asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what has been the average price increase since October last in goods sold or services provided by nationalised industries, including the Post Office; how far this conforms with Government policy; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many nationalised industries have increased charges to consumers since October, 1964.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what was the average percentage increase in prices charged by the nationalised industries in the last 12 months; and what was the average increase in the private sector in the same period.

A number of nationalised industries have increased their charges during the past year. I will, with permission, circulate more detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As I explained in our debate on 11th May, there are established procedures for ensuring that these increases are no greater than is necessary and take place only after every effort has been made to absorb increased costs in greater efficiency.

May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having at his disposal a Prices and Incomes Board which is an authoritative body? As he now has a stick with which to chastise an inefficient monopoly, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will use it without fear and without favour?

I would not wholly endorse the description which the hon. Gentleman gave of the Board, but certainly we will use it without fear or favour.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, as far as the National Coal Board is concerned, coal prices have been stable for three or four years now and that if there has been a price increase to the consumer it has arisen directly out of the privately-owned sector, namely, the distributive sources, as was explained by the Coal Consumers Council recently? When my right hon. Friend circulates his information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will he make that quite clear?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a look at the information circulated. If he needs any more, I will do my best to give it. As I have repeatedly said, I would like to think that private enterprise has been as good as public enterprise in this field.

Would the First Secretary consider referring to the Board the cost of transport services across the Irish Sea?

That question does not seem to arise out of this Question, but if the hon. and gallant Member will put it down I shall certainly consider it.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he has completed discussions with organisations involved in the motor vehicle and cycle industry, with regard to the setting up of an economic development committee for the industry; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir: discussions are continuing.

Would my right hon. Friend consider making an announcement as soon as the discussions are completed? Does he realise that this industry is one of the major export industries of the country? Will he consider referring to the committee not only the question of long-term planning but the need to avoid short-time working in the industry?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are a number of complicated factors which make it necessary to take great care over what we do in this matter. We intend to get such a committee set up. It is important to take all considerations in account and I will make a statement as soon as I possibly can.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the National Advisory Council for the Motor Industry, set up by Sir Stafford Cripps nearly 20 years ago, has worked very well indeed? It had and still has the advantage of having a representative on it of the major groups who feel personally committed by decision. Will he make use of that organisation or model his new committee on that council?

We shall certainly take that into account. The council has done a considerable job, but I do not think that either the name of Sir Stafford Cripps or the mention of 20 years means that we should not have another look at it. I think the E.D.C. is a more comprehensive body.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what has been the movement of dividends since October, 1964; and to what extent the movement has accorded with Government policy on incomes.

It is estimated that in the first quarter of 1965 total gross dividend payments on ordinary and preference shares were 28 per cent. higher than a year earlier. I consider that this rate of increase is excessive and am keeping a careful watch on the position.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since January, 1963, average earnings have gone up by only 17 per cent. and since last October by only 2 per cent.? Will he draw these statistics particularly to the attention of the Front Bench opposite?

My hon. Friend may well have achieved his objective.

Is the First Secretary aware that many of us think that it would be impossible for him to carry out a successful policy as long as his Government continue to penalise those who are trying to save and encourage those who are not trying to do so?

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not be disposed to refuse to refer dividends to the Incomes and Prices Board? Does he not recognise—I am sure he does—that if he is to get agreement on an incomes policy it must be fair to all incomes? Will he give an assurance that he will refer some of these incomes to the Board early?

Yes, I am quite clear that incomes in the terms of the policy we are trying to operate now means all incomes, and anyone having incomes outside what can be permitted within the rise of productivity is contributing to the inflationary spiral.

The First Secretary says that dividends have increased by 28 per cent., but can he tell the House whether the capital employed in giving rise to those dividends is strictly comparable to the two periods?

Yes, I think so.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will issue a statement of Her Majesty's Government's policy on incomes and prices in simple language for popular distribution.

