asked the Minister of Power when the revised White Paper on Fuel and Power Policy will be made available to Parliament.

asked the Minister of Power if he will now publish a White Paper setting out the studies he has made and conclusions reached to form the basis of a new fuel policy.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) on 24th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 233.]

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is without precedent for information of this importance to be withheld from the House of Commons? Could not he say, therefore, when the White Paper setting out his future fuel policy will be available to the House?

No, Sir. In fact, the calculations have not been made, and therefore the policy has not been determined. I think that it would be a great pity and a mistake on an issue as big as this to try to rush it. We are carrying out a very comprehensive fuel policy review, and as soon as I have some policy decisions I shall announce them to the House.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to state categorically that in his study to produce a fuel and energy policy he will not be stampeded by any short-term considera- tions, or any short-term market attractions, and will he take steps to protect the national investment in coal and electricity from nuclear energy and that sort of thing? Will he give this top priority?

These are the sort of considerations to be taken into account. It is precisely because I do not want to be stampeded by short-term considerations that I wish if possible to develop a comprehensive fuel policy review.

While not wishing to stampede the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he cannot at least give us some idea, even in the most generalised form, about when he will have a policy to present to the House?

I think that this is a continuing exercise. In the first instance, one hopes to start having something to say around about Easter, but from then on it is a question of how much further we go in producing a really sophisticated model. This is an elaborate exercise, and it is worth doing because the amount of investment in this industry is very high indeed.

asked the Minister of Power if his estimates and proposals for reappraisal of the contributions of coal, nuclear energy, oil and natural gas to the economy of the country have been before his Energy Advisory Council; and what advice he has received.

I have discussed with the Energy Advisory Council a number of questions related to the fuel policy review, and shall be consulting them again as the review proceeds. Discussions in the Council are, of course, confidential.

Will my right hon. Friend say something about the widespread feeling that many people are being kept in the dark about the fuel and power policy, particularly the coal and electricity industries?

May I make the position quite clear? There is not a fuel policy as yet completed in this exercise. It is in the process of being completed. On the second point, the fuel industries are not kept in the dark in this. They are parties to the exercise, and are providing the information.

asked the Minister of Power if he has yet determined the level of remuneration of the members of the board of the National Steel Corporation: and if he will make a statement.

Not yet, Sir.

When the right hon. Gentleman reaches his decision in this matter, will he bear in mind that many of his hon. Friends—perhaps not the most vociferous—believe that these salaries should be fixed at a level to attract the best people, rather in the manner of Shell or I.C.I., so that the steel industry will be as well managed as they are?

I do not hesitate to confirm my hon. Friend's view that it is essential for an industry of this size to attract the very best people. There are, however, other factors to be taken into account, including incomes policy and the salaries structure in the nationalised industries.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, after saying for months that it is his intention that the National Steel Corporation should be run on strictly commercial lines, it is outrageous that he cannot reach a decision on this basic issue? If the Government dither for weeks on a straightforward issue of this kind, what hope is there that the Government will be able to run the steel industry efficiently?

There is no question of the Government's dithering on this issue. Salaries will be set for the Corporation. It must be remembered that salaries in outside commercial industries vary very much.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me who are the best people? Are we to select them only from a collection of industrial tycoons?

I would have thought that the word "tycoon" has rather emotive fringes. We want to get into the industry people with the experience and the ability to undertake large-scale industrial management. To be able to do that we must offer them appropriate salaries. The only point at issue between myself and hon. Members opposite is that they fail to recognise that there are wide divergences of salaries in outside industries, and also that we have been able to attract into nationalised industries some first-rate people.

Can the Minister assure us that the best men will be selected, irrespective of their political views and their political utterances?

As long as they are Tories.

Everyone agrees that the right men should be selected, but there tend to be different views about the actual people.

asked the Minister of Power what official assistance he is giving to the technique of spray steel making; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power if, in the national interest, he will provide facilities for a pilot spray steel making plant at Millom in Cumberland.

I cannot at present add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) on 14th February.—[Vol. 741, c. 50.]

Nevertheless, will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the utterly ossifying attitude of the Iron and Steel Board in its recent decision to protect traditional steel-making methods from this new break-through of spray steel making put forward by Millom, and recognise that commercial plant for this must be got going quickly if Britain is to maintain her lead in this breakthrough?

Certainly this is a remarkably good break-through, and every credit is due to the people associated with it, including the British Iron and Steel Research Association, and Millom. I will not follow the adjectival phraseology that we have just had. I assure the hon Gentleman that the Board has not yet reached a decision.

Is the Minister aware that for the proper commercial development of our affairs it is vital that this company should be allowed to go ahead with this project? Is he further aware that his right hon. Friend's intention to treat the private sector on all fours with the public sector of the steel industry is open to doubt unless, in this vital instance, he is prepared to make certain that Millom is given permission to go ahead with this development?

