asked the Minister of Power to what extent gas supplies from the North Sea are being held up by foreign companies refusing to agree to the British Government's price per therm; and what steps he is taking to get over this difficulty.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the negotiations concerning the price to be paid for North Sea gas.

asked the Minister of Power what action he intends to take to bring about a settlement of the dispute over the price of North Sea gas.

Negotiations between the Gas Council and the licensees, both British and foreign, are continuing. There is no evidence that gas supplies from the North Sea are being held up.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulties with these private conferences emphasise once again the need for a national Natural Gas Corporation? Can my right hon. Friend at this stage estimate the foreseeable output and usage of this gas?

In reply to the first part of the question, I have always thought that the task of the Ministry of Power was virtually to fulfil the functions which my hon. Friend is suggesting for a national power authority. With regard to the second part, no one yet knows how much natural gas there is under the North Sea. It will certainly be in excess of 1,000 million cu. ft. a day by 1970.

Does not the Minister recognise that the quantity that will be available for consumers in this country will depend to a very large extent on the price that the Gas Council is prepared to pay? How much longer will the country have to wait until we have an answer to this critical and, I admit, difficult question?

I think that the negotiations are progressing favourably and fairly between the two parties. Clearly, a sensible price for North Sea gas would be one which optimised production.

In the light of the wording of the Question, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government welcome the infusion of foreign capital and the provision of foreign "know-how", and that his objective will be to reach a price which will provide an incentive to the operating companies to find and to deliver the maximum amount of gas?

Of course, we are pleased to have this level of foreign investment in this exercise, and, of course, the price fixed would have to be one which was sufficiently fair to the producers to persuade them to wish to continue producing. On the other hand, there are consumer interests as well. I have never regarded this as a set of negotiations which were not capable of being concluded in the interest of both parties.

Since we are dealing with enormous sums of money to be paid by the Gas Council—which is taxpayers' money in the end—can my right hon. Friend tell us, if we were to pay 3d. per therm instead of 2d. per therm, what would be the cost in payments to the Gas Council over the next twenty years?

I could not answer that question because there is no particular relevance in the figure of either 2d. or 3d.

May I ask the Minister to take this matter very seriously? Nothing would be more tragic for this country than that this opportunity were lost by a desire to depress prices and discourage an enterprise of exploration which has been so auspiciously begun. The Minister has enormous responsibility to shoulder in this matter.

We accept entirely that these negotiations are very important for the country in terms of the vast sums involved. So far, however, the negotiations have not taken very long. This is an incredibly important issue, as hon. Members on both sides accept. As far as I know, there is no dissatisfaction on either side with the way the negotiations are continuing, and there is no purpose in producing a picture of great difficulty which does not exist at the moment.

asked the Minister of Power what is the cost to the national Exchequer of the present drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea under licence from him; and in what ways the money is spent.

About £41,000 has been spent in the period from 1st April, 1964, to 31st December, 1966, on the issue of licences and on related administrative activities.

How does the cost balance the saving to British users of oil and gas? If there is no such saving, are not these licences an economic loss to the British consumers?

They are certainly not an economic loss. We cannot at the moment work out the saving in terms of a saving in our balance of payments because we do not know how much gas we will have and, therefore, how much we will be selling. The cost of granting and administering licences at present amounts to less than £20,000 a year, but the payment for licences has so far amounted to £2,700,000.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving those figures. Will he make it abundantly clear that the trifling amounts involved in the issue of licences is nothing compared with the tremendous risk of capital that is involved in this exploration?

It is clear that there has been a significant commercial risk involved in this matter, but that is exactly what an entrepreneur undertakes when he enters activities of this sort. It must be said, however, that the level of risk in this particular exercise is probably as low as, if not lower than, any similar exploration in the world.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give details of the provisions in licences he grants to persons and companies to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea with special reference to any benefits such drilling may confer on North-East Scotland.

The licences contain no provisions related specifically to North-East Scotland or any other part of Great Britain.

Cannot my hon. Friend give some further information about these licences? For instance, is there any provision in the licence requiring the owners of rigs to get repairs done in this country instead of, as happened recently, sending to Germany or other Continental countries for repairs to be done?