A popular broadsheet on the need for a Prices and Incomes Policy was issued last month, the demand for which exceeded 200,000. Another on the machinery to make it effective is now ready. I will send copies to the hon. Member and will make copies available in the Library.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to bear in mind that what is particularly needed for some people, especially some hon. Members, is a distinction between an incomes policy and a wage freeze?

In that case my hon. Friend and anyone similarly afflicted had better read the popular broadsheet.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the part that can be played in preventing wage-cost inflation by encouraging collective agreements? Will he study the Motion on the Order Paper today which sets that out?

Nothing we have ever done has ever discouraged collective agreements. I welcome the conversion of the right hon. and learned Member.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government will now take to check the rise in prices.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will seek to hold fresh discussions with the Trades Union Congress on the prices and incomes policy of Her Majesty's Government, in view of recent statements by trade union officials concerning this policy.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress made up to date in the implementation of his Incomes and Prices policy; and if he will make a statement.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what further steps he proposes to take to prevent breaches of his incomes policy.

No one who is concerned about our national well-being can feel satisfied with the current inflationary rise in prices and money incomes. Unless all concerned make a much more serious effort to observe in practice the general principles which have been agreed between Government, management and unions, we shall damage our prospects of achieving a more rapid rate of growth of output, exports and real incomes. I am considering in consultation with representatives of management and unions possible ways of developing and strengthening the agreed policy for prices and incomes.

In view of the rise in prices, which has been much more considerable recently than in the past few years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—oh, yes—what action does the First Secretary propose to take if his voluntary principles do not succeed?

If the voluntary principle does not succeed, quite a lot of people will be at fault. At the moment, I am discussing with both sides—indeed all sides, management, manufacturers and the unions—what steps we can take to ensure that the voluntary principle does succeed. I am sure the hon. Member is asking himself what happens in a democratic society if the voluntary principle fails.

As the right hon. Gentleman's incomes policy is now virtually in ruins—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with wage increases of about 9 per cent. instead of 3 per cent., will he use influence with his own union and his Cabinet colleagues to secure their co-operation and tell the House on whose side the Minister of Technology is—on the side of the Cabinet or of the Transport and General Workers Union?

Yes, Sir. It would be easier to answer this if I knew who was on which side among hon. Members opposite. Last night the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that anyone who deliberately got less than the best possible return for his labour, anyone exercising restraint, was guilty of a kind of sabotage. On whose side is he?

Despite the moanings and groanings of hon. Members opposite, may I assure my right hon. Friend that we on this side of the House wish him every success in his endeavours?

Does the First Secretary realise that most people think that his incomes policy is a colossal flop?

Some hon. Members opposite think it is a flop and some think that it should not have been started. They had better make up their minds, because the country takes a totally different view from both those views.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the explanation of the fact that prices have gone up two and a half or three times faster in the last six months than the average of the last five years of Conservative Government?

That is not in fact so. One of the things I would have thought everyone who cares about the stability and future of the country would do would be to help us to stop price increases going on.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) by how much prices have risen since October, 1964;

By 4·4 per cent.

Does the First Secretary remember that the Queen's Speech said, "My Ministers will work for more stable prices"? Does not he think that the 4·4 per cent. increase in this period is really letting the nation down? Would he further agree that by the Resale Prices Act he has had his bacon saved, and will he acknowledge publicly his debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)?

The hon. Member had better reconsider who it is who puts up prices. The register set up under the Resale Prices Act covers 490 classes of goods which so far are exempted. It does not seem to me that that can be playing very much of a part at the moment.

Could my right hon. Friend give us some idea of how dividends have increased in the same period?

I answered that Question earlier. It was a good deal greater than 4·4 per cent.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of 4·4 per cent. is way in excess of the increase in the same period last year? Will he further agree that most of this price increase has come about because of the two Budgets introduced by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

And a good deal of it has come about because the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) continually says that anybody who gets prices down is guilty of sabotage.

Has the right hon. Gentleman estimated by how much prices might have risen but for the activities of his Department?

