asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, by how many he estimates the population of the Northern Region will have increased by 1981.

Last November's estimate gave a net increase of 345,000 over the period from 1964 to 1981; the estimates are being revised.

Are the Government planning ahead greatly to increase the job opportunity which this increased population would call for? Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it will call for a much greater degree of public enterprise than we have in the region at present?

Yes, the Government are making endeavours to increase the opportunity of work in the Northern Region, and I shall shortly he sending the Economic Planning Council for that region a full statement of the Government's views on the various proposals it has made.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, when he estimates that the Government's measures will stop the drift of population from the Northern Region to the South-East.

No such estimate is practicable, but the Government believe that the regional employment premium will produce in the next few years a more even spread of employment opportunities which should encourage a better regional migration balance.

While sharing the confidence of my right hon. Friend in the reguional employment premium, may I ask him whether he will not agree that if the present ruinous drift from the North-East to the South-East continues, we shall have far more than a reasonable share of aged and ageing people?

My hon. Friend speaks of the drift to the South-East, but the South-East is no longer gaining by migration from the rest of England and Wales. Migration from the North is mostly to neighbouring areas and not to the South-East. It is the Government's intention that nobody shall require to leave this region through lack of job opportunity. There are, of course, other reasons why people may wish to move, which one would not wish to control.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent migration from the North-East, like migration from Scotland, under the present Government has been abroad and away from this country altogether?

I think the hon. Gentleman would need to put that Question down.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are serious implications for the Northern Region because of the drift from that region, whether it is to the South-East, to the Midlands or elsewhere? Will the Government please try to give greater attention to the requirements of the Northern Region in the relief from unemployment?

Yes, we are taking measures to that end and we shall continue to do so.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how much of the increased social expenditure since October, 1964, has been financed out of the expansion of British industry.

Expenditure on social services and housing by the public sector increased between 1964–65 and 1966–67 by £1,306 million at current prices, of which £718 million was expenditure on goods and services. The increase in the gross domestic product at factor cost at current prices during the same period was in the neighbourhood of £3,000 million.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the estimated increase for the next year and whether this will also come out of the growth rate forecast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

No, Sir, I cannot give a precise forecast of this kind, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as the Chancellor said in his Budget statement, he is keeping his eye on public expenditure programmes so that they are kept reasonably in line with our growth prospects.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress has been made in increasing the wages of those employees earning below £15 a week basic pay.

The White Papers, Cmnd. 3150 and Cmnd. 3235, make it clear that the Government regard the improvement of the position of lowest-paid workers as a primary social objective to which priority should be given within the overall objectives of incomes policy. Wage increases affecting a very substantial number of workers have been approved under the criteria for increases to lowest-paid workers set out in these White Papers.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the recent Ministry of Social Security Report on poverty shows the shocking plight of those people on very low wage rates? Will he also not agree that a positive incomes policy could help those people who are earning below £15 a week? There has not been a great deal of progress in that matter so far.

One of the objects of an incomes policy is to assist in this kind of thing. The industries which have had increases include very large numbers of lower-paid workers. About 2½ million workers are involved, and a great number of them are low paid.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our essential staff here is gravely under strength and that the urgent need for recruitment ought to be dealt with at once? Yet the inducement in pay is almost less than the figure indicated in this Question.

I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman. If he will put a Question down I will try to answer it.

Could my right hon. Friend say which classes of those workers earning below £15 a week he proposes to submit to the Prices and Incomes Board?

One cannot make any kind of generalisation. It depends upon the kind of claim which is made. As I have said, the criterion takes special care of lower-paid workers, and we try to ensure that increases in the rates for the lower-paid under this criterion are not passed on as a differential for the higher-paid workers.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the average wage of women employees in this country is well below £15 a week? Would he urge his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to legislate for equal pay for women?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down that Question to her right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will consult the South-East Regional Economic Council on the economic implications for Essex of the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport.

Yes, Sir.

Is not the Government's decision, described by Lord Plowden as a crime against regional planning, directly contrary to the policy and purposes of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

A number of opinions, some agreeing with that and some contrary to it, have been expressed, but the matter was very fully discussed the other day and the House took its decision.

As he has said that he will consult it, when does the right hon. Gentleman hope to have an answer from the Regional Economic Council, and will he publish the answer?