On the specific point that my hon. and learned Friend raises, I should have thought it far better to leave it to the people in charge to get the repairs undertaken as rapidly and efficiently as possible from the point of view of safety. Other conditions are laid down in line with the model clauses contained in the Petroleum (Production) (Continental Shelf and Territorial Sea) Regulations, 1964, which cover such matters as payments, working obligations, proper methods of operation, approval for wells, safety of workers, keeping of records, etc.

asked the Minister of Power how many protests he has received about the new standing charge for small gas consumers; and if he will now give a general direction, in the public interest, to gas boards to withdraw it.

About 180 protests have been received. It is not considered appropriate to give a general direction in a matter of this kind.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my elderly constituents who do not have pre-payment meters are receiving bills for gas which are considerably higher than those which they received before? On the other hand, is he aware that the West Midlands police are advising elderly householders not to have prepayment meters because of the risk of burglary? Will he look into this matter again to see if some relief can be given, particularly to pensioners?

The kind of information mentioned by my hon. Friend would be considered if it were submitted to my Department. It should be stated that the standing charge does not necessarily mean that there is an excessive increase in cost, because the initial charges for therms are considerably reduced. The rates have been reduced in the West Midlands area by between 8d. and 1s. 1d. per therm. The introduction of pre-payment meters, in place of credit meters, is a sensible step for people to undertake, particularly when they use small amounts of gas. But I am assured that the Board would consider making special arrangement for elderly persons who find any difficulty in this connection.

In view of the loud-throated and enthusiastic support which his right hon. Friend gave to this matter when it was first raised, will not the hon. Gentleman—whom we congratulate on his new appointment—urge his right hon. Friend to give very serious consideration to this matter and a more satisfactory reply?

asked the Minister of Power what has been the net return on capital employed in the nationalised coal, gas, and electricity industries, respectively, in the last year; and how this compares with the average for the last five years.

The net return after depreciation in 1965–66 was, for gas, 5·4 per cent., and, for electricity, 7 per cent., the five-year averages 1961–66 being 5·1 per cent. and 6·4 per cent., respectively. In the case of coal, the figure was affected by deferment of price increases and amounted to only ·03 per cent. as compared with 4·2 per cent. for the last five years. With permission, I shall circulate explanatory notes in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As the net return is only one-third of what can be earned in private industry, do not these figures cast grave doubts on the Government's policy of pressing ahead with further public control and nationalisation?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in this matter, particularly since comparisons with the private sector are misleading, as indeed the previous Conservative Government explained in their White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries. Regarding the hon. Gentleman's last remarks, I would point out that in relation to the steel industry, the rate of return in 1965–66 seems likely to be at about 4 per cent.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to assist the gaining of contracts to build nuclear power stations abroad.

asked the Minister of Power what recommendations he will make to the nuclear power engineering and allied industries for the reorganisation of the consortia system to ensure the advancement of the advanced gas-cooled and other British reactors, and towards a full realisation of design and cost factors for domestic electricity supply purposes.

I encourage the Central Electricity Generating Board to follow investment policies which will foster an efficient nuclear power industry. Recommendations to the nuclear plant industries rest with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Would it not help to award a contract now to the Central Electricity Generating Board? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a contract for a reactor of the same design is being negotiated with the Belgians and that there is great sales resistance there?

Consideration is being given to the C.E.G.B. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question here of the suitability or performance of the design itself, but that this must be considered in terms of the economic factors applying to it. There is no reason to suppose that foreign buyers would take this into account when considering purchasing nuclear power stations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong opinion in the industry that if we replicated on the basis of the A.G.R. design there would be a run-up of at least three new stations? Would he not agree that that would then lead the way to reduced costs in the production of domestic electricity and would make way for new opportunities for the export of nuclear power, thus creating a new exporting industry?

I recognise my hon. Friend's interest, which is well known, in the question of replication. However, there are arguments on both sides. The C.E.G.B. is concerned with the production of power in this country and must have in mind the need to stay ahead with the most efficient and up-to-date stations. This must be put in the balance against replication, but I assure my hon. Friend that his views are taken into account.

Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), does the Minister realise that most of us would not want to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of dragging his feet in this matter but suspect that the delay in ordering the Hinkley B is entirely the responsibility of the Treasury? Will he make urgent representations to that Department to get on with the job?

Answer.

Would my right hon. Friend say which Ministry is responsible for following up the export experiences of Italy and Japan?

I assure my hon. Friend that promoting exports is not a formal duty of the C.E.G.B. and that this is not my Department's responsibility. The task of looking into those matters rests with the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Power how much construction of nuclear-powered electricity generation capacity he now plans to authorise in 1967; how many stations are involved; and where they will be located.

