.

Is the Minister aware that neither the Prime Minister on that occasion nor the Parliamentary Secretary on the other occasion gave a straight answer to the question? Can we now be told whether this obnoxious Measure to nationalise steel has been dropped or not?

The hon. Member has gone farther than his hon. Friend, who did not call it obnoxious. The straight answer is "No, it has not".

asked the Minister of Power what discussions he has had with representatives of the steel industries following Her Majesty's Government's offer to consider proposals for Government control of the industry involving less than 100 per cent. ownership; and with what results.

asked the Minister of Power how many meetings he has had with representatives of the steel industry since the publication of the White Paper; and what decisions he has reached arising out of such meetings.

As regards contacts with the British Iron and Steel Federation there is nothing to add to my Answer of 25th May to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates). I have, however, had discussions with certain companies about specific points arising out of the White Paper.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, as the Minister responsible for this matter, he was properly consulted before this offer was made, and also what he has done to draw the attention of the industry concerned to this offer?

Since the offer there has been an exchange of letters between the President of the Federation and myself. We have not as yet reached unanimity about the kind of thing that we should like to discuss, and therefore no meetings have taken place.

Is not that a disgraceful answer? The Minister may laugh, but it is not a laughing matter. A clear promise was made from the Government Front Bench that the right hon. Gentlemen would be prepared to listen but they have taken no initiative, as they should have done, to have meetings with the industry. If, as the Minister says, he is going to nationalise the steel industry, it is clear that talks are necessary. If he is not going to nationalise it, he ought to keep faith with his own back benchers, on whose behalf the First Secretary made the promise.

The Federation and all the relevant firms are quite clear that when they wish to see me on any issue arising from steel nationalisation I am at their disposal. As the hon. Member would know if he had followed the debates that we have had on steel, I have had many meetings with the Federation, besides individual firms and trade unions. As far as I am concerned, I am still open to receive any representations from them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from a lot of bunkum that has been spoken from the other side, I know one or two Members and owners in the steel industry who are quite satisfied with the principle and proposal that we intend to undertake?

There is a good deal of knowledge among steel people that this will be a very good thing both for the country and for themselves.

Will the right hon. Gentleman approach his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and find out whether he proposes to implement the promise that he made in this House about the Steel Bill earlier this year?

I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the sessional point. As I believe my right hon. Friend said, this is a question of the length of the Session. It is a question that only the Leader of the House can answer, and I suggest that the hon. Member puts his Question to my right hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) asked the Minister whether he was consulted before the First Secretary made his offer to listen to representations from the steel industry. Will he now answer that question?

The First Secretary and I are in constant consultation on a very wide range of subjects.

asked the Minister of Power, in the light of his proposed legislation on the subject, what is the extent of manufacturing capacity of the Gas and Electricity Boards, other than supply; and what plans he has to extend such manufacturing capacity.

The capacity of the nationalised gas industry and the Central Electricity Generating Board to manufacture plant and equipment is at present negligible. It would be for the industries to initiate proposals for expanding their capacity within their statutory powers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the manufacture of a wide range of gas and electrical appliances and equipment would be in the best interests of the nationalised industries concerned, to the extent that this would create more fully integrated industries? Will he consider this point and see what he can do in order to emulate some of the best examples of private enterprise in this regard?

As my hon. Friend will remember, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, on 31st March, made a statement about the Government's proposal to introduce legislation for that purpose. That is still the policy of the Government.

asked the Minister of Power what he estimates to be the social costs of Her Majesty's Government's present fuel policy.

In determining fuel policy the Government are taking into account the social and other costs of various alternatives, but these costs cannot be precisely quantified.

Does not the Minister recall that I drew attention to an article in The Times which put the social costs at £600 million? Could he comment on that?

My comment would be that the author of that article wrote also that this £600 million was only aguess.

asked the Minister of Power, whether he will give estimates for the year 1970 of the proportion of the total requirements for gas and electricity, respectively, which will be met from hydrocarbon-type primary sources, and the proportion of these requirements which will be met by the use of coal as a primary fuel.

These are matters which are being examined in my current review of fuel policy.

Does that mean that the Minister is unable to give any indication at all of the likely basis of secondary generation either of gas or electricity from the two primary fuels about which I have asked?