It is not a matter of just an answer to a question. I should want to consult with the Council about how to accommodate the increased population which will arise and to deal with the economic development resulting from the expansion of the airport. I expect that it will be possible, if it is desired, to keep the House informed of exchanges of opinion between the Council and myself.

asked the First Secretary and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he now expects to publish a revised or new National Plan.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he now expects to publish a revised version of the National Plan.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) on 23rd February.—[Vol. 741, c. 326.]

After the official jettisoning of the National Plan on 10th November last, is it not necessary for the Government to clarify the position now, without further delay?

I have explained to the House that the projections and assumptions for the National Plan are being revised. I am doing this in consultation with the National Economic Development Council and with industry, but I should like to carry this work a bit further before giving precise dates.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the comment of Sir Ronald Edwards that the latest increases in. electricity prices were largely caused by over-investment resulting from the electricity boards' desire to conform to the targets of the old National Plan? Will he bear in mind the dangers of this sort of economic Couéism when he comes to the next plan?

It is always possible when framing a National Plan to make the error of over-optimism, and it would be possible also—this seems to be the error into which hon. Members are falling—to take too gloomy and restrictionist a view of what is possible. One must avoid both these errors.

When shall we have the revised National Plan? It has been an awful long time coming.

I have already said that I did not wish at this stage to give a definite date. I am in consultation with the N.E.D.C. about it.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has now considered the decisions of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Allen v. Thorn Electrical Industries Limited and Griffiths v. Metropolitan Police District Receiver; and what action he proposes to take in the light of these decisions.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for a rather lengthy Answer.

The decisions of the Court of Appeal in these cases related to the interpretation of Sections 28 and 29 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966. The effect of the court's ruling is that an Order made under Section 28 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, cannot restrict the payment of an increase in pay contractually due before the coming into force of the Order and that an Order made under Section 29 cannot restrict the payment of an increase in pay contractually due before 20th July, 1966. As a result, the Orders which have been made relating to Thorn Electrical Industries Ltd., the Metropolitan Receiver, Birmingham Corporation and Harland and Wolff are ineffective in restricting the particular increases in pay against which they were originally directed, and I have decided that it would be right in all the circumstances to revoke them.

I must emphasise that the court's decisions relate solely to the interpretation of only a few of the Orders made under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act. They have no wider application, and the Government look to all concerned to continue to maintain the prices and incomes policy on a voluntary basis.

Does that Answer mean that, over the past year, on several occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has sought to interfere with bargains made before 20th July and has made Orders backed by criminal penalties to invalidate them without a scrap of legal authority? Does he recall that, during the passage of the Bill, we warned him that the methods adopted for its passage would produce a shambles? Has he not landed the Government and their economic policy in a humiliating mess?

The last suggestion is quite untrue. The effect of the court's decision affects at most 1.000 workers out of the 36,000 who have been affected by Orders made under Part IV, itself a very small proportion of the total body of workers because the policy has been carried through in the main by voluntary means. Further, the decision was made on a narrow point of law on the particular Sections, and the Opposition did not raise that point during the debates on the Bill.

Order. Question and answer must be reasonably brief.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider it stupid that the courts may defeat the express will of Parliament because the will of Parliament has not been correctly phrased by the Parliamentary draftsmen, the courts having to apply a rule of interpretation which forbids them to look at what is the express will of Parliament instead of the words of a Statute?

Order. Questions must be brief.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on the decision of a court of law?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was casting aspersions on the court. He was trying to make a political point.

It does happen from time to time that decisions are given by the court as to what a Statute means which are totally unforeseen and are surprising to laymen, but it would not be proper to criticise the judgment of the court. It has applied the law in the ordinary way.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the point has been raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), may I say that it was never my intention to criticise the Court of Appeal. I was criticising the rule of construction.

Order. I have already ruled on that matter.

Will the First Secretary of State take it from me—I have the quotation here—that on 25th October I raised this very point about the interpretation of Clause 29 which has now been unheld by the Court of Appeal? Second, will he realise that in all the four cases he has mentioned the Opposition moved to annul the Orders but they were resisted by the Government? Third, as a shambles has now resulted, will the right hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that no further Orders will be made under Part IV?

I cannot accept the word "shambles". Orders affecting a very limited number of workers have been declared to be in part, though not in whole, invalid on a narrow point of law. This does not affect the main basis on which the policy has been and still is being carried through. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman made the point on 25th October. Unfortunately for him, the House passed the Bill by 12th August.

The right hon. Gentleman says that only a few Orders were affected. Can he tell us what percentage they are of the total? Why are they now considered so unimportant, when the House was assured that they were essential when they were debated on Prayers?