I am still considering the Central Electricity Generating Board's proposed capital development programme in which it plans to start one new nuclear power station in 1967 to be sited at Hinkley Point. The Board has not yet made any firm proposals for subsequent nuclear power stations.

When will a decision be reached in connection with Hinkley B and what type of A.G.R. power station is contemplated?

The answer to the question is, very shortly.

asked the Minister of Power what proportion of new generating stations will have nuclear power.

As stated in the White Paper on Fuel Policy, about 8,000 MW of nuclear generating capacity is expected to be brought into commission in the six years 1970–75. I cannot say what proportion of new generating capacity that will represent as plant programmes beyond 1970 have not yet been settled.

As we hope he has already hoisted in the message about Hinkley Point, does the Minister realise that there is an immense responsibility on the present Administration to maintain the worldwide lead which the Conservative Government left to this Administration in the use of nuclear power for generating purposes?

I think Britain's present position in a worldwide lead in nuclear energy owes far more to the technicians involved than to any politicians on either side of the House. Decisions for 1971 and later can be made only on forecasts for electricity in those later years.

Will the Minister consider increasing the proportion of power to be generated by nuclear plant in the period 1970 to 1975 from the present level of about 25 per cent. of the total capacity to be provided for the whole of the base load?

This is a question which has real implications for the whole of energy policy. Certainly there is a great increase in nuclear plant in this country and something which, because we have a lead, we would like to see extended.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general directive to the Gas and Electricity Boards to consider the desirability of co-ordinating their meter-reading services so that a single representative of the two nationalised industries will read both meters.

The Weir Committee on co-operation between electricity and gas boards reported in 1959 that the balance of advantage appeared to lie in leaving meter reading within the responsibility of each industry. However, the scope for further co-operation between the two industries in this and other fields is kept under review.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen this system operating very satisfactorily in France? Would he agree that there would be about 50 per cent. saving in actual meter reading if this system were used; that there would certainly be 50 per cent. less inconvenience to consumers, who sometimes have to arrange for someone to be present when the meters are read, and that there would be 50 per cent. less security risk in unknown people being allowed into people's homes and flats?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about allowing unknown people into flats and houses, but this does not really arise here, as it is a matter of tenants and householders taking care in this respect. I can certainly accept his point about convenience to consumers, but I am afraid that he is quite wrong in regard to the economics. There is no question of a 50 per cent. saving being involved here. It would be a quite marginal saving and, indeed, certain developments now being studied in both industries might overtake even this suggestion about co-operation.

May I join in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his appointment? I would not wish on this his first appearance at the Treasury Box to press him unduly, but I hope that in the light of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), and of other statements that have been made on this topic, he will look at it again.

The answer is, "Yes". I have already indicated that we are keeping in touch with this matter.

asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from the gas industry in favour of a decimal currency based on a 10s. unit.

None, Sir.

As a final decision has not yet been taken on the unit of decimal currency, will the Government bear in mind the saving of money and the great convenience to both the gas industry and to its consumers of a 10s. system?

The gas industry expressed a general desire—or, perhaps, a marginal desire—when giving evidence to the Halsbury Committee that it would like to see the 6d. coin retained, but on the understanding that the new £1 unit would produce coins which were suitable for the metering system the industry accepted that it could operate quite satisfactorily.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there is very grave anxiety in industry and business, and in some public undertakings, notably London Transport, about the possible introduction of a system that will involve fractions? Will he have urgent discussions with the Gas Board with a view to ensuring that if a decimal system involving fractions is brought in, the accounts, which are already difficult enough to understand, will be downgraded to the nearest cent, rather than upgraded?

On the last point, it is a matter for the Gas Board, or the Gas Council, to consider certain commercial undertakings or industries, and I can assure hon. Members that research is going on inside the gas industry on how it can best adapt to the new system.

asked the Minister of Power whether he expects that the Central Electricity Generating Board will be able to meet the demand for power this winter.

Yes, Sir. Although I am still not satisfied with the margin of capacity which the Board has in hand, it should suffice unless there are unexpected breakdowns or unusually severe weather conditions.

Will the Minister accept that he has only been saved from a considerable risk of substantial breakdown by a much lower level of industrial demand as a result of the squeeze, and will he be prepared to chalk that up as something to be said for it?