It would be quite wrong for me to enter into a discussion on something on which we are awaiting recommendations from the Board.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that in considering future proposals for the reorganisation of the industry he will bear in mind the possibly revolutionary implications of this process for small and medium-sized plant?

Yes, Sir.

Due to the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is aware that steel output for 1967 based on present prospects is 70 per cent. of capacity or 22 million ingot tons compared with 27 million ingot tons in 1965; and, as this represents wasted resources of £70 million approximately in 1967, what steps he is taking to restore the position.

Steel output has always fluctuated more widely than economic activity generally.

Is it not a fact that since the 1930s the steel industry has never bumped along the bottom at 70 per cent. of its capacity, representing a vast waste of resources? Is the Minister prepared to allow this disgraceful Socialist policy to continue indefinitely?

I am certainly not prepared to allow the situation which has been with us so far to continue. That is one reason why the Government decided, seeing that the problem could not be solved by others, to nationalise the industry and deal with it ourselves.

In order to improve the level of output in the industry and to assist the steel-using industries in export markets, will my right hon. Friend consider giving the steel industry a subsidy for coking coal on lines similar to that operated by the European Iron and Steel Community? If not, what will he do to assist the industry in the export market?

The point which my hon. Friend raises hopefully is the subject of another Question. I do not think that this would, of itself, solve the question of surplus capacity. It is a European problem.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give figures for the estimated development and capital expenditure of the Central Electricity Generating Board for the next five years.

My right hon. Friend's predecessor approved in December, 1965, a programme then expected to require capital expenditure of £2,035 million over the five years 1966–67 to 1970–71. Since then revisions to the programme, which would reduce this total, have been discussed but are not yet settled.

Could my hon. Friend at least give us some idea of the number of nuclear-powered generating stations which are envisaged between now and 1970 and where they may be located?

That is another question and would require notice.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the forward capital plans are governed by the cuts in investment in electricity generating announced in July as a result of the stringency measures or the increase in the 1967–68 Estimates announced as a result of the desire to prevent unemployment?

As I followed that question, it seems that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether there will be a catching up in any of the marginal cuts which operated earlier this year—

I want clarification on this. We have had an announcement of cuts in electricity investment, in July, and now of an increase to compensate for the drop in private investment.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There has been no announcement of the programme yet, but we expect to make it very soon.

asked the Minister of Power what estimates he has made of the proportion of the different primary fuels which will be used by the electricity supply industry in 1969, 1970 and 1971.

The proportion will depend in part on decisions which may arise from the current review of fuel policy.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that these estimates and trends are urgently required if we are to get this revised fuel policy soon?

Of course they are required urgently, but the urgency is not confined to this industry. As has been said several times already this afternoon, we are undertaking a series of major studies in this and other fields concerning our energy requirements.

Does not the hon. Gentlemen appreciate that his right hon. Friend and he are giving the impression in one Answer after another that they have no idea where they are going? Is it not time that they came to the House and gave a specific date by which they would have a fuel policy? Is it not incredible that we should go on drifting as we apparently are?

My right hon. Friend has already indicated that he hopes to make some statement on this matter in a little while prior to any major statement of policy decisions which may be made later on. In the short time that I have been at the Ministry, I have been very impressed with the studies being undertaken in this field.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to area electricity boards that where a medical opinion or certificate is provided stating that a sick child or old person living in an all-electric home is in need of warmth the electricity supply should be resumed or maintained notwithstanding that the householder is in arrears with payments to an area board.

asked the Minister of Power (1) how many families had their electricity supplies disconnected because of an inability to pay the bill in 1966; and what are the comparable figures for each of the previous five years;

The figures are not kept centrally but they represent a very small proportion of total consumers. Electricity and Gas Boards generally treat such cases sympathetically and keep in touch where appropriate with welfare organisations. The chairman of the area electricity board concerned has already written to my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) about a particular case he drew to our notice, and the need to exercise sympathetic discretion has been impressed upon the staff concerned.

Would my hon. Friend also direct the electricity boards throughout the country that no one wants profits made at the expense of the aged or of sick children and that they should treat all future cases with the greatest sympathy?

I have already said that that is general policy, but it is inevitable—regrettable as it is—that there may be incidents of human errors of judgment. This may have been the case here. On my hon. Friend's first point, it would be a little unfair to accept the precise terms of his suggestion. There was no question of the board seking to make a profit out of sickness and hardship.

Will the hon. Gentleman help pensioners who find it easier to pay their bills by instalments to get a better deal from the electricity boards, which now demand payment before the accounts are due—as some people have the laughable notion that public ownership is intended to mean that the industry is run for the benefit of the public?