It would have been wrong, in view of what was then believed to be the legal position, for the Government to allow these increases to be made without making an Order. I could not give offhand the percentage of the number of Orders made. What is more to the point is the percentage of workers affected by this very limited decision, and I have given that to the House.

Will my right hon. Friend take cognisance of the fact that many of the criticisms from this side of the House are very genuine, because we are concerned at the policy's effects on workers, whilst those from the other side are an exhibition of [Interruption.s]—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to put his supplementary question.

—an exhibition of a newfound love for British trade unionism which will vanish immediately should the tragedy occur of hon. Members opposite returning to this side of the House?

Yes, Sir. I think that we have all been aware for some time that that was the position.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what has been the national rate of growth between October, 1964, and the most recent convenient date.

Between the third quarter of 1964 and the fourth quarter of 1966 the growth in the gross domestic product was about 3½ per cent. or 1½ per cent. per annum.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this sort of wishful thinking aloud does a great deal of harm when he forcasts rates of growth which are nothing like met in the event? Will he cease to quote rates of growth which the country cannot meet under the incompetent administration of the present Government?

I do not think that I have done. so. In answering the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have told him what the rate of growth was. As I think is well known, the basic reason for not getting a higher rate of growth during this period was the constraints of the balance of payments difficulties of which hon. Members opposite are as well aware as anybody else.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us offhand of any other major industrialised country which has had a lower rate of growth over this period?

I shall not answer that question offhand. If the hon. Gentleman wants answers of that kind he should put a Question on the Order Paper.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he has taken in order to implement the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the printing industry.

Officials of the Ministry of Labour and of my own Department are in close touch with the industry regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the N.B.P.I. Report. Some of these recommendations have been implemented and others are under discussion within the industry.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say which of these recommendations have been implemented? Does he agree that as this is probably an industry more riddled with restrictive practices and bad habits than any, it is vital that these Reports should have some follow-up, for otherwise the Reports of the Prices and Incomes Board will be taken into disrepute?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that a follow-up is taking place. The answer to his specific question is that the recommendations implemented are those relating generally to the composition and functions of the industry's Joint Manpower Committee and the review of wage escalation clauses. Progress has also been made by the unions in examining the question of amalgamation.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is his Department's latest estimate of the increase in hourly wage rates between 1st July, 1966, and 31st December, 1967; and what was the increase in hourly wage rates over the corresponding period of the previous economic cycle, 1st July, 1961, to 31st December, 1962.

The figure of about 6 per cent. which my right hon. Friend gave to the House on 22nd March is the best estimate we have of the likely increase in the hourly wage rate index over the 18-month period July, 1966 to December, 1967. The increase in hourly wage rates over the period July, 1961, to December, 1962, was 6·4 per cent.

Does the Minister agree that this shows that the whole paraphernalia of the compulsory prices and incomes policy has served no useful purpose whatsoever?

It shows precisely the opposite, because more than half of these increases in wage rates come from agreements negotiated on or before 20th July last year, and therefore over the 18-month period there has been a very marked reduction as compared with the period before.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he is taking, following representations from the Northern Regional Council of the Labour Party, about the present unemployment level in the Northern Region; and if he will make a statement.

We are already taking further steps to strengthen the economy of the Northern Region. The new regional employment premium, in particular, should act as a powerful stimulus to both new and existing industry there.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while his Answer goes some way towards solving the problems we face at the moment, a greater sense of urgency is still needed before we can bring to the Northern Region the full employment that both Front Bench and back bench Members on this side of the House promised in the last two General Elections?

Yes, Sir. There, remain many things which the Government want and intend to proceed with in order to help the situation in the Northern Region. But, as I pointed out in the debate on the regional employment premium, there has been a perceptible narrowing of the gap between rates of unemployment in the country as a whole and the development areas.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the insistence on the regional employment premium is absolute nonsense as regards the expansive programme we want in the North-East? Is he aware that in the mining, shipbuilding and marine engineering industries everything is in disrepair? When will he act?

A number of measures has been taken both in the North and elsewhere to improve the industrial strength of the regions. There has been the action over investment grants, improvement of infrastructure and advance factories. Those whom the hon. Lady claims to represent—

I do represent.

—will be surprised to hear her view that regional employment premiums are nonsense.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that it is a matter of great concern that in Sunderland unemployment is now above 7 per cent. and that in some parts of my own area it is over 5 per cent.? The industries concerned —shipbuilding in Sunderland and mining in my area—will not be affected by the Government's new proposals.