No, Sir, but I can also say that we might have had a good deal more success if we had been supported by right hon. Members opposite instead of being consistently opposed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that last year unemployment was also in excess of what it is this year?

That seems to me to be a different question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the answer to which is, Yes, Sir.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what plans he has for strengthening the staff of his Department dealing with Press relations; and if he will make a statement.

I have no such plans.

Why not? Is the Minister aware that it would appear that the speeches he makes in favour of his incomes policy get a worse Press than the speeches of the Minister of Technology against an incomes policy?

In this particular respect, I have no complaint against the Press.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will refer the price increases being imposed by the South-Eastern Electricity Board to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the increased electricity charges imposed by the Southern Electricity Board in the area of Portland and Weymouth.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now refer the increase in rates charged by the South-Eastern Electricity Board to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

No, Sir.

Is the First Secretary of State aware that the increases imposed by the London Electricity Board on the domestic user which he has already referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes are only 9·1 per cent., whereas those of the South-Eastern Electricity Board are 13·3 per cent.? How can he possibly in logic defend the reference of one of these cases to the National Board without referring the other case?

Very easily, because there are hurdles which increases in the nationalised sector have to surmount. One of them is the consultative committee. The consultative committee thought that the price increase proposed by the London Electricity Board was wrong. The consultative committee thought that the increase proposed by the Eastern Electricity Board was right. Therefore, having looked at the merits of both cases, taking into account the difference in the answers of the consultative committees, I thought that the one merited reference and the other did not.

The right hon. Gentleman said "No, Sir". May I ask him, "Why not, Sir?", because this percentage increase is quite out of tune both with his policy and with what is necessary?

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening. I gave that answer in reply to the previous question.

Does the First Secretary of State recall that the National Board for Prices and Incomes encouraged the customers of the road haulage industry not to pay the increased charges? What will happen if the customers of this nationalised board refuse to pay the increased charges?

We shall have to await the outcome of the reference, shall we not?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there must be something rather wrong with his hurdles, since in one case 9 per cent. is all right whereas in the other case 13 per cent. is wrong? Surely it is time the right hon. Gentleman changed the hurdles?

That may well be so, but I did not erect the hurdles. The previous Government did.

Does not my right hon. Friend find it stange that hon. Members opposite are so ready to wish him to refer increases in prices to a Board in which they have said they do not believe?

I believe in this Board. I think that it has an important function to perform. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there are some other criteria which he looks at in addition to the percentage increases, which I have shown him are larger in the case of the South-Eastern Electricity Board? Will he state what those criteria are so that we can evaluate his decisions?

If the hon. Gentleman would like to table a wider Question, I will certainly answer it. The matter cannot be dealt with simply by reference to the figure involved. There are many other considerations to be taken into account. I repeat that in the case of a nationalised industry, unlike private enterprise industry, a consumers' body has to be consulted first. It was not only I who decided that in this case the merits did not warrant reference to the Board. The consumers' body, which had every opportunity to refuse, also thought that there was no reason to object.

A terrible muddle.

It may be a terrible muddle, but I did not create it.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he proposes to publish the national economic plan; and whether he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the Answer given on 15th July by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Question by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis).

Does the First Secretary of State agree that this plan is not so much a plan as an exercise in guesswork? When he does publish his plan, will he also publish the sanctions which he thinks the Government will have to take to implement it?

Before the hon. Gentleman makes up his mind about the plan, perhaps he would wait to see it.

Whilst wishing the Minister well—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which is more than half his half-witted hon. Friends do, may I ask him this? Is he aware that today's tape contains the most serious bit of information, namely, that for the first time for many years in July there is an increase in unemployment? Does not this foreshadow a very serious crisis? Will his plan meet that?

Considering how much pressure I get from hon. Members opposite that unemployment ought to rise, I find that a rather remarkable supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman is falling below his normal standard. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) should have groaned so loudly when the hon. Gentleman rose.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a report in today's issue of the Sun which claims that when the national economic plan is published in September of this year, if I may quote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The article explains that the target which some hon. Members on this side have been expecting for coal production is to be greatly reduced. Would my right hon. Friend take note of this statement and consider whether it would be wise to made a statement concerning this issue, which is causing great concern on this side of the House?