No, Sir. I think that a great deal of credit goes to those people working in the nationalised industry on this occasion for their work. Plant availability is high—running at about 88 per cent.—more plant is in use, and the programme for summer overhauls was completed by the end of October. Hon. Members opposite should join with us in congratulating those who have worked so hard to achieve this result.

asked the Minister of Power what forecast has currently been adopted by the Electricity Council in conjunction with his Department for the maximum electricity demand, in megawatts, for the winter of 1970–71; and what assumptions about the rate of economic growth underlie this forecast.

The Electricity Council's last forecast, which was adopted in January, 1966, implied a national maximum demand of 51,100 MW. in 1970–71 on the basis of the economic growth assumptions in the National Plan. The review of its forecast, on which the Council is now working, will assume lower growth rates.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any current power station projects are being phased over a longer period, or are we simply to go on with the momentum generated in the earlier programme, taking no account of the lower growth rate, and without any consideration at all of the shortage of capital in private industry at present?

The Council's review will not be completed until the spring. Clearly, any alterations that need to be made in terms of investment plans will be made in the light of that review.

Is the Minister aware that a reduction in the national growth rate from the 4 per cent. postulated in the National Plan to the actual level of 1 per cent. today will result in a saving of £260 million a year in electricity investment?

I do not have those particular figures—

I worked them out.

It is precisely because I assumed that they were the hon. Gentleman's own figures that I did not want to take them too literally.

asked the Minister of Power when he last held a review with the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the Board's plans for development and capital expenditure for the next five years ahead, according to the procedure described in paragraph 10 of Command Paper No. 2798, Fuel Policy.

I am currently discussing with the Chairman the Board's programme of development and capital expenditure for the years up to 1971–72.

Surely in view of the total collapse of the National Plan and because of the measures taken by the Government deliberately to slow down the rate of economic growth in this country, should not this review have taken place very much earlier?

No, I think the review has taken place as quickly as it could and as would be sensible with matters of this size. Discussions on the Board's programme for the next five years will probably be concluded very shortly.

asked the Minister of Power how much land has been purchased by the Gas Council specifically for the storage, distribution, and processing of natural gas; and how much of this land is located on or near the coast.

No land has been purchased for the storage or distribution of natural gas. Forty-four acres have been purchased at Easington for the processing of gas from the B.P. strike with a coastal frontage of about 320 yards.

How much land is intended to be purchased by the Gas Council? Will the Minister bear in mind that if this land is on the coast, particularly the Norfolk coast, good rural land will be given over to industry? Will he consider making representations to the Gas Council to ensure that it will purchase land inland and not on the coast?

On the actual amounts, the Gas Council has applied for planning consent for about 130 acres at Bacton in Norfolk, Shell has applied for 60 acres on an adjacent site; such applications go to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Various factors and representations made from time to time will be taken into account.

asked the Minister of Power if the organisations concerned in retail coal distribution have given him a date when they are likely to report to him arising out of the Prices and Incomes Report of September 1966.

At a meeting earlier this month representatives of the coal trade outlined to my predecessor proposals for pilot scale studies of rationalisation schemes which will shortly be considered by the Central Committee of the Coal Merchants Federation. I shall keep in close touch with developments. In the meantime, a substantial number of schemes for rationalisation and concentration are going ahead.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since 1958, when decontrol was introduced in this industry, the retail margin of profit has increased considerably—indeed, has exactly doubled—whereas the total tonnage distributed has decreased? How does he expect the consumers of this country to be interested in increased production when we have such delays in dealing with very important matters of this sort?

I can only refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which was issued not long ago and in which the Board stated that it did not consider that the trade was making unreasonable profits.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is now the policy of the National Coal Board to increase its interest in coal distribution to promote the rationalisation to which he referred in his previous Answer?

It is certainly correct to say that the N.C.B. is extending its activities in this sphere. I believe that it now covers about 4 per cent. of this trade and is in negotiation with one or two major companies with a view to forming an association with them. As I have indicated, considerable rationalisation is going ahead at the present time.

Will my hon. Friend remember that whereas the cost of producing coal has gone up by 28 per cent. since 1958, increased distribution costs have increased by 65 per cent. to 70 per cent.? Will he bear that in mind when giving further consideration to this matter?

I will certainly bear in mind any relevant information that is brought to my attention. However, I must again stress that the National Board for Prices and Incomes stated that it did not believe that the trade was making unreasonable profits.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the availability and prices as compared with ordinary fuel of smokeless fuel for people living in newly declared smokeless zones in Redbridge; and what plans he has for special price concessions for retirement pensioners whose fuel bills are increased by the requirement to burn smokeless fuel.