I did not follow the precise procedure which the hon. Lady suggested, but if she will set down her suggestions in detail I will consider them.

asked the Minister of Power what is now the planned amount of nuclear generating capacity to be installed in the second nuclear power programme; and if he will estimate the proportion this represents of the total generating capacity to he installed in the same period in the United Kingdom.

I told the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on 17th January that the plant programmes beyond 1970 have not yet been settled.—[Vol. 739, c. 9.] At a rough estimate, however, the 8,000 magawatts of the second nuclear power programme may cover about one-third of the total plant installed in the years 1970–75.

Has the Minister had a chance to study the calculations which I sent him, which show that nuclear plant will represent only about one-fifth of the installed capacity in these years and, further, that in the United States in the first nine months of 1966, electricity authorities ordered 64,000 megawatts of nuclear power, amounting to 51 per cent. of the total plant orders in the period? Is there not a serious danger that we will fall way behind the Americans in this new technology, in which we once had a substantial lead?

I agree that it is essential that we should preserve the lead which we had and which we still have. I have seen the calculations which were carried out for the hon. Member. I think they are misleading, because some of the assumptions are unsound, but I intend to write to him in detail.

asked the Minister of Power what price tariff has been offered by the Gas Council to North Sea gas producers, following recent negotiations with the Shell-Esso consortium.

Negotiations are still proceeding and are confidential.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be of great value to the general public if the costs incurred by operators in the North Sea could be made public so that, when the price is finally determined, it would be clearly seen that they are getting a fair return on their money? Would he also agree that the North Sea gas operations should be considered in isolation and that the operators should not require a return which takes into account losses which they may have incurred on drilling operations elsewhere in the world?

The Gas Council is at present negotiating these matters and one difficulty here is that pressure to make one part of the negotiations public might lead to pressure being brought to make other parts of the negotiations public. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about costs, it is possible at the moment only to deal with estimated costs because the final costs have not yet been incurred. Those costs are still being incurred.

asked the Minister of Power if he will state the numbers of small gas consumers affected by the new standing charges.

I understand about 65,000 using less than 50 therms a year.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that real hardship is being caused to many old age pensioners and poor people and that since December, in Stafford alone, gas bills have gone up by 30 per cent. in spite of the so-called incomes freeze? Will the hon. Gentleman quickly look into the question of giving these people, for free. prepaid meters so that they may avoid the new standing charges?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are essentially for the boards concerned. As for any hardship that may have occurred, the Government, by way of the Ministry of Social Security, make provision to allay that hardship—and the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of this as a result of correspondence which he has had with the Department.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that a large number of people living in what one might call specialist localities have been adversely affected by the new standing charges and that they have great resentment against the Minister for agreeing to these new charges and for allowing them to go on?

The answer to that question has been given previously. On the last occasion when the Department answered at Question Time it was pointed out that there are ways by which people can apply for special prepayment meter arrangements. [Interruption.] Some hon. Gentlemen opposite should have a little manners.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give a direction to the Scottish Gas Board that in determining what new supplies of gas shall be made available it takes into consideration the power requirements of future industrial development.

In determining what new supplies of gas shall be made available, the board takes all relevant factors into account, including the cost of affording such supplies and the revenue expected.

Is the Minister aware that the recent decision of the Scottish Gas Board not to increase the supply of gas to Wick and Thurso appears to run counter to the Government's expressed intention of developing that area—expressed in the Scottish Economic Plan—is frustrating the efforts of the local authorities there to attract industry to the area and appears not to have been made in consultation with the Highland Development Board, which is also involved in developing the area?

I will certainly look into the point raised in the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As for the rest, the board's decision not to take on additional business at Wick and Thurso has been the subject of representations to the Scottish Gas Consultative Council and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The problem is that area gas boards have a duty to provide as efficient and economical a service as possible for all their consumers. They must, therefore, consider to what extent it would be right for losses made in particular areas to be made for the generality of consumers.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied with the degree of co-operation between the electricity, gas and coal industries in their advertising policies; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend discusses this subject from time to time with the chairmen of the three industries together. It is for them to settle reasonable plans in the light of the requirements of their industries and the general economic situation.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is in the interests of both the industry as a whole and consumers that there should be co-operation rather than competition in this sphere? Would he consider suggesting to the industry that in future it should undertake joint advertising campaigns for the whole of the fuel industry rather than for one part as opposed to another?

I believe that, in certain respects, this has been considered from time to time. My hon. Friend will be aware that I am new to the Department. However, I understand that some aspects of the matter have been studied. As for advertising policies which may be in contradiction to each other, if my hon. Friend has any information which he would care to put to the Department, I assure him that we will be glad to look into it.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that advertising is a subject about which politicians appear to have more prejudice than knowledge? Will he please advise his right hon. Friend to keep out of this sphere and leave the industries to run their own businesses?

