asked the Minister of Power (1) what progress he has made with his reassessment of national fuel policy in the light of recent developments;

asked the Minister of Power what are the likely energy requirements of Great Britain in coal equivalent by 1970; and from what sources they will be satisfied.

asked the Minister of Power what is the result of his review of the effect the discovery of natural gas in the North Sea will have on the requirements for coal as outlined in the National Plan and the White Paper on Fuel Policy, October 1965, Command Paper No. 2798.

asked the Minister of Power if he will publish a revised White Paper on Fuel Policy.

asked the Minister of Power (1) what proposals he has to revise the energy statistics contained in Chapter II of the National Plan;

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the impact of North Sea gas production upon the output of coal and mining manpower.

asked the Minister of Power if he will now estimate the effects of the discovery of natural gas on the coal industry; and to what extent the requirements for coal envisaged in the National Plan will now need to be revised

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Palmer) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) on 24th May.

Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any validity now in the figures in the White Paper on Fuel Policy as it was originally presented to the House? In view of the increasing exodus of miners from the industry, will he say whether he will consider making regular statements to the House about the prospects for the coal industry in view of recent developments in the North Sea?

There is a great deal of validity still in the original White Paper. As far as the prospects for coal miners are concerned, it cannot be said too often that one of our problems is a shortage of coalminers and not too many of them. That is not attributable to developments in the North Sea but arises out of a system of full employment.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman concur that whereas North Sea gas can make an inestimable contribution to our national resources, it would be a grave mistake to allow the coal industry to run down further, especially where economic production from highly productive pits is concerned?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are no factors or figures which lead one to suppose that the country will be able to dispense with its very large coalmining industry. North Sea gas is not an alternative. We want more coalminers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman now suggesting that the target of 180 million tons set out in the National Plan is too high? Does he appreciate that in the north-east of England, where coalmining is still a principal employment industry, it is necessary to revise that quantity?

May I make the point, first of all, that the figures in the Plan are estimates and not targets? I can only repeat that it is the Government's intention to maintain a viable coalmining industry. Work has been started on a review of fuel policy, and that is going ahead with full speed. But the problems are very complex, wide-ranging and long-term.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Question Time on 12th May his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs told me that the Government still stood by the figures for the coal industry contained in the National Plan? Is that also the view of the right hon. Gentleman?

It is far too soon to say at the moment what the outcome of the review of fuel policy will be in relation to the National Plan. The Government are still working to it.

Can my right hon. Friend say what time schedule he has in mind for the production of the revised version of the fuel plan?

I would like to make a statement on the whole question of North Sea gas in the very near future. One cannot fix a firm time limit for the review of fuel policy. There is a great deal of work to be done. It is a complex issue, which will take a few months.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that four years is far too short a period on which to base a national plan for energy requirements? The White Paper on Fuel Policy was based, in the main, on capital decisions already made. Will he institute work to produce a White Paper for a ten-year fuel policy instead of a four-year policy?

With the enormous amounts of capital involved in the construction of such things as nuclear power stations, one has to look a long way ahead. One has to have a series of points within any policy to enable one to judge that far. We will go as far as we can. In the short term, within the period up to, say, 1970, one would obviously have a more accurate picture than in the longer term.

Whilst appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, will he not agree that the estimates set out in the While Paper published last October were based, first of all, on a growing economy, whereas since then there has been virtually no increase in industrial production; and, secondly, in the White Paper no allowance was made for the developments concerning natural gas? Will he assure the House that the revised White Paper will not be held up until he has received the report of his new economic adviser, who I understand was appointed only yesterday?

Speaking for myself, I am not too enthusiastic about more White Papers on the subject. One wants to have a longer-term estimate, and clearly the previous White Paper did not take into account North Sea gas because no one knew then and no one knows now what the full potentialities are. They will become apparent, and one would hope for a policy which took them into account. It would be a mistake to believe that anything that has happened in the North Sea completely invalidates the White Paper.

asked the Minister of Power if he will state the terms of the licences granted by him to persons or companies drilling for oil or gas in the North Sea relating to laying by them of oil and gas mains designed to carry oil and gas ashore, indicating the nature and foundations of the bed of such mains, their depth beneath the sea and provisions to protect shipping and fishing gear from danger caused thereby.

These licences contain no terms relating specifically to the laying of oil and gas mains but do require that the licensee shall not carry out any operations in such manner as to interfere unjustifiably with navigation or fishing. Licensees must also comply with the provisions of the Coast Protection Act, 1949, and, for pipelines within territorial waters, with the provisions of the Pipelines Act, 1962. The pipeline to be laid for the British Petroleum Company will be buried at depths of between 4 and 10 ft. below the sea bed.