I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, but it all adds up to a request to the Minister to confirm or deny something in a newspaper, which is out of order.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is aware of the concern of housewives at the continuous rise of meat prices; and if he will refer this problem to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will arrange for an investigation of meat prices by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern at the level of meat prices. As he may know, in the yast year it is mainly beef prices that have gone up. But I do not think a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes would be helpful, because the current level of prices is largely determined by world supply and demand. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informed the House on 7th July, we hope to announce shortly the Government's proposals for a meat and livestock commission.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the question of excessive meat prices was rampant even under the previous Administration? Will he give an undertaking to protect the housewife today?

That is our main concern, and I think that when the Government's proposals for a meat and livestock commission are before the House my hon. Friend will see what we are doing to try to secure this.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a period of shortage considerable speculation has been and is taking place, particularly in this trade, and that most of the speculators, apart from taking a profit margin, render no useful service in distribution to the housewife?

I take note of my hon. Friend's view. Probably it would be better if I did not comment further on it.

Has there been an increase in the export of live and dead cattle to the Continent?

I cannot answer that without notice.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the position regarding entertainment allowances for full-time members of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Members of the Board do not have such personal allowances. There will be an annual hospitality fund for the Board, but the level of this has not yet been decided.

If this is so, why did not his public relations experts refute the specific statement in a paper published in June that these people had allowances?

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we are not so easily taken in by the Daily Telegraph.

When the hospitality allowances have been decided on, who is this hospitality to be given to?

To those to whom the members of the Board feel they need to give hospitality.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will refer all increases in public service bus fares to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now accede to the request received from the Town Clerk of Bexhill to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the fare increases recently granted by the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners to Maidstone and District Motor Services.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I are watching the position closely, but we believe that the statutory procedures for regulating provincial bus fares laid down under the Road Traffic Acts are sufficient to ensure that the national interest is taken fully into account. I do not think therefore that reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes at this stage would be appropriate.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the strenuous opposition offered to increases as recently as the 11th of this month by 40 local authorities in South Wales, including the county borough of Swansea? Would he not agree that in many cases these increases in fares cushion inefficiency on the part of many private operators? Does he not think it would be wise to reconsider his decision?

The only decision I am asked for here is whether I will refer the increases to the National Board. At the moment neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport nor I think that is necessary. The Commissioners exist and have their powers, and indeed in the case of the East Midlands quite recently they actually refused applications. So long as they have these powers and use them in this way, it would seem wrong to require a double reference for the same purpose.

Alternatively, would the Minister take into special account the needs of old persons, for whom buses are an essential of life and upon whom the increased fares bear unduly heavily?

That seems to be another question, but I agree that there is great point in what my hon. and learned Friend says, but I believe that ways are being found to meet it.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he intends to take to prevent the earnings of men supplied by labour-only subcontractors from breaching the norm agreed by both trades unions and management in a particular industry.

I realise that there is a special problem here, but in these as in other cases the primary responsibility for observing the norm and the other considerations set out in the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy must rest with the parties concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this system, which is expanding fast in the construction industry and some parts of the engineering industry, is condemned by responsible trade union officials and employers alike and that it could have a very dangerous effect on collective agreements?

Yes, indeed, and that is why I answered in the way I did. A great many people are concerned about this, but the responsibility rests with them and, in the light of what they are doing to control it, we had better leave it to them.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in view of the claim of the Chairman of the British Printing Corporation to a salary of £270,000 per annum, in addition to expense allowance, if he will require the National Board for Prices and Incomes to investigate the salaries and expenses paid to all large industrial undertakings.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that workers on small and limited incomes and those who have or are negotiating wage rates through their trade unions, such as the printers, feel a little upset at the fact that their wages and conditions are being referred to the Board whereas those in higher income groups appear not to be so treated? Does not my right hon. Friend feel that an incomes policy would be better received and the trade unions would respond more favourably if they felt that this was being done?