It would be very wrong of me, in advance of the calculations which we are making, to try to anticipate the results which we will get.

asked the Minister of Power what esimate he has made of the future reduction in coal production which will follow as a result of atomic energy becoming competitive with coal-fired power stations.

The future use of fuel by power stations is under examination in my current review of fuel policy and of the prospects of the coal industry, but it is clear that the use of coal by power stations will increase substantially over the next few years.

I know that this is a complicated matter, but will the Minister give an assurance that he will not hold back the development of atomic power stations for the sake of the coal industry?

I think that I have given that assurance many times.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if there are reductions in fuel made in connection with atomic energy production, they should be in the direction of making economies in the importation of oil?

There is a Question down later on that subject.

Is it not a fact, however inconvenient it may be for a country rich in coal, that oil, as well as atomic power, is a cheaper method of generating electricity than coal?

The economics of each of these industries are changing rapidly. I do not think that it is an embarrassment to be so well off in fuel supplies. It is a question of getting the balance of them right.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that even with the maximum construction of nuclear power stations, with an 8 per cent. increase in electricity production every year, the increased use of coal will be absolute in power stations for 15 years, and is not likely to be decreased, on the estimates of the C.E.G.B., until the year 2000? In the circumstances, why should the coal industry be continually belittled in this way by the Opposition?

I would not care to speculate to the year 2000, but I agree with my hon. Friend in principle that, as far ahead as we can see, there will be an increase in demand for coal by the electricity industry.

Does the Minister agree that there have been projections of the fuel requirements of the Central Electricity Generating Board up to 1975? What analysis has been made or published showing the various sources—coal, nuclear power, hydro and oil—from which this expansion will be made?

That is precisely the work on which we are now engaged in the Energy Advisory Council. I hope to make an announcement before long.

asked the Minister of Power when he will make a statement on the progress of the search for oil and gas in the North Sea.

asked the Minister of Power what progress has been made in the search for oil and gas under the North Sea; and if he will make a statement.

Three exploration wells have been completed and another three are in the course of being drilled.

Will the Minister bear in mind the tremendous implications of this exploration for economic development and employment in East Anglia? Will he ensure that the House is given the earliest news of any developments?

I should be very pleased indeed to announce early developments in this matter.

Will the Minister bear in mind the tremendous implications of this for the whole country, not only for East Anglia?

When will the right hon. Gentleman cease to be content with the progress made in allocation by the previous Administration? When will he take steps to make a further allocation of licences?

We are working very actively on that now and I do not think that it will be very long before the hon. Gentleman knows the results.

asked the Minister of Power what consideration he has given to the desirability of replacing the present power consultative councils by independent consumer councils; and if he will make a statement.

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's imputation that the present councils are not independent, but if she has any particular suggestions to make I shall be glad to consider them.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that well-informed consumers can make a valuable contribution to improved services, and possibly also to reduce costs, if they are given appropriate facilities? Would there not be some advantage in channelling all the complaints which are received through area consumer councils with some clearly defined executive powers to remedy them?

We are, of course, always prepared to consider any suggestions for improving the present arrangements, but my hon. Friend will be aware that there are district committees to these consultative councils.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he has taken to encourage co-operation between the nationalised fuel and power industries in research and development.

I approached the industries earlier this year to see if the co-operation which is already good could be further improved. The national Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board have for some time had a Research Liaison Committee, and I am glad to announce that the Gas Council has now joined with them to form a joint Liaison Committee of the three industries for research and development, so that their scientific potential may be used to the fullest advantage. The primary, though not the exclusive, objective is the improvement of coal utilisation technology.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction, at least to hon. Members on this side of the House? Would he indicate whether, as a result of this envisaged co-operation, we can expect a substantial saving in the amounts of money spent by both electricity and gas in advertising against one another?

I said that the main objective was to look at coal utilisation technology. The research programmes of the three industries are quite extensive; but I want to bring them into closer co-operation, and I am dosing so. I think that the best way of making a start is by getting at the very genesis of their work in research and development.

Would my right hon. Friend consider checking whether their co-operation extends to market research in view of the complicated interactions of the tariffs as between electricity, the bulk supply tariffs, and gas tariffs?