Every consumer who is at the receiving end of advertising has a right to express a view on the matter.

How can competing fuels co-operate in their advertising? Would not that be a complete contradiction? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way to make these industries more efficient is to allow them to compete with one another?

One possible way—I am not suggesting that this way should be adopted—would be the suggested possibility of the industries having certain common services—for example, showrooms—where there might be co-operation in point of sale advertising. I am not saying that this is the right answer, but it is a possibility.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will issue a general directive, in the public interest, to the nationalised industries for which he is responsible to cease publication of house magazines and newspapers during the present period of national economic depression.

No, Sir. The purpose of house journals is to keep employees and others specially interested abreast of developments in their industry and to stimulate their interest and involvement in its affairs. This seems to me an excellent objective and some of the material produced is among the best in the country.

While wishing in no way to destroy any corporate spirit which might exist in these industries, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say how much is at present being spent at this rather difficult time?

I cannot give an exact figure, but I understand that it is a very minute traction of the industries' turnover—and I stress "industries" in the plural.

asked the Minister of Power if he will revoke the appointment of Mr. Niall Macdiarmid as deputy-chairman of the Government's organising committee for the steel industry, in view of his public attack on the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry on 8th February, 1967.

asked the Minister of Power if the public statement made by Mr. Niall Macdiarmid, deputy-chairman of the Government's organising committee for the steel industry on 9th February, regarding the steel industry, was made with his authority.

asked the Minister of Power if he will reconstitute the National Steel Corporation's organising committee ensuring that the new members he appoints will not publicly oppose public ownership of the industry.

asked the Minister of Power whether the public statement of the deputy chairman of the Government's organising committee for the steel industry, on 8th February, on the subject of the nationalisation of the industry was made with his approval.

No, Sir. The organising committee is working well together. It will be succeeded by the National Steel Corporation shortly after Royal Assent to the Iron and Steel Bill, and changes in its composition at this late stage would not help the transfer of the steel industry to public ownership.

Is not Mr. Macdiarmid's speech an outrageous declaration of war On the industry—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that he will not tolerate any kind of sabotage by those who allow political prejudice—[Interruption.]—to override national interest?

My hon. Friend must draw a clear distinction between people who are employees of a State undertaking and people who are serving on voluntary bodies within the State.

I do.

It would be introducing a very dangerous principle for this side of the House if we were to assume that people on voluntary bodies had to conform to the view of the Government of the day. I am perfectly satisfied that Mr. Macdiarmid's work for the organising committee has been in the interest of the nation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that any individual is entitled to his political point of view? However, how does he justify the appointment to the board of one of the bitterest opponents of nationalisation, who has said, since being given the job of vice-chairman, that he wants to see the steel industry rise as a phoenix from the ashes of nationalisation and go into private ownership again? How does my right hon. Friend justify such remarks?

The first point to get clear is that nobody, apart from the chairman-designate and Mr. Ron Smith, has been appointed to the board. The organising committee is a voluntary body which is coming to a conclusion after Royal Assent has been given to the Iron and Steel Bill. As for a phoenix rising from the ashes, there seems to be some dispute about what was actually intended by the remark. I wish to make it clear personally—and it is Ministers who are responsible for the political direction of this industry—that it would be a disaster for the industry if it were plunged into denationalisation again. I will do all in my power to ensure that this is not possible.

If my right hon. Friend will not reconstitute the organising committee, will he take this opportunity to say that the future Steel Corporation will not be set up with Mr. Macdiarmid as a member of it?

That question does not arise, because I am not making appointments of this kind to the Steel Corporation. As for the organising committee, this body has done really valuable work in the cause of public ownership.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a great deal of concern amongst steel workers, who want to co-operate with the Government on steel nationalisation, and will he remember this episode and the attitude of many of his hon. Friends when he is making appointments to the new board?

I frequently hear businessmen complain about politicians, but I must say that sometimes businessmen are not as good as politicians when they move into that field. I accept that very strong feeling was aroused by this statement, but I repeat that in any voluntary body one has to draw a distinction between remarks that would be intolerable if made by a paid employee but which have to be looked at differently when coming from a member of the voluntary body.

Is not Mr. Macdiarmid one of the most experienced and capable executives in the steel industry, with an encyclopaedic knowledge of its affairs, and is it not better to appoint an executive of that kind rather than a broken-down trade union hack—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member must get on with his supplementary question.

—broken-down trade union hack as a sinecure for the Socialist Party?

Answer.

Will the Minister explain why it is that so many of his hon. Friends seem so bitterly dissatisfied with various aspects of Government policy?

Having sat on both sides of the House, I can only say "'twas ever thus".