Supplies and prices of smokeless fuels in particular areas are matters for the suppliers and distributors. The Supplementary Benefits Commission will consider making a special grant to help pensioners eligible for supplementary benefits who find themselves in difficulty as a result of having to switch to smokeless fuels.

But surely the Minister realises that this is not a matter of people on National Assistance, as they still regard themselves, but of people on very marginal incomes just above that level. As the hon. Gentleman's Government have already arranged for old-age pensioners to have indiscriminate benefits on public transport, will they not now do something about people who want to keep themselves warm in the winter?

I do not think that I can add very much to what I have already said. Questions about the level of pensions and the incomes of people in difficulties are for the Minister of Social Security. As I have indicated, if certain people are in difficulties they can make application and receive assistance.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of bitterness extant amongst members of the general public over what they consider to be cheating amongst retailers over price increases for smokeless fuel? If my hon. Friend is to say that that is the public's responsibility, it seems pointless for them to complain in order to be protected against this cheating, as they have been asked to do by the First Secretary. Will not my hon. Friend reconsider his reply, and say that on receipt of complaints of these increases his Ministry will thoroughly examine them?

I am sorry if my previous replies implied, or were taken to imply, that we would not investigate complaints reported to us. In fact, the Department is dealing with complaints very thoroughly. We have had quite a number, and I can assure him that we shall continue to investigate them.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations took place between the National Coal Board and himself in the matter of the Board's capital investment of £207,000 in the Draysley Company of Slough; and if he will make a statement.

The Board informed me of its arrangements for this Company to assist in the development of a domestic boiler which would burn bituminous coal smokelessly. The model handled by the Draysley Company has been discontinued, but the development of an improved design is being pursued by the Board.

Is the Minister aware that this looks like being another of the bottomless pits without any coal in them into which the Coal Board is so blindly throwing public money? Why buy up this firm at £¼ million in order to discontinue the current range of products that it had developed? What does the Board hope to sell in the future?

The purpose of this particular enterprise was to enable the Board to pursue research and development on solid fuel burning appliances, which is a proper function of the Board. It was a reasonable investment, and the sort necessary for this degree of research and development.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he had with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about the further closure of pits and the reduction of manpower by another 150,000 by 1970; and in which coalfields the reductions will occur.

I am in touch with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about colliery closures as part of our regular meetings, but there has been no discussion about reducing manpower by another 150,000 by 1970. The collieries most likely to be closed by 1970 are those in category "C" of the Colliery Classification list of November, 1965.

Has my right hon. Friend read the recent pronouncement by Lord Robens, the Chairman of the Board? Does he realise that these pronounce- ments create further insecurity among the miners? In the absence of information, what does he expect the miners to do? Are they to retain their employment in pits likely to be insecure? What about local authorities? How is it possible for them to plan housing and the like without the information? Does my right hon. Friend realise that many miners, certainly in my area, although I do not know if he is aware of it, begin to have very grave doubts about nationalisation?

The latest pronouncements by Lord Robens last week show that about 330,000 men would be employed in coal mining in 1970. This would imply a reduction of only about 84,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] There has been a much bigger reduction in past years without involving great unemployment. One realises that this sort of programme produces very real social problems and very understandable fears among those affected, but the answer is that at the moment there is an increase in colliery manpower. The miners must realise that with an economic coal mining industry there is a very real future indeed for them.

When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to produce the next edition, as it were, of the energy White Paper? There have been some stories that it will be produced in the middle of the year. Can he say what the whole demand for coal production is likely to be by 1970? Is it not likely that by then it will be down to 80 million or 100 million tons a year?

I have no information about a White Paper and, therefore, do not know the figures which would he in it.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the lines of communication in this matter? In the past when the miners' union met the National Coal Board it has been told that it is the Government who close pits, and when it has met the Government it has been told that it is the Coal Board which closes pits. Can we have some clarification of this matter?

I do not think there is any difficulty about this. The position is a very clear one. The responsibility for mining coal efficiently is the responsibility of the National Coal Board. Clearly the Government have, quite rightly and properly, a duty to examine social implications of the policies of any large section of industry, but there is no cause for doubt as to where responsibilities lie.

Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a front page article in the Financial Times on 30th September, where it was suggested that if the present drain continued the shortfall of production per annum in the coal industry would be something like 135 million tons and the only way in which it could be made up would be by importing more oil from overseas with a consequent drain on balance of payments?