At the moment we are mainly concerned with coal utilisation, but I do not rule out what my hon. Friend said. I will put that point forward.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make available figures showing the true net cost of importing oil into the United Kingdom in terms of the balance of payments over the last decade.

The visible deficit—that is to say the differences between the value of oil imports c.i.f. and exports f.o.b.—rose from £257 million in 1955 to £485 million last year. The cost to the balance of payments was less than these figures indicate because much of the oil imports was carried in British ships, and much of it came from United Kingdom companies' concessions overseas where the cost of producing the oil was less than the market valuation on which the Trade and Navigation Account figures are based. There were also substantial invisible earnings from the overseas business of British oil companies.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that over the years the cost of bringing oil to this country has been steadily increasing, and does this not have some very important bearing on the national fuel policy which he is engaged in working out at present?

Yes, Sir. But it would be a mistake to assume that the differences I have mentioned were all a charge on the balance of payments. For instance, the international work of B.P. and Shell has a very great credit side to it in regard to balance of payments.

Whilst I fully appreciate the very fair way in which the right hon. Gentleman has answered that supplementary question, may I ask him whether he would consider filling in on some convenient occasion some of the details of his first Answer? I think that that would offer to his hon. Friends some badly needed illumination.

Anybody who tries to analyse the total effect of the whole operation on balance of payments knows what a fantastic job it is. On the other hand, I have felt that we could produce more figures than have been produced and I will see whether that is now possible.

When my right hon. Friend fills in the details will he fill in the details of the proportions of military expenditure incurred east of Suez in maintaining the supply of oil?

I agree with the Minister about the offsets against the gross figures on imports, but does it not remain true that there is room for more economy on balance of payments by restricting the use of oil—for example, by electrifying the railways, and by using other means of producing power?

As my right hon. Friend knows, I am extremely keen to increase the use of coal, whether as coal itself or burnt by wire. The cost of the balance of payments is, of course, one of the very vital issues we take into account when evolving our fuel policy.

asked the Minister of Power what recent requests he has received for approval of increased pensions under the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme.

None, Sir.

Could my hon. Friend say whether or not his right hon. Friend still has the authority to approve such pension increases and, further, would he confirm or deny recent Press reports that the aged miners' pension funds amounts to no less than £79,412,000? If this is correct, could he explain factors as to why such a sum cannot be used to raise the general level of the aged mineworkers' pensions?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the scheme is administered by representatives of the Board and the N.U.M. The levels of contributions and benefits are fixed by the scheme and any amendments, including increases, are approved by the Minister, but the initiative for any changes comes from the industry. On the second part, the scheme has to be actuarially sound and the total of funds available—I confirm that it is £79 million—is the amount necessary to meet current and future demands for benefits.

Is it not time for a more constructive consideration of this matter? The fund now amounts to £79 million. I can remember the time when it was more than £90 million. I do not know where the difference of nearly £20 million has gone, but it has not gone on increased pensions.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), I have received no representations about the scheme. Secondly, the scheme has to be actuarially sound and pensions are bound to be small as yet because the scheme is still, relatively, in its infancy. However, the Board granted free back-service credits to augment pensions and a minimum pension of £1 a week has been introduced. As years pass, members qualify for higher pensions up to a maximum of about £3 a week.

Is it possible to increase these pensions without increasing the price of coal? In view of Lord Robens' statement only last week that the coal mining industry would price itself out of existence completely unless coal was reduced in price, is it not impossible to increase these charges?

As the hon. Member is aware, the scheme has to be actuarially sound and the levels of contributions and benefits are fixed by the scheme.

asked the Minister of Power row many publications each year are sent to members of the public by the National Coal Board; and what is the annual cost.

This information is not available in my Department. I am asking the Chairman of the National Coal Board to write to the hon. Member.

This is all very well, but is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is impossible to challenge expenditure of the nationalised industries unless we can get this information? Is he aware that a large number of my constituents were very annoyed to receive recently an expensive glossy publication of the National Coal Board with free knitting samples in colour? What has this got to do with the Coal Board? Can the Minister do nothing to curb this waste of public money?