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the gratitude of this side of the House for his rejection of the ludicrous requests of his hon. Friends, and for choosing the best man for the job? But if it is a prerequisite of appointment to the board of a nationalised industry that the person should have a belief in nationalisation, does not the Minister agree that a prerequisite of membership of Her Majesty's Government should be a belief in joining the Common Market?

It is not my task to deal with that last point. On the right hon. Gentleman's original point, I would only say that this statement did, as is obvious, cause very widespread and very understandable offence, and a great deal of feeling, and I repeat that such a statement made by a person employed by a nationalised body would be disloyal, and the difference here is that the person was not so employed.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that when someone is appointed and accepts collective responsibility in accordance with a decision of Government policy, he is expected to keep his mouth shut?

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that Front Bench spokesmen on both sides would regard this as a wholly admirable principle but one that they often find difficulty in keeping to.

asked the Minister of Power what job description was presented to the deputy chairman of the Government's organising committee for the steel industry on his appointment; and what was the collective brief given to the committee.

The organising committee was asked to plan the establishment of the National Steel Corporation and the the transfer of the major part of the steel industry into public ownership. Members were not given individual remits.

Would my right hon. Friend consider that if Mr. Macdiarmid's statement had been made by a senior executive of a board of shareholders in private industry he would have been dismissed forthwith? Would he also agree that the motivation of the men running an industry is just as important to the structure of an industry under nationalisation?

I agree—this is a pleasant change from some of the previous questions—with everything my hon. Friend has said. If these remarks had come from a paid executive of an organisation they would have been disloyal.

asked the Minister of Power why 15 months elapsed between the loss of the oil rig "Sea Gem" on 27th December, 1965, and the setting up of the inquiry into the reasons for the loss.

Preparations for the public inquiry, which opens on 7th March, have entailed prolonged preliminary investigations, including the recovery and examination of pieces of wreckage. The results of these investigations will be available to the inquiry and contribute to its effectiveness.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, on the face of it, that is not a very reassuring Answer? Is he aware that the disaster that resulted in the loss of the "Sea Gem", which is to be investigated, might have occurred to any of the other rigs in the intervening 15 months? Will he publish details of the investigations that have taken place over those 15 months up to the inquiry?

It would not be proper to do that until we have the results of the inquiry.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had recently with the National Coal Board about the Board's future level of output and number of collieries required to produce it; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what is his policy on the future of the coalmining industry; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the National Coal Board about the future level of output in Scotland.

asked the Minister of Power what studies are being undertaken by his Department into the proper and efficient use of coal as part of the overall power requirements for the period 1968 to 1978; and what consideration has been given to social and economic factors in those studies.

My right hon. Friend is mindful of the concern of hon. Members about the outlook for the coalmining industry and can assure them that the social and economic considerations involved for the various coalfields will be given full weight in the current review of fuel policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some real apprehension in the coal mining communities about the likely future output of coal? Can he allay these fears by indicating whether it is likely or intended to fall below about 160 million to 170 million tons of coal a year?

No, Sir. It is not possible to give information of that kind at this stage, for the very reasons outlined in answers to the previous Questions, namely, that there is a major study and review in progress with regard to fuel policy. One thing that one can say quite definitely is that the coal industry will remain of great economic importance to this country.

Can my hon. Friend tell me at what point the national interest conflicts with the viability of this industry with regard to the balance of payments?

I can only say that the position of the coal industry and how far it will play a part in the future pattern of fuel consumption in the country must be taken into account along with other requirements which are now being studied as part of the fuel policy review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland, for example, coal production has decreased by 5 per cent.? Will he further consider the question of the selective coal price increases which will do a lot to give encouragement and stability to the mining industry in Scotland?

If the National Coal Board wishes to submit proposals to the Ministry on pricing structure it is always open to us to consider them, but we have not received any such suggestions at this stage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful, for the confidence of the industry, if emphasis were placed on the social and economic factors involved, rather than leaving the matter to market trends?

I repeat the assurances that I gave earlier. We are very mindful of the social and economic consequences for the areas concerned, but these must not be taken as being the only considerations to be borne in mind in regard to the future of the industry.

Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to an article in today's Financial Times suggesting that by 1970 the output of coal will be down to 100 million tons a year? If the fall is to be as rapid as that, does not my hon. Friend agree that the social consequences will be quite catastrophic?

Neither I nor any other person in my Ministry can be held responsible for any speculations in the Financial Times or any other journals. I do not know whether the use of the word "catastrophic" is accurate in this context, but I can only repeat that we are very much concerned about the future of the industry and the effect of any changes on the areas concerned.

Is it not true that the energy correspondent of the Financial Times is one of the best-informed in this circle, and that the article that he wrote on the Minister of Power disclosed that he had been in closest touch with officials of the Ministry of Power? Is not a great deal of weight, therefore, to be given to the speculation in the article today?