Does the Minister realise that fish are sensitive and fastidious creatures? These novel oil rigs are in use and it would be a disaster, not only for the fishing industry but also for the fish-consuming public, if fish were driven from the North Sea in shoals. Does he not agree, therefore, that it is his duty to adopt protective measures in order to ensure that that does not occur?

My hon. and learned Friend will be reassured to hear that the problem seems to be to keep fish away from the oil rigs. Whether social or economic factors attract them, I am not altogether clear.

asked the Minister of Power how many, and which, of the persons or companies acting under licence from him drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, have successfully struck oil or gas, and to what extent; what provision is made in the relevant licences for benefit accruing from those strikes to the national Exchequer; and what benefit will accrue to the national Exchequer in each of those instances.

asked the Minister of Power what further information he has about the extent of the natural gas recently discovered in the North Sea; whether it is expected to extend towards the north of Scotland; and whether there is any likelihood of oil in that part as well.

asked the Minister of Power if he will tabulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT how many strikes of natural gas have been reported to him, the location of each strike and the company or organisation making it, the depth at which natural gas has been reported, and the anticipated daily output in each case, respectively, to date; and if he will estimate the total flow which will be available for industrial and domestic consumption for each of the next four years.

All reports furnished to me under the provisions of licences are confidential. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the information so far available about each strike. Further testing of all these fields is needed to assess the full significance of the discoveries, and I cannot estimate what quantity of gas will be available, nor the benefit which will accrue to the Exchequer. Methods for calculating payments to the Exchequer are explained in Appendix 3 of my Report for the year 1964–65 under the Continental Shelf Act. Licences have been granted for areas off the north of Scotland, but the existence of oil and gas there can be proved only by drilling.

Does the Minister not realise that it is quite wrong to treat these matters as confidential? They are a matter of national interest and it is his duty to make clear the profits and percentages and the persons who will make those profits out of these explorations. Will he kindly do so?

All the evidence at the moment is that the nation will receive considerable financial benefits out of these explorations.

May I ask why this information has to be treated as confidential? Furthermore, is the right hon. Gentleman in a position yet to say what will be the kinds of advantages which will accrue to a community in the North of Scotland if oil or gas is discovered off its shore?

It is impossible to give the advantage to any community until one has a better idea of the extent of the deposits and the length of time that they will last.

On the hon. Gentleman's point as to why some of the figures have to be confidential, if we want to encourage commercial companies to carry out these explorations one has to recognise levels of commercial secrecy. Most of the matters about which there is a level of secrecy are highly technical, anyhow. I am circulating as much information as is available, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will find that of some help.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are anxious to know when it will be taken from the sea to the land, and that we would like some indication of what the flow will be? The fact that he cannot give this information will be a disappointment to many.

I am sorry, but nobody in the country knows how much is there. I cannot say the rate at which it will be landed. The first amount will be landed at Killingholme early next year at a rate of about 20 million cubic feet a day.

Is my right hon. Friend confident that there are no Communists at the bottom of this gas strike?

In view of the unsatisfactory answer to this set of Questions which are of great public interest——

Order. The hon. and learned Member must be brief when giving notice.

—I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he proposes to take to cut out the wasteful competition between the gas and electricity services, especially in the field of consumer services; and if he will make a statement.

The proper co-ordination of the fuel industries is a major aspect of the current fuel policy review.

Is the Minister aware that we have these elaborate and expensive gas and electricity showrooms provided virtually side by side? Is not this wasteful competition, and has not the time come to bring economic prudence to bear on the minds of these administrative bodies?

The possibility of co-operation in such matters has been examined from time to time, but in the past the balance of advantage has appeared to lie in showrooms, billing, and so on, being the responsibility of each industry. At the moment we are reviewing rather more fundamental aspects of co-operation.

Is this one of the subjects to which Mr. Michael Posner will be invited to devote his attention in his capacity as economic adviser to the Ministry?

He will be dealing with the fundamental economics of the fuel industries in the first place.

asked the Minister of Power when he will publish the Steel Bill.

Shortly.

As we are still in a state of economic crisis, will the Minister try once again to negotiate a compromise with the steel industry in this matter instead of dividing the nation in these difficult times by pursuing the old-fashioned White Paper nationalisation policy?

The argument for nationalising the steel industry is precisely that it will aid the nation's long-term economic plans. I would have thought that, having waited for such a long time—right until 10th May—before proposals arrived which it was obvious to everyone were totally unacceptable, there was not much point in going on much longer.