I am afraid that the hon. Member, like some of his colleagues, is suffering from political schizophrenia on this. As recently as 11th March, when moving an Amendment to the Gas Bill in Standing Committee to do with Stamp Duty, he was trying to put the nationalised industries on a par with commercial undertakings. Now, when a commercial undertaking like the National Coal Board sells its products in the manner deemed best for itself, the hon. Member seeks to criticise it.

asked the Minister of Power how many miners have left the coalmining industry during 1965; and what is the number of vacancies in each division of the National Coal Board.

During the 24 weeks to 12th June, 1965, the total number of men leaving the industry was 32,000; this includes retirements from age or ill health as well as those leaving voluntarily for other reasons. During the same period nearly 15,000 men were recruited.

I understand from the National Coal Board that there are vacancies in several areas at the present time, and I will ask the Chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

Would my hon. Friend agree that a rather serious situation is developing from the manpower point of view in the mining industry? Would he further agree that there is growing concern among those employed in the industry because of the closure of pits, resulting in quite large numbers of men having to seek alternative employment outside the industry? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that if this situation continues to develop at the present rate, the coal industry can achieve the target set for it by the Minister of Power?

I agree that this matter is causing concern. In my reply of 6th July to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson), I said that I understood from the Board that its labour force was about 5,000 below its manpower objective for the country as a whole for 1965–66.

Is the Minister aware that there is not much to be gained from recruiting additional labour into loss-making mines, thus increasing the production of coal at a further loss to the country?

That, of course, is a matter for the National Coal Board.

asked the Minister of Power whether, in regard to future wage negotiations with National Coal Board employees he will, in the public interest, give a general direction to the National Coal Board to take into account the present high cost of concessionary coal and to make a suitable adjustment in wage rates so as to allow and compensate for the cancellation of this concession.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that concessionary coal, issued either in kind or in cash in lieu, tax-free, now amounts to a value of £50 million a year? As it is issued to administrative grades up to the level of area chairmen, in addition to miners, does he not agree that it is now time, in the light of the Government's attack on tax-free allowances, for the position to be looked into, and an adjustment made in salary rates so as to allow for the giving up of concessionary coal?

Whilst I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's continued interest in the welfare of miners, I think that he must show some sense of reality about this matter, in that, first, terms and conditions of employment are matters for settlement between boards and the unions; secondly, these concessions are made under longstanding agreements, many dating back to pre-nationalisation days, and relate to employees and certain dependants and pensioners; thirdly, here, as in other industries, fringe benefits like luncheon vouchers, pension schemes and special housing are relevant factors in wage negotiations.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation providing that all Members of Parliament in both Houses shall register all their financial interests in outside bodies, and that such a register should be freely available to the public.

No, Sir.

I am disappointed by my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he not agree that if we had had this information in the course of the debates on the Finance Bill we could have been even better able to judge the objectivity of the the speeches made? Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of hiring, perhaps on an ad hoc basis, Mr. Roth to do the job for us when the next Finance Bill comes before us.

I cannot imagine that any legislation would provide information on this subject that my hon. Friend is not able to obtain as a result of his own diligent researches. I should have thought that any criticism there might be of speeches on the Finance Bill from right hon. and hon. Members opposite would arise, not so much from any particular interest that may be described in their speeches, but more in their sheer reaction against any suggestion of modernising our tax structure.

Is it not deplorable to suggest that members of all parties act otherwise than in the best interests of the country?

I did not quite catch what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think that there has been a longstanding tradition in this House that hon. Members who have an interest to declare, declare that interest, even apart from any votes.

That is not an answer to my question, Mr. Speaker. May I repeat it?

Perhaps we can have another one on the way and then come back.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that if Members were to register their financial interest with outside bodies, outside bodies would have to register their interest with Members? There are some Members who, quite properly in my view, are supported in one way or another by outside bodies. We will get involved in very difficult territory if we pursue this much further.

I remember more than once from the Opposition Benches wondering whether we would not get into a position where we might need to have legislation—

Order. I suspend the sitting for four minutes.

Order. In view of the entirely exceptional circumstances, I ask the House to give me leave to defy the Standing Order and to allow another five minutes for Question Time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that will be for the convenience of the House.