I must return—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Answer."] May I be permitted to answer? I return to the point made in answer to earlier Questions, namely, that any figures concerning the future of the coal industry can be produced only as part of the fuel policy studies now in hand in the Ministry and the industry.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of coal output of 174 million tons in 1966, or 26 million tons or 13 per cent. below the Coal Board target for 1966, what steps he proposes to take to restore the position in 1967; what are his estimates of coal output this year, of manpower decline, and of exports; and whether he will make a statement.

Coal output in 1966 at 174 million tons was 3 million tons less than consumption, including exports. I understand that output this year is expected to be sufficient to meet all market requirements.

But that does not answer any of the questions that I have asked. Will the Minister apply himself to the fact that two independent experts, in the Observer last Sunday and the Financial Times the following day, have reached a conclusion that the coal industry's output will be down to 100 million tons by 1970? As this would involve the displacement of more than 200,000 coal miners, what has he to say to his coal mining Friends behind him? Is he prepared to see the industry wrecked?

I must repeat the point made by my hon. Friend, namely, that I cannot accept responsibility for independent statements made by outside people. At the moment the Government are engaged in a major fuel policy review. We have not yet completed this and therefore are unable to say what the final figures will be. I repeat that on any set of figures there is a very good future in the coal-mining industry for anyone who is prepared to stay in it.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give details of the general direction he has given to the National Coal Board to institute an extension of the Bevercotes colliery multi-shift agreement to other major pits.

I have given no such general direction to the National Coal Board, but the Board is aware of the importance for the industry and the economy of measures to increase productivity.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that any extension of this multi-shift agreement will greatly affect the area which I represent, both socially and economically, and that it is to that area's best advantage to know in good time? I am, of course, thinking of the ancillary workers to the coal-mining industry, plus the shops and churches in the area.

It is, of course, for the N.C.B. and the unions to agree on the extension of the Bevercotes kind of agreement and not for me to give formal directions. It must be in the interests of those in the industry that we should make the most intensive use of the industry's capital equipment.

Before seeking to extend this kind of agreement to other pits, should not the right hon. Gentleman exert his influence and authority to ensure that it operates effectively at Bevercotes? Even there, as he will recognise, it is not operating successfully yet. What will he do about it?

The hon. Gentleman, as so frequently happens, misunderstands the position. Productivity agreements are not laid down by diktat by the Government but negotiated freely between the unions and the National Coal Board. I should have thought that we would all, on both sides of the House, desire measures designed to increase efficiency.

asked the Minister of Power what estimates he has made of manpower in the mining industry in Scotland for 1967.

If present trends in recruitment and wastage continue it is estimated that the mining industry in Scotland will employ about 40,000 men by the end of 1967.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in 1966, mining manpower in Scotland decreased by 3,500 and that there are only now 3,000 men under 25 years of age in the industry? Is he further aware that the miners do not look at entry into the Common Market with any great enthusiasm? Will he not make a categorical statement and give us a national fuel policy?

At the risk of repetition, I must point out that many of the Questions and Answers this afternoon have related specifically to a national fuel policy. This is in preparation. The important point regarding the coal-mining industry in Scotland—it may be of help if I tell my hon. Friend this—is that the reduction estimated for 1967 is 2,000, compared with an actual reduction of 3,584 for 1966, which is somewhat of an improvement.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that the repetition to which he referred in relation to my hon. Friend's previous question shows that a sense of urgency is required? Will the Government do something about a fuel and power policy as an urgent matter?

If nothing else has been made clear in Questions and Answers this afternoon, I should have thought that it would be perfectly clear that major consideration is being given to this matter.

Has my hon. Friend any plans for attracting more miners into the industry in Scotland? Does he not think that wages will have to be increased to do so?

These are matters for the N.C.B.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to increase its efforts to promote coal exports.

No, Sir. But both the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend are ready to help the National Coal Board where they think that this would be useful.

Does the Minister think that the rather poor coal export performance of the National Coal Board justifies the very substantial increase in investment in the Port of Immingham which Lord Robens is seeking to make, and are the Government giving a good wind to this proposal?

I have already indicated that if any suggestions come from the National Coal Board or from hon. Members in this connection we shall be glad to consider them.

Will my hon. Friend agree that if every industry increased its productivity and efficiency as the coal-mining industry has done we should not have a balance of payments problem?

I would certainly endorse that this industry has one of the finest records in this country and, indeed, abroad.

asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had recently with President Johnson about the Vietnam war.

As I told the House on 14th February, my contacts with President Johnson are close and must remain confidential.—[Vol 741, c. 345.]