Anyone is entitled to make his own forecast of the possible figures of coal production in years to come. The Ministry of Power is engaged in a very big project in working out optimum energy policy. The future for the coal mining industry lies in producing coal at the most economic price at which it can be produced, but the problem is not one of producing but of selling coal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that the fundamental of pits policy in regard to coal mining is that every pit operating shall be utterly efficient and that he will not keep open any "ancient monuments"?

A policy as doctrinaire as that applied to nationalised industry would be as unhelpful as if the same policy applied to the private sector.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is aware of the suggestion in the recent report of the Economic Development Committee for Mechanical Engineering that overall output in 1967 is unlikely to exceed the 1966 level; if this represents the expectation of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. This conclusion was in accordance with my right hon. Friend's expectations, but the report was written before the announcement of the increase in investment grants.

Is it the supposition of the hon. Gentleman that the change in investment grants is likely to have a significant effect upon the level of output in the mechanical engineering industry in 1967? If that is so, will he tell the House how much and on what evidence he bases his conclusion?

I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is probably too early to get any objective estimates of the precise effects of these grants. I am grateful to him for drawing industry's attention yet again to the great advantages of maintaining its investment at this time.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will set up an inquiry into the effects of automation on the British economy in the period to 1975.

A number of inquiries relating to the effect of automation are already in hand, but it is not a subject suitable for a single all-embracing inquiry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that experience in North America amply illustrates that automation introduced by an unplanned, free enterprise system simply leads to a situation that that system cannot cope with? Does he further agree that the imperative need in this country is for the Government to learn from this experience and to ensure that automation introduced by the private sector comes as part of central and regional economic planning so that the effects of automation on training and on location of industry are appropriately dealt with?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are certainly taking a wide range of action in relation to the planning of industry, by industry and by region. The industrial training boards are vastly increasing the scale of their activities. We have a Royal Commission working on the trade unions at present. The whole National Plan and the machinery of the Plan is under review. My hon. Friend can therefore be assured that it is the Government's aim to pursue a constructive policy in relation to the planning of automation and not to allow any evil consequences to develop.

asked the Minister of Technology when he will make available grants for the modernisation of shipyards under the Geddes proposals.

asked the Minister of Technology when he intends to introduce legislation necessary to implement the main financial recommendations of the Geddes Committee on Shipbuilding; and if he will make a statement.

I am aiming to introduce legislation, along the lines recommended in the Geddes Report, shortly.

Is the Minister aware that the delay is becoming serious and that, while the Government go on delaying and getting behind the programme of Geddes, the situation is deteriorating?

There has been no delay. The Government have kept up entirely with the timetable laid down in the Geddes Report. The tax reliefs were granted in the Finance Act. The Shipbuilding Industry Board has been set up. We are now waiting for the shipbuilding firms to submit their merger plans to the Board.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware of the need for orders for shipyards, both new ships and conversions, in view of the contraction of the order book; and what steps he proposes to take.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on improving credit facilities for British shipowners placing orders for new construction in British yards.

Yes, Sir. Though British industry now has over 2 million tons on order, I am aware that some yards will need further business shortly if they are to maintain a smooth flow of work. I am now considering representations made to me by shipbuilders about credit facilities in the light of the overriding need for reorganisation of the industry.

Did not Geddes recommend legislation last year, in 1966? Is it not necessary to sustain the home order book—the traditional book—for this industry by doing something quickly about credit facilities?

There are two points involved in the hon. Gentleman's question. One is the question of the timetable for the Government under Geddes. It was to the end of last year for the preparation of the legislation. This will come forward within a few weeks of Parliament's meeting in 1967. The other point about credit facilities bearing on the hon. Gentleman's question is that, as I have said, I am considering representations made.

Can my right hon. Friend make an early statement on the question of credit facilities, particularly in view of the type of case I have submitted to him, which affects particularly orders for shipbuilding by home owners, and where there are some real dangers of orders being cancelled unless action is taken promptly.

My hon. Friend's representations are among those I have received. I certainly should make a statement as soon as I could.

asked the Minister of Technology what consultations he has had with the computer industry about the choice of unit for a decimal currency; and with what result.

None, Sir, but representatives of a number of computer manufacturers gave evidence or submitted memoranda to the Committee of Enquiry on Decimal Currency.

As a decision on the system has still to be made, will the Minister consider carefully the advantages of working with a pure decimal system rather than one involving a fraction?