As in two successive General Elections the people of this country have expressed their clear support for the principle of nationalisation, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Steel Bill should be introduced as soon as possible?

I think it is fair to say that there has never been a Bill before the House on which, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not, this side of the House has been given a clearer mandate at two successive General Elections, and we intend to discharge it.

Does the Minister realise that the evidence shows that the majority of the electors of this country are not in favour of steel nationalisation? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Secondly, does not the—[Interruption.]

Order. We cannot debate the Steel Bill now.

On the question of timing to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, does he realise that at a time when Britain is in the midst of a dangerous economic crisis, and becoming increasingly reliant on overseas support for the £, it is the height of irresponsibility to press on with steel nationalisation?

There is no evidence that the nationalisation of the steel industry would have an adverse effect on the nation's economy.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to electricity boards to suspend their practice of imposing initial charges for electricity connections on new housing estates, pending his discussions with the gas and electricity industries on initial charges policy.

asked the Minister of Power when he expects to complete his discussions with the gas and electricity industries on the present system of initial connection charges.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that area electricity boards are specifically discriminating against gas in their connection charge policy; and what is his policy regarding this practice.

As my right hon. Friend announced on 16th May, he is discussing this matter with the gas and electricity industries. He hopes to complete these discussions as soon as possible, but in the meantime, it would be wrong for me to anticipate the outcome.

Since the Electricity Board has a virtual monopoly of the supply of light to consumers, is it not an abuse of that power to use that weapon to distort competition in the supply of heat?

Someone has to pay the connection charges, and it is important that the connection charges plus the subsequent tariff should economically reflect the cost of the supply. These matters are now being discussed with each of the industries.

How much longer does the hon. Gentleman expect these negotiations to take? Will he do his best to ensure that the interests of the consumer are taken fully into account here, and that the ultimate agreement will preserve the consumer's freedom of choice?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister encourage the Gas Board and Electricity Board to collaborate in the production of a joint gas-electricity domestic stove? All cooks, whether Members of Parliament or housewives, know that one form of heat is better for producing some dishes and another for producing others?

I think that this might come in the same category as the suggestion that postmen should deliver the milk.

asked the Minister of Power how many firm contracts have been placed by the Gas Council for pipelines to convey natural gas from the North Sea to the national grid; and what is in each case the length of the pipeline, the diameter and the date on which contracts are expected to be completed.

asked the Minister of Power what quantity of steel piping was used in the existing trunk pipeline distributing Algerian natural gas running from London to Leeds and elsewhere; how much of this piping was provided by the British steel industry; and how much piping will be required to join the British Petroleum off-shore gas strike near the Humber to the existing trunk pipeline.

About 330 miles for the Algerian gas pipeline, all of whom was provided by the British steel industry. About 90 miles of 24 in. pipe will be required to make the connection to this line from the landing point where the gas from the B.P. find will be delivered to the Gas Council. Of the 90 miles, 28 will have to be imported. The contractual arrangements for these supplies are matters for the Gas Council.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his inquiries have shown that it will be necessary to import all of this balance of steel, and were these orders for the residual 28 miles placed after all attempts had been made to obtain steel from our own industry?

Yes, certainly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the statement which was reported in The Times of 25th May that Ministers were unhappy because they felt that the British steel industry would be unable to supply sufficient piping, the two principal steel firms were extremely irritated in that they felt that the capacity required would be well within their reach?

That does not correspond with the facts as they have been presented to us by the steel firms themselves.

asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received that British industry is unable to make the pipes required to bring the North Sea gas to the mainland; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has given to the British steel industry of the amount of pipeline that will be required to pipe the current sources of off-shore gas strikes to consumers in the years 1967–68, and 1969–70, respectively.

asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that an adequate supply of steel piping will be available to cope with the supply of natural gas from the North Sea; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what has been the result of his discussions about the supply of steel tubes to convey natural gas from the North Sea.

I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 16th June.

I have not the faintest idea what he said on that occasion—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must put his question.

May I put it this way, that we are aware that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very few hon. Members behind him have any idea of what he said on that occasion? If British industry can produce these required pipes, is it not scandalous that the Press should be making statements to the contrary and denigrating what our people can do?

The hon. Member should get two things clear. On the initial orders, apart from about 28 miles of pipe, British industry will be able to provide the piping. There is certainly some doubt about the extent to which pipe will have to be imported from overseas in future.

Was the right hon. Gentleman then himself responsible for the leak to The Times for that paper's article of 25th May, which said that Ministers were deeply shocked by the large quantities which would have to be imported? Is he aware that that had to be denied the following day?