I know that there are these difficulties associated with the traditional industries in the North and in certain other areas. That is why, among other things, we must try to stimulate new industrial growth there.

How does the First Secretary explain that the latest unemployment figures, not for any particular area but for the country as a whole, are the worst June figures since the war?

The right hon. Gentleman must put that as a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. It goes wider than the regional considerations in the Question.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whereas it is a matter of fact that the regional levels of unemployment have closed somewhat with the national levels, that does not minimise the serious hardship in the Northern Region, particularly where men over 40 may be a large percentage of the unemployed? Will he give an undertaking that this aspect of the unemployment problem must be looked at?

I certainly give the undertaking for which my hon. Friend asks, and I would not wish to say anything to minimise the seriousness of the employment problem in this region and in certain others. But I do not think that this should blind us to the fact that the Government have taken a whole range of measures which have been of real benefit to the regions where this problem is most difficult and heavy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the level of unemployment rose by 0·1 per cent. between May and June? What level of unemployment does he think will result in the North-East in the coming winter?

A little while ago the hon. Gentleman urged me not to make prophecies. I think that I must return that advice to him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are certain areas in the country, especially the fringe areas, where private enterprise industry simply will not go, and that unless he fulfils the pledge made at the last General Election to site publicly owned and operated industries in those areas we shall have them denuded of the people there today?

The Government will be prepared to take whatever measures are necessary to deal with this problem.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by what means he is making certain that British goods are as competitive as anything that could be imported.

The Government play their part in this through their industrial policies and the work of the Economic Development Committees, which help to increase efficiency and productivity, thus improving our competitiveness.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister that greater competitiveness will be achieved only when there are better incentives and prospects of greater reward; and what hope is there of securing either of these advantages so long as Government expenditure and taxation both continue to rise?

Apart from the fact that this advice would not come to the Prime Minister with the shock of novelty, I am afraid that I cannot offer to use such opportunities as I have of communication with the Prime Minister in so sterile a way.

Will my hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT—and give some indication of it now—information about what import-saving industries have been established and have increased their competitiveness?

I should prefer that question to be put upon the Order Paper.

Surely even the present Government must realise that if the Government deliberately restrict home markets and make it difficult to sell in them, obviously imports must come in based on better markets and at much more competitive prices?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulties that result from balance of payments problems. This is one of the consequences of the restrictionist phase in dealing with the balance of payments problems. As has already been pointed out this afternoon, the balance of payments problems have to be dealt with, and the responsibility for them is firmly understood, I am sure, by the hon. Gentleman to belong to our predecessors.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the Department is making any special efforts to cope with the possible large increase of imports if we go into the Common Market and to increase the competitiveness of British goods in order to prevent that?

I think that my hon. Friend will get a more satisfactory answer if he puts that question on the Order Paper.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to ensure that, in all areas where coastguard and lifeboat services can be called by a 999 telephone call, these services will be listed together with fire, police and ambulance in telephone directories, on notices in call-boxes and on the dials of the telephone themselves.

The coastguard service is already listed in telephone directories and call office notices as an emergency authority which can be obtained via 999. Space is not available on dial centre labels.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him if he will take steps to give more publicity to the fact that these two services are available on emergency telephone calls, because it seemed from the evidence on the "Darlwyn" disaster that many of the general public do not appreciate this fact?

Yes, Sir; wherever we can give greater publicity to the position concerning the points raised by my hon. Friend we will endeavour to do so. But the responsible emergency authority in this instance is the coastguard service, which invites the appropriate local lifeboat association to send out a lifeboat if it thinks it necessary. Nevertheless, we mention the lifeboat service in addition to the coastguard service in telephone directory prefaces, where we are less cramped for space than we are in call box notices.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will inquire from his independent psychological advisers whether, if a vowel as well as a consonant were inserted against each number on the telephone dial, telephone users could evolve for themselves telephone numbers of three letters and four figures which would be more easily memorised than seven numbers.

No, Sir. As there are ten figures and five vowels, each vowel would have to appear twice, and this would cause confusion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how terribly difficult it is for anyone to remember these seven-figure telephone numbers? Is it not possible to devise some simpler method? Can the right hon. Gentleman say with his hand on his heart, or whatever it is that he has there—perhaps a block of ice—how many old telephone numbers he can remember under the present system? [Interruption.]

Order. Questions must be brief.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not judge everybody else by his own capacity. These numbers are certainly more difficult to remember, but we have no option in the matter; we have to develop as the rest of the world is developing, on all-figure numbers.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his expected report on local government reorganisation in Wales.