This is not an important element in the decision, as the £ unit will make little practical difference to efficiency in commercial data processing. Indeed computers, being basically binary machines, are really good at multiplying or dividing by two.

In the technological age in which we are supposed to be living, is it not really ridiculous to keep the halfpenny going for another two generations as is planned?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government's commitment to internationalism, as expressed in their policies towards Europe and the United Nations, he will, in addition to the support already provided through the Ministry of Overseas Development for longer-term volunteer service in the developing countries, give direct responsibility to an appropriate Department for encouraging and, where necessary, financially supporting youth exchange programmes, including short-term international community service projects.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in other West European countries, particularly the Netherlands, France and Germany, grants by Governments amount to as much as £80,000 for programmes of this sort? Is it not high time that the British Government gave practical support to this important social education for young people?

There are at present in this country limited funds available for some exchanges of young people. At present it is not possible to think of increasing these schemes, but my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what has been said.

Will the First Secretary recognise that this type of youth exchange and international community service to which his hon. Friend refers is a very much more effective kind of aid than straight cash and very much less expensive? Will he do everything he can to help and encourage it, since it is good for our youth and good for international understanding?

No one would question its value. At present the education departments finance the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. Local education authorities have authority to incur expenditure for such exchanges and the British Travel Association assists in making the possibilities known.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Rhodesian situation.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about recent developments in the Rhodesian problem.

asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government regard themselves are now being firmly committed to the principle of no independence before majority rule in Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister what is the latest position with regard to Rhodesia.

.asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister what further steps he now contemplates to try to reach agreement with the régime in Rhodesia.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the First Secretary realise that what he has just said will be received in the country with the enthusiasm appropriate to someone who has just discovered that he has cut his own throat? Can he now give the House some solid assurance that Her Majesty's Government appreciate both the scale and the permanence of the economic damage which is being done and that their present posture on Rhodesia is about as convincing as Lady Godiva on a camel?

I think that the seriousness of the situation merits a more serious comment than that. Her Majesty's Government are very well aware of all that is involved in this situation. It was that which guided my right hon. Friend's statement, and that describes the Government's position.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we shall have to negotiate a settlement of the Rhodesian problem sooner or later—

Go to Trafalgar Square.

—that remark shows only that hon. Members did not hear my speech there—but that this cannot be—done—I say this in no unfriendly spirit—in the new and unrealistic policy of no independence before majority rule, because there is a demand for unconditional surrender to which no Government of Rhodesia, however moderate, could possibly agree?

If one wants negotiation—and one does—the first step must be a return to legality. As to negotiations with the present illegal régime, they are living in an unreal world and a bygone century, as the hon. Gentleman himself said last Sunday.

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will make it abundantly clear that they now regard the principle of no independence before majority rule as of much more fundamental significance than the seven principles which have so often been referred to in the past? Can my right hon. Friend further assure us that the Government are prepared to take all necessary action to make the present policy of mandatory sanctions effective?

The Government stand quite firmly by the statement of the principle of no independence before majority rule. It is our intention to carry out the policy of mandatory sanctions. There will be a report to the Security Council on 1st March on the working of mandatory sanctions, and Her Majesty's Government stand resolutely behind that policy.

Can my right hon. Friend give us no clue as to how mandatory sanctions by other members of the United Nations are working? Further, does he know whether the Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament has dissociated himself from the disgraceful and provocative rally organised on Sunday by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)?

I do not know the answer to the second part of the question. I think that we await it with interest. As to the first part of the question, we should await the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council, but it is clear that there is massive international support for the policy approved by the Security Council.

Mr. Sandys.

rose—

rose—

Order. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) must conduct himself properly. Mr. Duncan Sandys.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the meeting referred to, at which I advocated the resumption of talks with Rhodesia, the Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs, issued a statement attacking me in terms which I am advised amount virtually to a charge of treason? Will the right hon. Gentleman clearly dissociate the Government from this grave and utterly unfair accusation?

The right hon. Gentleman attacks so many people that he really should not fuss so much when he is attacked himself. If he chooses to hold meetings like that held last Sunday, he should notice some of the kind of people who support him.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the recent speech of Mr. Dean Acheson on the Rhodesian question? Is he aware of the growing opposition in Congress to United States involvement in the U.N. campaign started by Her Majesty's Government? Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government have or have not taken soundings of the United States Government about the use of force?