I think the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was referring to registration of outside bodies. On a number of occasions some of us have raised the question of whether we were getting in danger of a situation like that in Washington where they have had to register lobbies. I do not think that is the position, although there have been problems in the past, not where an hon. Member has made a speech and declared an interest, but where there has been some use by hon. Members in promoting social occasions downstairs and in other ways of the promotion of companies which have employed hon. Members particularly as public relations officers. I think a great deal of improvement has taken place in this matter as a result of concern expressed in all parts of the House.

Does the Prime Minister recall that exactly 10 years ago to the day he was challenged to declare what his interest was in the timber trade, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 543 at col. 1952? As he has taken 10 years to meet that challenge, will he say what those interests were?

I thank the hon. Member for that little personal reference. I have not looked this up myself, but I think he will find that on 30th November, 1951, which is more than 10 years ago, I had already declared such interest as I had. Although I had no financial interest he will find that that occurred as soon as I was appointed to a minor position in the timber industry. It was announced publicly. It was also announced when I gave it up and I announced it in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Order. Mr. William Hamilton.

rose—

I had half forgotten the promise I had made.

I asked whether the Prime Minister did not regret and deplore anything in speeches and questions in this House which tends to imply that hon. Members of all parties act otherwise than in what they conceive to be the best interests of the House? Will he enhance his own reputation and add to the dignity of the House by doing all he can to raise the level of political controversy?

Yes, Sir. I do not think the preceding question particularly helped to raise the level of political controversy. I think some of us in this House would like to see occasionally at Question Time or in debates a concrete suggestion made on policy instead of the constant muck-racking we are getting.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to remove the present bias in the drawing of electoral boundaries in favour of rural and middle-class areas.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave on 3rd June to a similar Question by my hon. Friend.

Has my right hon. Friend considered some of the suggestions that the Boundary Commission has produced in this matter? Is he aware that some of them are completely inexplicable? May I give an example? Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the Bromley borough, a middle-class Tory borough with an electorate of 207,000, it is suggested that there should be four Members of Parliament, while for Southwark, a predominantly Labour borough with a 208,000 electorate, it is suggested that there should be three? In Bexley, with an electorate of 151,000, is he aware that three Members are suggested and again that is a predominantly middle-class Tory area? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance in view of this—

Perhaps the Prime Minister could answer as to how far he is aware of these matters.

Yes, Sir. I think I was aware. I seem to remember my hon. Friend quoting these figures before, so I am broadly aware of the point, but the review of the Boundary Commission is an interim report and is not yet incorporated in a general review of the whole country. Still less has Parliament been asked to pronounce on these matters. When we have a little more experience of the working of the Boundary Commission—this is the first work it has done under the 1958 Act—we can see whether the quotas have been going wrong. My impression, particularly in view of something the Commission indicated, was that it is working more towards rather more equal quotas now than in the past.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in the Borough of Bromley, which has been referred to, local Labour parties have not objected to the Commission's proposals although it was perfectly open to them to do so?

I do not know whether the local Labour Party, the Conservative Party or any other party has objected. The point before us is the question of equality, or reasonable equality, of electoral districts. In the past they have not been all that equal, but I think there are signs that they are going to be more equal in future.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will advise Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to consider variations of the range and type of punishments for crime.

The Royal Commission on the Penal System is already considering whether any changes are desirable in the penalties and methods of treatment available to the courts when they deal with offenders.

Does the Prime Minister realise that the present type and range of punishment, according to up-to- the-moment statistics, are quite inadequate to deal with the range of crime taking place at present and that some other means must be devised to deal with criminals with a view to deterring them from committing crimes?

I think this is a matter for the Royal Commission. Its terms of reference are quite adequate for going into the matter raised by my hon. and learned Friend. Two very distinguished hon. Members of this House are concerned with the work of the Royal Commission and I am sure that everything my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned will be in the mind of the Commission.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the setting up of this Royal Commission by the previous Administration was more than justified by recent events?

The hon. Member has been working terribly hard to score a point about the old Government, but there was very strong pressure on that Government when they saw the Report of the Labour Party Commission headed by my noble Friend, Lord Longford.

asked the Prime Minister if he will outline Her Majesty's Government's present policy about the sale of arms.

It is the general policy of Her Majesty's Government to promote the sale of British defence equipment to allied, Commonwealth and other friendly Governments. The political economic, strategic and security considerations are examined in each case before an export is approved.