I am sorry, but my hon. Friend is not quite up to date. A Question was answered last week on my behalf in which we made it quite clear that we regard the level of remuneration as being quite unjustified. The reason why I am not referring it to the Board is that things are going on at the moment as far as the company is concerned and I prefer to wait what happens there.

As the gentleman referred to has worked in my constituency for 40 years, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this salary figure is grossly exaggerated? Is he aware that my information is that the salary is £1,250 and that anything over and above that depends upon profit, and that the gentleman concerned has waived a substantial part of the profit due to him and has never drawn anything like £270,000 a year?

I had better say that if those are the facts no doubt they will be put before the shareholders and made public in due course when we can all assess them.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability of his Department collecting statistics to indicate the trend of incomes of directors and higher executives of companies? Ought not these in certain circumstances to be referred to the Board in the same way as the ordinary wages of ordinary workpeople?

There is no difference between us on what can be referred. One has to decide in each case whether it would achieve the end which one has in mind by that kind of reference. In the case of this individual I did not think so, but that does not rule out all kinds of incomes, wages and salaries.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it indicates a large measure of prosperity under a Labour Government when somebody can get £270,000?

If this man had over £90,000 expenses disallowed in one year, does not that indicate that tax avoiders are rather less successful than the Chancellor of the Exchequer imagines?

We are getting near prejudging here matters which are subject to consideration elsewhere and I would prefer not to be drawn further.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has now considered the documents relating to the affairs of the British Printing Corporation submitted to him by the hon. Member for Bristol, South; and whether he will refer the affairs of this company to the Prices and Incomes Board, to be considered concurrently with the present reference of wages in the printing industry.

I have no doubt that the Board is already aware of the case of the directors of the British Printing Corporation, and I do not consider it necessary to take any action to bring it to its attention or to require a separate investigation.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the workers in the printing industry, the people who produce the goods, will be very disappointed with the reply which he has now given to me? Is he aware that they fail to understand why it is that he should refer a wage settlement, negotiated nearly two years ago and only just honoured, to the Board when he allows a salary of this astronomical size to go unchallenged? Is my right hon. Friend aware that neither he nor anyone else can explain this to the workers in the terms which he has now used?

May I take another shot at explaining it? The Board is aware of this case, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will bear that in mind when it considers the reference which I have already made to it. It does not seem to me that I need to take special steps to ensure that that is so.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what guidance his Department has given to other Departments on investment in science-based industry; and on what evidence this guidance was based.

None, Sir; but the national plan to be published soon will contain information about industrial investment and will describe the Government's policy towards it.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it unwise, if it is possible at all, to produce a national plan for productivity without a view on investment in science-based industry? If the right hon. Gentleman does not give advice to other Departments, does he receive advice from the Ministry of Technology?

When the plan is published, the hon. Member will be able to see exactly to what extent this has played a part in formulating the plan for the years ahead. It seems to me that the Opposition are in the same trouble over this as they are over the incomes policy. They have to make up their mind whether or not they want it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer my question? Is he getting any advice, and would he agree that it is impossible to draw up a national plan without formulating a view on investment of this kind?

I can only repeat that when the plan is published the hon. Member will be able to see it and see to what extent we have had advice and have given advice and what conclusions we have come to.

If the right hon. Gentleman does not know whether or not the national plan will have any relation to science-based industries, can he at least tell us whether, when the plan is published in September, it will be based on the nationalisation of the steel industry, which he has told us is essential for the control of the economy?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back from the Albany. I have no intention of going further than I have in answer to the Question.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent retail prices are influenced by local rates levied on manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers; and if he will make a statement.

I cannot give a precise answer, but the effect is likely to be very small.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that rates are becoming an ever-increasing percentage of total costs and, therefore, of prices? As his Government's slender majority stems largely from a specific pledge to reduce the rate burden, does not the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for prices, consider that he ought to exert pressure on his right hon. Friends and try to redeem that pledge?