While I appreciate the efforts made by the Prime Minister in the last few weeks, could he tell us whether there was any positive response at all from President Johnson while the Russian Prime Minister was here with regard to not beginning the bombing again? May I ask whether my right hon. Friend saw the B.B.C. programme "24 Hours" last night which showed that the bombing in Vietnam involves civilians?

I hope hon. Members will keep their questions short.

My hon. Friend's first supplementary question falls within those questions which I said last week I did not think it would be right to answer. With regard to the second, I regret that I did not watch television last night at all.

Will the Prime Minister rebuke and slap down his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on these statements, which are anti-Government policy, in the same way as the Foreign Secretary did yesterday? The Prime Minister: This question relates to Vietnam and I think I dealt with the matter last week. I said then that I know that my hon. Friends, who take a different view of the kind of statement the Government should make, are just as keen as anyone else to get peace in Vietnam.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the most respected British correspondents in Washington reported last weekend that there was a very considerable addition to the American arms build-up during the recent truce in Vietnam, and has he drawn President Johnson's attention to these reports?

I am not responsible for what even the most respected British correspondents are reporting to this country, and my exchanges with President Johnson during this period, as at other times, dealt with all relevant factors.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the policy of the Rhodesian Government further to amend the Constitution, he will make a new effort to reopen negotiations.

I made clear the British position about a renewal of discussions in the Answers I gave to Questions on 20th December, 1966. Any move by the illegal regime to amend a Constitution which, after amendment, remained illegal would have no effect on this— [Vol. 738, c. 1176].

Would not the Prime Minister take into account the fact that sanctions and his policy are stimulating republicanism and extremism in Rhodesia? In view of certain utterances of the Commonwealth Secretary to the white settlers of Australasia, will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether the Government, being unable to take on South Africa, are contemplating the use of armed force in Rhodesia?

Tendencies towards republicanism, extremism and apartheid in Rhodesia are not the creation of any action by Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the suggestion that I have encouraged any of these things, I am glad that I do not have the same responsibility for encouraging them as have the hon. Gentleman and some of his friends.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Overseas Development at Birmingham University on 27th January, 1967 about aid for developing countries represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's approval extend to his right hon. Friend's reply to a student that effective sanctions at the start—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot quote in a supplementary question.

I am not quoting the actual words, Mr. Speaker. I am paraphrasing the words, and asking the Prime Minister whether he also approves of what his right hon. Friend said, to the effect that effective sanctions at the start would have meant a Tory majority at the election? Does he agree with his right hon. Friend that, therefore, the majority of the electorate are against sanctions?

Whether he paraphrased or quoted, I recognise the quotation from the Press which the hon. Member has in mind. I said that my right hon. Friend's speech was Government policy but the passage which he has in mind arose in a noisy exchange afterwards. [Interruption.] There was a great attempt—successful in the end—to stop him making the speech about aid. He was being barracked by a student and what he then said was not a statement of Government policy, or indeed a statement of policy at all, but a personal political view which I do not hold. On sanctions, the Government did what we believed to be right and necessary then and at all times. We are not diverted, despite the hon. Member's quotation, by an Opposition which is divided three ways. I am satisfied that if we had thought that a different sanctions policy was right, the General Election result would have been exactly the same.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to amend or repeal the Royal Marriages Act, 1772.

I do not at present see a need for legislation for this purpose.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this outworn relic of a spiteful family feud is always liable to place the Crown in an embarrassing position of having to decide whether or not to grant permission to marry someone a long way removed from the line of succession? Is it not time to scrap this antiquated survival which restricts the freedom of individuals to marry a long way from the line of succession?

I am not going to comment on a particular case. There is, of course, widespread dissatisfaction in the way in which the Act might work and I am certainly prepared to receive representations from hon. Members or anyone on this matter, but I do not intend to comment on it more widely.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 13th January, 1967 to the Joint Conference of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the National Building Agency on the subject of housing represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Since the Minister then reaffirmed that the target is 500,000 a year by 1970, would the Prime Minister confirm that this year's target must be over 440,000? If the steady increase is to be achieved which he mentioned in the House on 12th July last year, are we to get 440,000 built or is the 500,000 just another of those "lightly given pledges"?

There is no target for this year related to the 500,000 target for the end of the decade, which is a firm target.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his official visit to Bonn.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his visit to Bonn.

I would refer the hon. Member, to the Answer I gave on 16th February to a Question by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).—[Vol. 741, c. 800.]

In spite of that Answer, does the Prime Minister realise that there is still considerable confusion on both sides of the House about the question of offset costs in Germany? Could he tell the House simply whether the Germans are still willing to contribute £31 million or even more to this problem at this time?