I am never responsible for anything which appears in The Times, but certainly Ministers are concerned about the extent to which imports of steel pipe may be necessary in future.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that what he said on 16th of June and what he has just said conflicts very sharply with that leak which was put out from the Ministry of Power alleging a complete incapacity on the part of the steel industry, and that he is now being very much more restrained and cautious? However, will he be careful in future before he makes allegations which are highly damaging to an industry against which, I agree, he has the most improper motives?

No leaks were put out by the Ministry of Power—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will repeat that. I am not sure what hon. Gentlemen are trying to say. If it is argued that this side of the House and Ministers are satisfied with the British steel industry and that it will be able to meet all the requirement on a large scale for large size steel pipe, I am sure that there are considerable doubts on this side of the House as to whether that is so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he cannot ride off so easily on a matter of this kind? Will he answer this simple question? Is he aware that the political correspondent of The Times repeated that a Minister of Her Majesty's Government had said that the inability of the steel industry to provide pipes showed that the case for the' nationalisation of steel was unanswerable? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that that reference was completely untrue? If the right hon. Gentleman says that he was not responsible for the leak, will he make inquiries to find out which of his right hon. Friends was responsible?

I repeat that there was no leak from Ministers about the extent to which we shall be able to meet all our steel requirements.

Would the right hon. Gentleman state the diameter of the proposed B.P. pipe and whether it will be possible to manufacture pipe of the required diameter by the British steel industry?

This is where the confusion arises, because there are two sets of orders. It may be necessary in the initial stages to import limited quantities of the B.P. pipe which, I understand, is 24 in. in diameter.

asked the Minister of Power what information he has to the estimated total cost of converting domestic and industrial equipment to use natural gas as against manufactured town's gas; and to what extent this will be borne by the consumer, the Gas Council and the Exchequer, respectively.

The cost of this conversion is one of the matters being investigated in the studies in hand on the utilisation of natural gas. Under the provisions of the Gas Act, 1948, the cost of conversion would fall to be borne by the area board in whose area the consumers are situated.

To what extent will natural gas be used in domestic industry and to what extent will it be converted into a form of manufactured gas?

I am sure the hon. Member appreciates that this is a matter which needs the most thorough technical investigation and will be different at different stages of the transition. This is what we are considering at the moment.

asked the Minister of Power whether, in the light of its nearness to the Humber off-shore gas finds, he has received proposals for the conversion of the new power station under construction at Drax, near Selby, to burn natural gas.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister consider taking the initiative and inviting such a proposal? Does he realise that if we fire Drax through gas we could export the coal which is at present planned to be brought into this station, so that it would be more economical to send the coal to Hamburg and bring the gas to Drax?

Before many more hon. Members work out how we should use the natural gas which we have not yet got they should wait to see how much is there. One cannot in the present position talk about where one sites power stations on the basis of an as yet unknown quantity, when we are not sure of how we would like to use it.

asked the Minister of Power what departure from the figures given in the National Plan for capital investment in the gas industry he expects as a result of the recent natural gas strikes in the North Sea.

Until more is known about the availability of gas from the North Sea, it is impossible to estimate its effect on the gas industry's future investment.

Does this mean that the Minister will simply bury his head in the sand and make no provision whatever?

I am beginning to despair of ever putting this simply. No one, anywhere, knows how much gas is in the North Sea at the moment. The most commonly used figure is comparatively a very small one and, until one does know how much is there, one cannot estimate its effect on the gas industry's future investment.

Is the Minister aware that, apart from the discovery of natural gas in the North Sea, the consumption of gas increased between 1964 and 1965 by 11 per cent., which is considerably higher than the rate expected by the National Plan? Is it not, therefore, likely that the capital expenditure spent in the industry will have to be revised up?

It is a feature which is frequently overlooked that the increased energy requirements between now and 1970 are considerable—33 million tons of coal equivalent by 1970. On the most optimistic figures, we shall not get half of that from the North Sea.

Does my right hon. Friend not realise that many people-not in the House but outside—want to know whether there is any future in natural gas because they want to put their money into the right company?

asked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to make the exploration for, and subsequent supply of, indigenous natural gas a responsibility of the Gas Council and the area gas boards.

No, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the present terms under which natural gas will be supplied to the public sector are highly disadvantageous to the public sector? Does he not feel that it would be in the national interest to take indigenous natural gas under public ownership?

The last point is a separate one, on which there is a later Question. It has to be borne in mind that oil and gas exploration is a highly speculative enterprise. It would not be wise for hon. Members on this side of the House to want to place the whole of the risk on the nationalised gas industry, even if it were physically practicable for the industry to take on the job.

Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the terms agreed with the producers are such as will encourage them to press on as rapidly as possible with further exploration?

Obviously, the actual terms which are agreed will be negotiated between the Gas Council and the oil companies. As has been said before, the only figure so far agreed—I think that my hon. Friend was referring to this—is certainly no precedent for any future negotiations.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to nationalised industries boards to second their personnel for a tour in overseas countries of the Commonwealth and to ensure that those volunteering to go will not lose promotion in their home-based jobs.

No, Sir, but the boards' attention has been drawn to the White Paper on Overseas Development in which it was said: "We should like to see it widely accepted in this country that a professional career should normally include a period of work overseas in a developing country …" The boards have indicated that they will continue to do their best to help.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will seek to secure the benefits of the North Sea gas field for the nation by introducing legislation to take it into public ownership.

No, Sir. I refer my hon. Friend to the Answers given on 1st December, 1964 and 6th April, 1965.

Since God gave the land to the people and since the steel industry will, we hope, shortly be returned to them, how can my hon. Friend differentiate between the sea bed and natural gas?

At least half of the areas licensed will revert to the Crown after the initial licence period of six years. The terms and conditions of further exploration in these areas can be decided at that time. This gas can be sold to the Gas Council only with the agreement of the Minister, and I think that it would be undesirable, from the point of view of the nationalised industries—even if it were physically possible for them to take on this job—to leave it solely to them.

asked the Minister of Power what information he has regarding the cost to industrial users of coking coal in Scotland and the various regions of England.

I have no information on delivered costs.

Is the Minister aware that Scottish firms in the central belt are paying as much as 30s. a ton more than their competitors in the North of England, and that in the case of one Scottish steelworks it is imposing extra costs of £3 million a year compared with a works in the North of England? That differen- tial more or less removes the advantages of being in a development area.

I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures. The question is in terms of delivered costs. I have no power to make the steel companies report their actual delivered costs. All that we have available in the Ministry are pithead prices. There is no power to require steel companies to disclose their delivered costs, and I do not know what they are.

asked the Minister of Power what information he has regarding the number of Scottish coalpits which will be closed in each of the next three years.

It is the National Coal Board's policy, approved by the Government, to close grossly uneconomic pits as quickly as possible, but the timing of closures under the colliery classification list published on 18th November, 1965, is flexible and the actual closures in any particular period are decided by the Board in the light of circumstances and in consultation with the Unions. Four of the 33 category "C" collieries in Scotland have so far been closed. Another two closures have been notified to the unions as likely to take place in the near future.

Does the Minister not realise that that does not say a great deal? The morale of Scottish coalminers is very low. The only clear indication is that 48 of our 74 mines are under the threat of closure.

The actual timing of the closures is a matter for the Coal Board to negotiate with the unions, which it is doing. There is no dispute within the industry or the House that one can only have a viable coalmining industry by closing some of the less economic pits.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will now introduce legislation to provide a scheme to equalise the price of domestic fuel throughout the country.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable difference in the price of domestic fuel in Cornwall and the rest of the country? Does not he regard it as harsh injustice that people should not obtain fuel at an equal price from a nationalised industry? Will he look at this matter again?

Costs vary considerably from one part of the country to another, taking into account transport and so on. It is only right that prices should reflect costs.

If certain pits are kept open in certain areas for social reasons, why should the entire cost of that be put on the people who live there?

It is not.

asked the Minister of Power whether he proposes to stop opencast coal operations in view of the reduced tonnage now required from the coal industry.

No, Sir. We need all the coal that can be produced at an economical price from deep mines. At the level of 7 million tons a year stated in the White Paper on Fuel Policy, opencast coal provides a valuable and economic supplement to deep-mined production.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is somewhat ridiculous that we should be tearing the country apart to the disadvantage of the agricultural industry, when his right hon. Friend said a minute ago that what we want is a viable underground coal-producing industry?

We want coal at a cheap price, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the National Coal Board takes the greatest care to look after agricultural interests and to preserve local amenity.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will cause the target figure for coal exports in the National Plan to be revised upwards at the next review of the Plan.

These are estimates, not targets: we would wish to sell abroad as much as we can at economic prices.

Why is the target published in the National Plan below the objective set by the National Coal Board itself? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we should aim to increase exports? How does he explain the difference between the Coal Board and himself? Who is the boss of this industry?

One of the problems with the estimates, of course, is that the fall in exports—there has been one in this respect—is the result of intense competition for markets. It also has to be borne in mind that in many cases the prices obtainable are not commercially attractive.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the President of the Deputies' Association, who was reported this morning as saying that unless the loss of trained miners is halted we shall be short of coal next winter? Obviously, this will affect our exports.