The Government's adequate majority stems from a number of things and will be sustained not least by the obvious incompetence of the Opposition. On the Question actually on the Order Paper, I repeat what I said, that we think that the effect is probably a very small one.

Three per cent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that it has been one of the bigger factors in 1965 in the 4½ per cent. increase in prices which we have had since his Government came in? Will the right hon. Gentleman talk to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see whether a new formula can be arranged to transfer some of the rate burden to the central Exchequer?

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the very good speech on this very subject which my right hon. Friend made at Hove the other night. On his other point, there is very little I would take from him, and certainly not that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent report on rates blamed the previous Government for the big increase?

Clearly, all reports on all our problems can blame only the previous Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question about rates put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)? My hon. Friend reminded the right hon. Gentleman that his Government secured their narrow majority when they came in on a promise, among other things, to reduce rates. Do they intend to reduce rates, or is this to be another of their many broken promises?

I cannot repeat every answer three times. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT of what I said he will see it all there.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now consider building advance factories in development areas in co-operation with local industry, to ensure maximum use of resources and increased employment in the areas.

Advance factories are built by the three Industrial Estates Management Corporations for the Board of Trade. Contracts are normally put out to competitive tender. Experience shows that most have been placed with firms in the vicinity of the site.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is sometimes a danger of siting advance factories in the wrong place to attract new industry or, perhaps, to interest existing industry in the area, and that one of the most successful parts of development policy in the past has been the assistance given to local industries in the area at the time? In the circumstances, ought he not now to contemplate practical assistance of the kind suggested in my Question?

I do not think that it is a very general complaint, but we are ready to listen to advice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now consider establishing a regional office in Aberdeen.

I am not convinced that this is necessary. The services of the Board of Trade's office in Glasgow and its district office in Inverness are available to firms in the Aberdeen area.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the activities of the present Government, we in the north-east of Scotland look for considerable development and expansion of industry in our area, and more active assistance by the Board of Trade in this regard would be greatly appreciated?

I am happy to say that, as a result of the activities of this Government, unemployment is much lower in Aberdeen than it was a year ago.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that during and after his last visit to Aberdeen he promised the setting up of such a regional office, and it has been promised by his predecessors over years past? Will he accept that it is urgently necessary in order to develop trade, industry and commerce in Aberdeen and to reduce unemployment there?

No, Sir, I do not remember any such promise, but I know that the situation in Aberdeen is very much more hopeful than it was a year ago.

asked the Prime Minister what assurances are sought from temporary civil servants recruited by the Government that they will not, when they leave the Service, write books about their experiences.

None, Sir, because there are already strict rules governing the publication of books or other works by former civil servants based on their official experience.

Is it, then, the fact that the same assurances have been sought from temporary as from permanent civil servants?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister what instructions are issued within the Civil Service to ensure the security of top secret Cabinet papers.

It is not the practice to give details of security procedures.

In view of the public anxiety about this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are currently being taken to ensure that civil servants do not see top secret defence Cabinet papers when they are, possibly, known to be sympathetic to an organisation which diametrically opposes Her Majesty's Government's Defence policies?

I agree that there is anxiety. If I remember aright, the hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Ministry of Aviation. I ask him to await the report to be published this afternoon on the results of his stewardship.

I await that report with great interest, but will the Prime Minister now answer the question which I asked?

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that any senior civil servants are receiving top secret papers and they are security risks, I shall be very glad to have any information from him about it.

Will the Prime Minister please refrain from making insinuations against hon. Members until the evidence on which he bases his innuendoes has been before hon. and right hon. Members of the House?

The hon. Gentle-was making very serious suggestions about security, and he expressed the view that there was concern about security. A lot of the concern arises from what has happened in the Ministry of Aviation.

Would it not be much easier to ensure the security of really important papers if we ceased classifying so many papers under various headings? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other day there arrived on my desk a paper which appeared to be about the breeding habits of lobsters, which was marked "Restricted"?