My right hon. Friend expects to publish his White Paper on Local Government in Wales on Tuesday, 11th July, 1967.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask her whether she is aware that local government reorganisation in Wales is urgently necessary, and what time will be allowed to local authorities to consider the recommendations that may be put forward?

My right hon. Friend will be communicating with local authorities in Wales immediately following the publication of the White Paper, and will ask them to let him have within a reasonable period any comments that they may wish to make.

Will the hon. Lady tell the House whether her right hon. Friend will come to the House and announce this important new policy?

The Secretary of State for Wales will be laying the White Paper in the normal way, and it will be obtainable in the Vote Office next Tuesday afternoon for hon. Members to study.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to set up an elected council for Wales.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the forthcoming White Paper on Local Government in Wales.

This is a scandal. Why do the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend insult the Welsh people on this very important change in policy? Why is the Secretary of State afraid to come to the House and talk about this change? Why is it that the hon. Lady comes here now and says that the new Welsh policy on local government, which is more important than anything else at the present time, is being fobbed off in the form of a White Paper?

I am sure that with his experience in the House the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would be a scandal if I told him in advance what is in the White Paper.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it is perfectly clear that all Welsh Ministers are frightened at the present time of talking about this matter, I give notice—[Interruption.]—that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must observe the conventions of the House. If he wishes to give notice, he must do it in the normal Parliamentary way.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I, with great respect. say that nobody who understands and knows the problems of Welsh local government will underestimate the problem—

Order. This is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman must take note of what the Chair says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the judge's comments in a recent criminal action in which wealthy defendants were given legal aid, he will now introduce legislation to give himself power to control the rules under which legal aid is administered.

The Criminal Justice Bill, now before Parliament, will enable the courts to require a person who is granted legal aid to pay a contribution towards the costs; and will empower my right hon. Friend to make regulations prescribing, among other matters, the manner in which a person's means are to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether he should be granted legal aid and, if so, the amount of the contribution which he may be required to pay.

Will my hon. and learned Friend agree that we are concerned not only with the rich people but also with a lot of poor people who cannot get legal aid?

Legal aid should be more widely available as a result of the implementation of the Widgery Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will publish a booklet, intended for popular consumption, setting out the reasons why entry into the Common Market would be to Great Britain's advantage.

I am considering whether there is anything we can usefully add to the material listed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his reply on the 14th of June to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray).—[Vol. 748, c. 97–8.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this reconsideration will be welcomed? Is he also aware that when I made this request to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister was kind enough to send me a copy of his speech of 8th May? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that is no adequate substitute for a popular version of the arguments for joining the Common Market?

Perhaps I might try sending the hon. Gentleman a copy of my own speech to see whether it is any better.

As it is highly improbable that we shall enter the E.E.C., will the right hon. Gentleman not waste public money on such a publication?

I do not know on what judgment the hon. Gentleman bases that suggestion. It will be interesting to see who turns out to be right.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his visit to The Hague to address the meeting of the Western European Union.

In my statement at a meeting of the Council of Western European Union at The Hague on 4th July, I set out in detail Britain's case for joining the European Communities and the points which we hope to see covered in negotiations. My statement has been published as a White Paper, Cmnd. 3345. These meetings are by tradition confidential but I think my statement was particularly well received.

What official status has W.E.U. to deal with this matter? Did my right hon. Friend deliver the speech in the White Paper, including the last paragraph? Would he agree that we should avoid any grovelling attitude in face of the obstructive antics of the French Government to stop our application being considered?

One of its session days has customarily been deted by W.E.U. to discussing relations between the United Kingdom and the European Communities, and it was in that connection that I delivered my speech. There is no doubt that I delivered the speech nor that I delivered paragraph 50 with it. I handed copies of it to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and the President of the Commission, both of whom had requested that I should do so. My hon. Friend may take it that it is now on record.

In his reference to agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned only three agricultural commodities—pig meat, eggs and milk. Does this mean that, for other agricultural commodities, he accepts the Community system? If so, is that acceptance shared by the Minister of Agriculture?

On the whole, I should like to see that question on the Order Paper. I also mentioned hill farmers in my speech.

While details of my right hon. Friend's discussions may be private, may I ask whether he recalls that the Government entered into certain commitments to this House during the debate on our application to join the E.E.C., in particular with reference to defence? Will he give a categorical assurance that he is not proposing, or entering into, negotiations on a new sharing of nuclear weapons and the setting up of an additional nuclear command?