My right hon. Friend dealt with this very fully yesterday. As I told the House last Thursday, the discussion between the German Federal Chancellor and myself—and, of course, the two foreign Ministers—referred to offset costs, but we all agreed that this is a matter to be left to the proper machinery, which is the tripartite discussions. No suggestion whatever was made to us that the Germans could not do more than the £31 million, and still less any question of withdrawing the £31 million.

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's Bonn talks will be extended to other European capitals, can he tell us if the speech of the President of the Board of Trade assisted, impeded or had no impact whatever on the course of the Common Market talks?

The third, Sir.

Could the Prime Minister help to clear up this little mystery? Have the Bonn Government confirmed or repudiated Saturday's Finance Minister's statement? Does the Prime Minister stand by his undertaking that if these costs are not covered he will reduce our forces in West Germany?

The answer to the first part of that supplementary question I have already given. We have had no intimation in any shape or form on the lines of the statement that was issued on Saturday. In regard to the second part of the question, the answer is, Yes, Sir. What I said last year is the policy of the Government.

With great respect, I do not think the Prime Minister has answered either of the two questions on support costs. When he returned from Bonn he stated clearly that the German Government were in no doubt about our position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] May I ask whether in the discussions in Bonn the Prime Minister sought confirmation from the German Government that they stood by the joint communique they issued undertaking to pay £31½ million.

I thought I had answered it, but I will try to make it clear. The Federal Chancellor and I agreed that the purpose of the discussions was about the Common Market. We both agreed that there were serious problems between the two Governments which would not impede then or at any other time our discussions on the Common Market. We further agreed that we would not go into the merits of the argument, and said that this was a matter for the tripartite machinery.

May I ask the Prime Minister if any German Ministers he met called him an "old fruit", or if, when saying goodbye, they told him he had become "part of the German way of life"?

No, Sir. I do not recall that the phrase "old fruit", which was addressed to Mr. Kosygin—I think I am quoting the incident correctly—was made by one of Her Majesty's Ministers. It was made by a young lady at or near a factory. In regard to the second point, certainly this was not said to me. We were there for only a day, and I am not certain that if we had been there a bit longer it would have been said.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the terms of reference and purpose of the Central Advisory Council on Science and Technology.

asked the Prime Minister what powers the Central Advisory Council, under the chairmanship of the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, will have with regard to military research.

The Advisory Council will be concerned with advising the Government on the overall distribution of our scientific and technological effort, in the private as well as the public sector and in both the defence and the civil fields.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. Does he agree that too much scientific work is going on in isolation in Government establishments at the moment, and that there is a need to relate scientific work progress to markets and production methods? Will he make sure that the Central Advisory Council does not neglect this aspect?

I am sure that the Council will not neglect it. I do not think there is much evidence of isolated work in Government establishments, but the need to relate pure scientific research and, indeed, technological research to the need of overseas markets was one of the main reasons for setting up the Ministry of Technology to see that science is applied more fruitfully to industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of military research has now risen to the fantastic figure of £270 million a year? Will he ask the Central Advisory Council to consider whether the strength of Britain in the world would not be better promoted if some of this money were devoted to civil research for the export industries?

I do not think it is the duty of the Council to go into questions quite so wide as those mentioned by my right hon. Friend, but he will have seen the figures I have given in this House of the very substantial swing of resources from defence research to civil and technological research over the last three years, which has been a continuation and intensification of the policy which was already growing before we came into office.

Is it not a fact that to save money on research is only to waste it on obsolete technology and useless manpower?

This is often the case, and one of the biggest problems which came up at the Productivity Conference was that far too few firms are using in their productivity methods, policies and technology well established and applied by the best firms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Farnborough and many Government establishments there is a continual exchange of scientific study between private and public industry, but in some cases public industry is not aware of the great advantages to be gained from the research establishments of the Government? Could something be done to bring these two closer together?

If my right hon. Friend has examples of public or private industry not knowing what facilities are available, I should be glad to have them, and so would some of my right hon. Friends who are concerned. It is certainly the case that Farnborough and other establishments for many years have undertaken much research for private firms, and private firms have taken the initiative.

Would the Prime Minister consider, before this Council goes into the private sector at all, whether it would not perhaps be better employed in examining the methods adopted by Government Departments concerned with the scientific effort of the nation?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we all agree that, despite the fact that so many of our firms lead the world in their fields, whether in science or in the application of science, there is a very big gap which we have to overcome. This is one of the most important tasks of the Ministries concerned. What this Council is trying to do is to advise the Government on how the limited funds—and they are limited—for research—civil, defence, pure science, technological—should be best allocated in the interests of the nation.

Will the Prime Minister say whether the purpose mention in Question No. 7 includes directing that modern scientific research should be used for the benefit of the trade, industry and commerce of this country, of which Dounreay experimental station is an example?

Dounreay is obviously a very important part of this, though there are others as well. The Government's policy on Dounreay was stated in the House a year ago.