I should need time to examine that particular paper. I have felt for some time now, as we have said on both sides of the House, I think, that security is easier to safeguard if there is some limitation on the amount of classification of papers, whether in the secret or even in the restricted category.

Reverting to the Prime Minister's earlier reply, will he say how divisions of opinion within the Cabinet are dealt with as regards security documents?

I have not the remotest idea what the hon. Lady is talking about. I was dealing with a Question about the control of security in relation to civil servants.

I am widening it.

I gathered that. I never thought that there was any security danger in the previous Cabinet when they were divided on the M.L.F.

Was the document on the breeding of lobsters sent to the Leader of the Liberal Party with the idea of enabling his party to develop a policy?

I have no idea in what capacity the right hon. Gentleman received it, but I am sure that there was no security risk involved.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will re-allocate responsibilities between the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the economic problems arising from the trend of Great Britain's trade figures.

No, Sir.

Would not the Prime Minister, in his heart, have preferred to answer "Yes" to this Question? Whatever the arguments in the past for this system of dual control, now that we are coming into a critical time in sterling, is it not desirable to prevent even the appearance of a conflict between an expansionist Department of Economic Affairs and a deflationary Treasury? Is it not right to have one strong hand on the tiller?

I am not aware of the conflict to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. If his facts were right, I am not sure whether he was suggesting that we follow the path of deflation or expansion. While there are tremendously important functions within the control of the Treasury affecting certainly the balance of payments, monetary control, taxation, expenditure, and so on, it is highly important—this is where we have gone wrong in the past—to have an expensionist plan to see that we get the right industrial expansion and the right investment, particularly in our export industries. Nearly all our balance of payments difficulties in the last year or two—I am not complacent about this—have arisen from the fact that we have inadequately expanded capacity in those industries which have the biggest job to do in exports and import saving.

What on earth is the good of asking business men to increase exports when, as I show in Question No. 42, which the right hon. Gentleman transferred, we are sending goods to the docks which the dockers will not handle for export? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that side of the problem?

As I have explained in the House before—indeed, I have expressed my concern about congestion in the docks and spent a lot of time on it—we have a very important Economic Development Council dealing with the problem of services for exports, including the docks. I am urgently awaiting, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, the report of the Devlin Commission, which I hope will tell us what needs to be done in the docks.

asked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 24th June to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

On recalling that Answer on this occasion, would the Prime Minister like to say which Minister in this Department will be responsible for carrying out the compulsory restriction in wage rises which his right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State recently threatened?

The reply which I gave on the previous occasion was that the duty of the Minister of State is to assist my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State. How work is divided up in the Department will be a matter for my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put down Questions about policy perhaps he will put down Questions about policy.

Would the Prime Minister explain to his right hon. Friend that his duties include giving proper Answers to Members in the House and not trying to be too smart with his backchat?

My right hon. Friend has been giving proper Answers to Questions, but he has been facing the same difficulty as I have, that an extremely high proportion of Questions from hon. Members opposite neither seek information nor raise questions of policy. They are just simply useless muck-raking questions.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the Commonwealth initiative to achieve a settlement of the problem of Vietnam.

asked the Prime Minister what further plans he has for seeking to make contact with the leaders of North Vietnam.

I have as yet nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself in the foreign affairs debate on 19th and 20th July.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) in the Spectator that it is not surprising that Hanoi and Peking refused to receive a mission led by himself since he has given full support to American policy? Next time the Commonwealth Mission is considering taking an initiative, will he bear in mind that it might make more progress if he were prepared to take less of the limelight.

This is an extraordinary suggestion by the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he supported the line which we took in supporting the United States in Vietnam. If he is suggesting that we should change that, he had better communicate that view to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. But if he is suggesting that I should not have been chosen by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to be chairman—that all of us were wrong about this—then, of course, he disregards the fact that this Mission had to be balanced with all points of view. Surely he would agree that it is important in getting acceptance in the United States to have one member of the Mission which has supported the United States policy.

Would the Prime Minister consider sending the Paymaster-General to Vietnam? Many of us would like to see him go.