One can go on saying this, of course. I do not think that this picture of a coalmining industry being in a tremendous crisis is helpful to the industry or to halting the drift of miners from the pits. There is a great future for people who are prepared to work in coal mines and a great need for them.

asked the Minister of Power what is his estimate of the additional cost of distributing solid fuel arising from the proposed payroll tax.

Representations from some retail distributors suggest that if the tax is not absorbed by increased efficiency the additional cost may be in the range of 1s. 6d. to 3s. a ton. But the purpose of the tax is to encourage economies in the use of manpower in the distributive trades and I hope firms will absorb much of it.

In view of the need to contain prices if incomes are to be retained, will my hon. Friend look at the possibility of exempting coal distribution from the Selective Employment Tax?

Will he make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that end?

My hon. Friend knows that the examination of detailed cases is necessarily limited by the speed with which this tax has been introduced, but it would plainly be contrary to the purpose of the tax if exceptions were made in matters with which it is specifically intended to deal.

Would the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why agriculture and horticulture should be given preferential treatment over coal and oil, when all of these things are basic to our national economy? Why will he not be a little more helpful to his hon. Friend on the Private Parliamentary Secretary Bench?

That sounds to me like a Question for the Minister of Agriculture and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Minister of Power in view of the continuing decline of coal output and related manpower, whether he will state his revised tonnage for 1966, and the anticipated further manpower decline; and whether stocks of domestic coal in all grades are adequate to meet summer pricing demands.

asked the Minister of Power if he will state the estimated inland demand for coal in 12 months to the end of March 1967, and the estimated output of deep-mined coal in the same period.

I hope to be able to say something about prospects before the Summer Recess. Supplies should be generally adequate to meet demand during the period of summer prices, but may be affected in places if the seamen's strike is prolonged.

Would the right hon. Gentleman have a talk with the Leader of the House and point out to him that it is now five years since the report and accounts of the National Coal Board were debated in the House of Commons. As this matter is long overdue, and because there is anxiety in every part of the House about the run-down of the coal industry and the departure of 1,000 miners a week, should not we have a debate on the subject before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that he would have no objection to the Opposition using one of their Supply Days for this purpose.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need thoroughly to examine again the amount of coal held in stock by the National Coal Board, remembering that some of it is eight years old and may not be fully usable?

This is a matter for the National Coal Board. I will certainly look at the point my hon. Friend makes. At the end of 1965–66 the N.C.B.'s undistributed stocks totalled 18½ million tons. I have no information about the quality of the coal in stock.

Since more miners are leaving the coal industry than was estimated in the recently-published White Paper, would it not help the campaign which my right hon. Friend has been carrying on in recent speeches—for example, in his speech at the Yorkshire Miners' Gala—and give confidence if he called a halt for the time being to the accelerated closure programme?

The timing of closures is a matter for the National Coal Board, in consultation with the unions concerned. Such inquiries as I have been able to make so far lead me to doubt the extent to which this drift from the pits is caused by loss of confidence in the industry and how much is caused simply by the result of alternative employment being available in a period of full employment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very caution with which he is answering these Questions carries its own message of gloom and pessimism? Does he recall that last winter, in respect of various fuels, the National Coal Board only just marginally got by and that the prospects for this winter are much darker than that? Are these prospects not bad enough to alarm the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues?

I can think of few things more likely to cause a crisis in the coal industry than that sort of remark—[Interruption.]—presumably made with the authority of his right hon. Friends.

In view of this series of replies on the coal industry, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the National Savings Jubilee Ceremony at the Guildhall on 19th May on the subject of national savings represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Is it not clear that the prolonged period of inflation has caused savers gradually to move away from the traditional method of National Saving and that this trend cannot be met purely by leapfrogging interest rates? Would he say what consideration the Government have given to new methods and techniques of National Savings?

I am aware of the great interest which the hon. Gentleman takes in the whole question of the National Savings Movement. He will be aware that personal savings last year equalled the figures for the previous year. Although there was some falling off in the National Savings element in the first quarter of this year, there has been a very satisfactory pick-up since the introduction of the new certificate at the end of March.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

No, Sir. I do not think that a White Paper could add significantly to the full information which has already been made available to the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing concern at his continuous and, one might say, ineffectual changes in administration without adequate explanation? What further changes are contemplated and what are the Government going to do to stop the serious downward trend in housebuilding and the record increases in costs?