Are the Government intending to appoint a super salesman on the lines of the American appointment of a super salesman for arms?

I think there is a very strong desire that we should make more effective arrangements for placing British arms particularly for our allies because, as I said in a speech at the N.A.T.O. Conference, one of the things which was unbalancing the situation in the alliance was the very high pressure salesmanship of America, as we found when we tried to sell to Germany, Italy and France. The Americans themselves said they would welcome our appointing what the hon. Member calls a super salesman, and this we shall do.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some arms sold to Iraq have been used against a very fine minority of people, the Kurdestan people in that country, to suppress them? Will he make representations to the Iraqi Government to desist using British arms for this purpose?

That is a much wider question. One of the considerations that apply when Ministers have to review the sale of arms is whom they are going to, for what they are intended and whether it is in British interests that they should be sold.

Following the Prime Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), how would the Prime Minister define a friendly Government?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman spent so many years at the Foreign Office that if he has not learned how to define it, it is not for me to teach him.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Minister of Transport in a British Broadcasting Corporation television broadcast on 10th June on the subject of the new road programme represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend said that new motorists coming on to the road these days by and large were supporters of the Labour Party? How does this extraordinary statement tie up with a balanced and fair road programme?

I was not aware of that particular remark of my right hon. Friend's. I think it is a very wise one. It is, however, I should have thought, a remark with some political content which might be regarded as controversial. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was concerned with the governmental aspects of my right hon. Friend's statement. It sounds to me to have been a very good statement.

Is it the policy of the Government to restrict the purchase of motor cars for use in cities?

I am not aware of any policy on those lines, and certainly motor car sales have been extremely active recently. How one would apply a condition of sale to the effect, "This car, when bought, should turn round as soon as the 30 mile speed limit is reached" I am not at all certain.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek the agreement of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to the publication of the Lord Mountbatten Report on immigration.

No, Sir.

Would the Prime Minister reconsider his Answer? Is he aware that it seems to indicate that, whereas the Commonwealth Prime Ministers might agree to the publication of this Report, the British Government would not? Has not he himself paid tribute to the Report? Does he not feel that it would be highly valuable for the rest of us to have a look at it?

There is no warrant at all for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion that there is any desire on the part of Commonwealth Prime Ministers that this Report should be published. The whole basis of this Mission was that Lord Mountbatten and his colleagues could speak completely frankly to all Commonwealth Prime Ministers and that they, in turn, could speak frankly, with the idea of getting a really effective immigration policy for this country. I am sure that if there had been any suggestion at the beginning of the Mission that what was said by Commonwealth Prime Ministers to Lord Mountbatten would be published we could not have had the degree of co-operation we have had.

The Prime Minister has told us that he will produce a White Paper or make a statement. Will he confirm that this will be based on Lord Mountbatten's Report? Does not all the Prime Minister's recent experience in the months since October confirm how foolish and wrong it was for him and his party to vote against the Commonwealth Immigrants Act?

The White Paper, when it is finalised, will certainly take full account of Lord Mountbatten's Report and of his recommendations, though in the last resort it is for the Goverment to take responsibility. My predecessor as Leader of the Labour Party in Opposition made plain when we voted against the Act that what we were voting against was, first, the degree of colour prejudice in it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—secondly, the fact that it did not represent the result of consultations with Commonwealth countries, and, thirdly, that at that time the then Government were considering allowing freedom of movement for Europeans in this country when they would have denied it to Commonwealth citizens. However, when we got into power we certainly found that the Act was not working as right hon. Members opposite pretended that it was.

Will my right hon. Friend resist the pressure from the Opposition to impose limitations which would prevent members of a family joining an immigrant, because this has been suggested by hon. Members opposite?

It is not my job to co-ordinate the Opposition Front Bench, but I am doing my best to reconcile the sensible recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition that dependants should be allowed to join their families in this country with the statement by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), which seems to be totally opposed to it.

Mr. Lubbock, Private Notice Question.

On a point of order. In view of the very unfortunate interruption of Questions today, and as there are only three more Questions left for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to answer, would you, Mr. Speaker, consider asking the House to agree to extra time so that those three Questions may be answered?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is so persuasive that I am afraid that if I once did that somebody would propose it again.