If I thought that it was going to help—[Laughter.]—to get men round a table and end this very "laughable" war, I would even send the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not think that it would.

As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he does not mind rebuffs, which is perhaps just as well, would he please keep in mind the effect on the Commonwealth as a whole—not just upon his own Government—of too many unsuccessful initiatives?

What I notice about the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition in saying that this was an ill-considered initiative, is that it is an extremely surprising criticism of senior Commonwealth Prime Ministers such as Sir Robert Menzies and others who strongly supported this Mission.

Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realise that the people of the country are behind all his efforts to bring to an end this savage conflict in Vietnam? Will he continue his efforts?

Yes, Sir. I think that basically right hon. Gentlemen opposite also support these initiatives. I think that that is their real position, as has been said, in their hearts. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he feels better after tonight's meeting, will even support them himself.

Might I make the observation that I sometimes wish that the right hon. Gentleman would behave like a Prime Minister? On the particular point, while I supported the mission as having an outside chance, the only word with which I can describe the other mission is "idiotic".

I have tried to take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman. The first advice, of course, marks a welcome change after the previous 12 months. I would hope that he would agree that one of the duties of a Prime Minister is to try to seek peace in this very difficult situation in Vietnam. I might say that it is one of the duties of a Leader of the Opposition to help in that task or to propose alternative means of securing peace, which the right hon. Gentleman has not done. Since he this week condemned the Commonwealth Peace Mission—

indicated dissent.

Oh, yes. He condemned both of them. I am not interested in his choice of adjectives. I want to know whether he still feels that all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, for whom I thought he had some respect, were wrong to take an initiative which is inconvenient to the Opposition.

I must explain to the right hon. Gentleman once again—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) will contain himself for a moment, he will hear the answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Order. Out of the gentleness of my heart, I permitted the Prime Minister to commit an outrage to the extent of asking a question at a time when questions should be addressed to him. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to answer it.

Why should the Leader of the Opposition or any other right hon. Gentleman be given preferential treatment at Question Time? Is he permitted only to ask a question, or is he to be permitted to make a statement, contrary to the treatment meted out to back bench members?

It is a matter within my discretion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can answer a question by asking another. Most people at that level are capable of doing it.

Is not the Prime Minister aware that I have always made it clear that I was in favour of the idea of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Mission but that from the moment it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to prepare it it was doomed to failure.

Yes, Sir. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech on Tuesday. I agree that that is exactly what he said. The point which I was putting to him was that since such leading Commonwealth Prime Ministers as Sir Robert Menzies had supported it from the outset, knowing all about the preparations, knowing that we could not endanger the Mission by allowing the Chinese to get at it first, the right hon. Gentleman is therefore condemning some senior Commonwealth Prime Ministers who have far more experience and knowledge of world affairs than he has himself.

May I reply to the Leader of the Opposition?

I dare say that one day the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will catch my eye—sometimes he does—but he does not catch it at this moment.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the acquisition of a painting by Sir Winston Churchill to be hung in the Palace of Westminster.

To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement concerning the acquisition of a painting by Sir Winston Churchill for hanging in the House of Commons part of the Palace of Westminster.

With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 9 and 10.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be assured that the House does thank Lady Spencer-Churchill for this gesture and also is glad to note that the picture is to be hung in a public, albeit a semi-public, room? Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which picture Lady Spencer-Churchill has designated for this purpose?

No, Sir. I am sorry that I have not got that detail with me. There were long discussions with her about this. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is valuable that it should be in a place where not only hon. Members but their wives and guests may see it.

I am not quite clear to what extent the ten-year rule has been abrogated in respect of Sir Winston Churchill. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a very good portrait of him in Mr. Speaker's House. Would he consider transferring it into the House?

Order. If the hon. Member wants to ask me a Question it will have to be a Private Notice Question. But this is not the same point. The Prime Minister was speaking not of a picture of Sir Winston Churchill but of a picture created by Sir Winston Churchill.