I think that this was fully explained, so fully that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to base the greater part of his speech in the recent housing debate on that explanation. No further changes are in contemplation in this area, so far as Departmental responsibilities——

No more Ministers?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman I am sure understands that we had to end the civil war between his old Department and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and it has now been ended. As to the deep concern, I am aware of some of the rather extravagant statements which were made over the weekend, and my right hon. Friend has challenged their authors to debate them with him on television.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a particular statement referring to trouble-shooters? Would it not be a good idea, if there are to be trouble-shooters, that they should shoot at the trouble caused by the mess and muddle of his Administration in the housing sphere?

I am not sure to which statement about trouble-shooters the hon. Gentleman is referring. We had a very serious situation with which to deal. I recognise that there was a very difficult marginal argument as to whether certain responsibilities should be in the Ministry of Public Building and Works or the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. We decided on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which was a view taken during the greater part of the term of office of the Conservative Administration.

When is the Prime Minister going to abandon his complacency about the failure of his housing policy in a situation in which prices are steadily rising—and are being increased by the S.E.T.—in which mortgages are running at their highest level and in which the number of houses built has been falling steadily in the last six months? Will he realise that these kind of organisational changes are not meeting need? Will he therefore get some new policies and a new Minister and sack the present Minister in the autumn?

These organisational changes are, in our view, desirable and necessary for dealing with the situation. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, despite the serious situation in February, there is now—I think all of us recognise this—a pick-up in the housing situation and—[Interruption.]—the right hon. Gentleman, like the rest of us, had better wait to see whether this is reflected in next month's or the next two months' housing figures.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in eight of the nine months the figures for housing completed have fallen compared with those of the previous year and that this is causing hardship and misery to the people of this country?

The position is that the number of houses under construction is still almost at a record level. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right if what he is suggesting is an extension in the period from start to completion. One reason has been the labour position. If we had not taken the measures we took it would have been a great deal worse last year. He also knows that there is still a surprising and somewhat unexplained failure on the part of private enterprise housing to complete houses when, as the whole House knows, the amount of mortgage finance available for producing those houses is at a record level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all house building depends in the first instance on the capacity of the building trade and resources in materials for the building of those houses? Can he say whether the Government have at any time restricted the building trade or curtailed the number of houses to be built, or been in any way responsible for any shrinkage?

There is of course no restriction. As the House knows, when we took office the planning by the right hon. Gentleman the then Minister of Works was such that there were not the bricks or materials necessary—the right hon. Gentleman knows that that was the position—not on the labour side, because of their violently inflationary programmes which we have dealt with.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister for Regional Development.

The hon. Member will know of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

Will the Prime Minister ask the First Secretary of State to make some effort to co-ordinate the activities of various Ministers concerned on a regional basis where the geography of the regions with which they are concerned seems to vary but there is no rationalisation between the regions and the Government?

It is very difficult to be responsible for variations in geography, but it is precisely because of those variations that we have set up the economic planning boards and economic councils in each region representative of those with best knowledge of each region so that we can take account of variations, geographical, social and economic. It is also a fact that we have been recently decentralising a number of Government Departments so that they may be more responsive to the needs of those areas.

Will the Prime Minister look into the activities of the First Secretary, if he is responsible, because he will then find that the First Secretary is failing to carry out the policy of the Government? There has been no decision about the South-East Plan, no decision on the two studies already on the North-West and Midlands which we put in hand, on industrial building in the North-East and the Northern Region and the South-West, which are two of the most delicate areas, and the actual amount of industrial building has gone down compared with that of the previous year, which is a failure of the development policy.

The right hon. Gentleman will find that, despite then-spurt in the last two of their 13 years, the proportion of new factory building in the development areas is running at a very much higher figure than when the right hon. Gentleman left office.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Government's initiative to seek peace in Vietnam, he will arrange to visit the United States of America to consult President Johnson with a view to ending the Vietnam war.

I shall be meeting President Johnson next month and no doubt Vietnam will be discussed.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there are many people in this country who would like him to do precisely what Attlee did in 1950—to urge commonsense on the Americans? Will the Prime Minister inform President Johnson that the majority of British people have no stomach for this colonial war that the Americans are engaged in?

I was a member of the Cabinet when my noble Friend, Lord Attlee, went to Washington to deal with a very serious situation caused by a statement that the atom bomb was to be used in North Korea. I believe that intervention was decisive. It is a point that at that time we had troops in Korea. We do not have troops in Vietnam; we are opposed to having troops in Vietnam. So far as the views of this country are concerned, as I interpret them, they have been regularly explained to the President of the United States and to this House. I took a little time last week explaining them in a meeting upstairs where I think my hon. Friend might have been present.