The answer to the latter part of the question is, "No, Sir". I do not think what was said earlier contravenes at all the point that I made a little while ago that we have solid international support for the policy of mandatory sanctions, and we and the other nations will proceed with it.

As the right hon. Gentleman has no plans dealing with the impasse to reveal to the House at the moment, may I ask him to see that in-formation regarding dangerous drugs is passed immediately by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to the Rhodesians and not held up as appears to be the case?

I think that that question possibly should be put on the Paper.

What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to make contact with and to encourage the 3,500 people in Rhodesia who replied to an advertisement opposing the Smith régime and advocating the adoption of the sort of proposals which were made on H.M.S. "Tiger"?

That is a rather different question from the others which have been asked, but I accept the importance of what the hon. Member says.

Reverting to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), may I ask the First Secretary whether he regards the advocacy of further talks with Rhodesia as tantamount to something like treason?

That is a question on which it might be better to get a legal opinion. I should have thought it was perfectly clear that remarks like that strengthen any there may be in Rhodesia who want to continue illegality. Anyone who claims to have any influence in Rhodesia might better use it to urge people there to return to legality.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to convene a meeting of newspaper proprietors and trade union leaders of the printing industry to examine the influence of advertising on circulation, work practices and ways of making economies to ensure a varied and balanced British Press.

asked the Prime Minister what representations have been made to him regarding the present state of the Press; and whether he will seek to take action to avoid the further closure of national daily newspapers.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an inquiry to examine the financial structure of the Press and to recommend possible ways of overcoming its long-standing financial difficulties.

I have been asked to reply.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask two supplementary questions? First, would my right hon. Friend agree that such a meeting would give practical force to the Prime Minister's statement on the newspaper industry? Secondly, in view of the current speculation about the closure of another national newspaper before the end of the year, would my right hon. Friend say what sort of steps the Prime Minister will take to try to solve this problem?

I think the answer to both questions is that we ought to await the consideration by the Joint Board of the E.I.U. Survey. It is important that we should know the newspaper world's reaction to this before we proceed to the consideration of what action, if any, would be appropriate for the Government to undertake.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable and increasing concern at the tendency for the concentration of the ownership of the national Press into fewer and fewer hands? If the tendency continues, some form of Government action will be necessary if we are to maintain a free Press in which the whole range of political opinions can be expressed.

That might well be, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that the next appropriate step is to get the reactions of the industry itself to the Survey.

In considering what action to take, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind two points: first, the urgent short-term need perhaps for an investigation into the financial structure of the Press to see what help, if any, might be given; and secondly, the longer-term need for an inquiry, perhaps a Royal Commission, to look into the whole of the future of the national Press?

One can bear these points in mind, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that when he talks of financial support he raises a very big and debatable issue.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the gravest danger to the Press would be a form of subsidy which would give any Government power of control?

Certainly, there are objections to that. Whether it is the gravest danger which could befall the Press is arguable.

The House is greatly concerned about the present position of some newspapers, but will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is the Government's policies in the past two years which have done a great deal to bring about some of the economic difficulties of the newspapers today? Will he give an undertaking that nothing which the Government propose will lead to any financial assistance which could cause pressure on the Press or lead to any interference with a free Press? Will he give that firm assurance now?

It is clear that one must not take any action which would interfere with the freedom of the Press. As to the earlier part of the question, I do not think that is so. I do not think any impartial examination of the facts would bear it out.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the Government's approval of the transfer of The Times on the last day before the Christmas Recess he was pressed by several hon. Members on both sides of the House for an early debate? After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he then promised that the Government would give early consideration to that request. Could my right hon. Friend now confirm that an early debate will be arranged by the Government?

That is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I think that he is considering the desirability of a debate here.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that if the present situation continues, and we leave the newspaper industry to the tender mercies of what are sometimes called natural economic forces, the process of concentration is bound to continue and it would be not only legitimate but desirable for the Government to intervene actively in favour of those newspapers which seek primarily to be a public service rather than primarily to make a profit? Will he agree that this is a perfectly legitimate distinction which avoids the problem mentioned by some hon. Members opposite?

That is certainly a point of view to which attention should be given, but I think that before any pronouncement of policy we should await the industry's reaction to the Survey.

The First Secretary will recall that in a speech the Prime Minister attacked the blackmail of the trade unions involved. The trade union leaders resented this and there has been correspondence between the Prime Minister and the trade union leaders. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the correspondence on this very vexed question as a White Paper so that we may know the facts?

The hon. Member might like to put down that question and see what answer he gets.