Has the idea of keeping in existence the Commonwealth Peace Mission so that it could be ready if useful been dropped? If not, is it not rather odd that over the last four months it has contained only one member apart from the Prime Minister himself? What is being done to replace Dr. Nkrumah and the late Prime Minister of Nigeria?

The hon. Member was worried about this yesterday. The position is that if it becomes possible for the Commonwealth Peace Mission to visit the capitals that we asked that it should visit, it would be possible very quickly to activate it by quick discussion with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers to see who would represent the Commonwealth. That could be done very quickly indeed. The hon. Member knows that what prevented us getting "airborne" last year was the refusal of Hanoi not merely to come to the conference table but even to receive a completely representative mission from the whole of the Commonwealth.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made in Moscow with a view to getting the joint Chairmen to reactivate the conference on Vietnam? Can he further tell the House what representations Her Majesty's charge d'affaires in Peking has been making recently in order to get the Chinese to be a little more amenable so that this ghastly war can be brought to an end?

As I think the House knows, pressure on our Russian co-partners as co-Chairmen in this matter has been almost continuous, certainly to my knowledge since February, 1965, and I pressed it very strongly on my recent visit to Moscow. This suggestion is still being pressed. We all understand the Soviet Government's difficulties about it. So far as China is concerned, we have repeatedly made clear our point of view. It was regrettable that, whatever our differences of view, the Chinese Government did not agree to welcome this very representative Commonwealth Mission a year ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the vast majority of people in this country would sooner that he did not go rushing off to Washington every other month but stayed here and sorted things out at home?

I am grateful for the hon. Member's statement of confidence in this matter. I think it right— this has been the view of previous Prime Ministers—that there should be regular consultation between the Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States. Certainly when the whole House, I know, feels that this Vietnam situation is not only, as my hon. Friend said, a ghastly war but is capable of escalation to great danger, it is important that we should keep in closest touch by meetings as well as by other means.

Before he goes to Washington, will the Prime Minister undertake to study the growing evidence of methods of barbarism resorted to by our American allies in Vietnam, methods which go far beyond even those against which the Foreign Secretary protested when in the United States at one time? Will he study further how much resort to these methods derives from the totalitarian nature of the régime in South Vietnam which our American allies, and unfortunately ourselves, appear to be supporting?

I am afraid that all modern war involves barbarism. So far as the Vietnam war is concerned, I have said many times that there is a great deal of atrocity on both sides. Therefore, the only answer is to get the war ended. I do not think we shall do very much in the way of civilising a war of this kind. Certainly the methods of which my hon. Friend has complained— and I know he would be equally condemnatory of methods used on the other side by infiltrating North Vietnamese troops —are inevitable in the conditions of this war. They are not in any way related to the political complexion of the Government of South Vietnam and I have said on more than one occasion that we regard the political situation in South Vietnam as an entirely different matter.

Will the Prime Minister point out to the President of the United States that the best way of bringing the war to an end is to win it, unless Peking and Hanoi come to the conference table?

One thing is clear. I have said that this war will never end in a military victory for anyone. There has to be a political solution. The problems will not be solved, certainly by the kind of policies advocated which simply represent a victory for Com- munism and there would not be victory for the other side either. This has to be settled by a political solution, by all parties coming to the conference table. Then let us get to Geneva and get a political settlement within the ambit of the 1954 Agreement.

In view of the dangers of escalation mentioned by the Prime Minister from this extremely senseless and sordid war and, further, in view of the mandate which the Prime Minister has now obtained—on a limited basis—for his east of Suez policy, would he at least make one point clear to President Johnson, namely, that our contribution to the settlement of this affair is that we no longer offer training facilities for South Vietnam soldiers, in order to exercise our neutrality as co-Chairman?

I do not go round hunting for mandates. The mandate for the Government's defence policy was given in the vote in the House when we had a two-day debate on the Government's Defence White Paper. It has been explained to the House a number of times that the question of training is on a very limited scale. It is certainly nothing inconsistent or incompatible with our duty of co-Chairman. If that were the case, one would have to say that the Soviet co-Chairman, who are very much more involved with this war by the supplying of munitions than we are, would also not be behaving in the right way. It was always accepted that of the two co-Chairmen, one represents generally a Western point of view, the other an Eastern point of view. We are certainly not in any way prejudicing our position as co-Chairman.

In view of the expressed wish by growing numbers of the people in South Vietnam for an immediate end to the war and the repressive military measures taken by the Ky Government, would the Prime Minister now, in the light of the statement made by President Johnson last Saturday that he intends to step up the bombing operations against North Vietnam closer to the population centres, make it clear that Her Majesty's Government are totally opposed to any such policy?