If my hon. Friend will do me the honour of reading what I said, he will see that that question does not arise.

In fact, has not the right hon. Gentleman committed the Government to the full gamut of economic, political and defence union?

That is not a fact at all; nor do I think it arises. I have given the E.E.C. and the other Communities a clear basis on which we could now negotiate the early entry of this country into membership of the E.E.C.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now move to bring the question of the War in Vietnam before the Special General Assembly of the United Nations now sitting.

No, Sir. As I told the House on 27th February, the North Vietnamese, supported by their allies, refuse to accept that the United Nations has any positive rôle to play in solving the Vietnamese conflict. Until this attitude changes I see no scope for fruitful discussion in the United Nations. —[Vol. 742, c. 78–79.]

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the war in Vietnam is a much greater threat to the peace of the world even than the recent unfortunate events in the Middle East? Would not he also agree that, under the United Nations Charter, the U.N. has the right to discuss any threat to the peace from any quarter, irrespective of the attitude of an interested party?

Yes, Sir, but one has to consider where we should get in the absence of interested parties. I have no doubt that we could have a discussion in the United Nations, but whether it would lead us anywhere nearer a reasonable end to the conflict is another matter. Frankly, in the face of the North Vietnamese refusal—which they made clear to U Thant on 14th March—to accept that the United Nations has any rôle to play, I do not see any point at the moment in trying to put this matter into that forum.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of concern in this country that the Americans may begin a land invasion of North Vietnam? Will he use every possible pressure on the Americans to de-escalate the war they are waging in South-East Asia?

That is another question, but I repeat to my hon. Friend what I have said to him before—that I wish that he would direct his attention to de-escalating the war on the other side as well.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek to offset the forthcoming temporary increase in the price of petrol and oil by an equivalent reduction in tax.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4th July to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).—[Vol. 749, c. 217.]

The right hon. Gentleman should have another look. If prices are to go up, this is an easy way to keep them steady.

This is not an easy way to keep them steady. It is very expensive. A total of £120 million would be involved.

asked the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with heads of other Governments about Great Britain's application to enter the European Economic Community.

So far as heads of E.E.C. Governments are concerned, with the President of the French Republic on 19th and 20th June and with the Prime Minister of Italy on 27th and 28th June. In addition I have of course discussed this problem with heads of Commonwealth and other non-E.E.C. Governments.

As the Foreign Secretary said at The Hague on Tuesday that Britain wanted the negotiations to be short and that much of the preliminary work had already been done, can the Prime Minister yet give an indication of the timetable which he expects?

No, Sir. It is impossible for me to do so because, although we continually emphasise the need for urgency, and, indeed, get considerable support for that in the discussion, the timetable does not lie exclusively in our hands.

In the discussions with Heads of other Commonwealth Governments, did my right hon. Friend depart from the conditions that have been acceptable to the Labour Party for some years and which have been swept under the carpet completely by the Foreign Secretary in his speech to W.E.U.?

No, Sir. They have not been swept under the carpet. The Commonwealth conditions were never spelt out, for example, in detail in any decision of the party conference in 1962. The basis on which I discussed the question with Heads of other Commonwealth Governments was the Motion accepted by the House in May, my own speech in that debate, together with the speeches of other Ministers, and any points which my Commonwealth colleagues wished to raise.

We welcome the more realistic approach by the Foreign Secretary in including a common European attitude towards defence as one of the Government's objectives in wanting to become a member of the E.E.C. After his last visit to President de Gaulle, the Prime Minister told the House that he had discussed with the President prospects of technological co-operation, research and development generally. Did he discuss the A.F.V.G. project with him?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has talked in terms of a defence community and, I think, of an Anglo-French deterrent. What my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his speech, as he has again made clear today, related to a greater influence of Europe in world defence organisation and in the alliance organisations such as N.A.T.O. There was no suggestion of a European defence community in anything he said.

During my visit to President de Gaulle, we had a very brief discussion on the question of the A.F.V.G. He indicated something of the budgetary difficulties, but said that this should be a matter of discussion between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and M. Messmer.

asked the Prime Minister what part the Minister of Power will have in the negotiations for entry into the Common Market concerning the coal industry.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 6th June to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).—[Vol. 747, c. 189.]

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister of Power must know more about the details and complexity of these industries? Would he not further agree that the recent Middle East crisis has underlined how vital our indigenous resources of coal are?

I agree on both points. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power will play an important part in any discussions particularly relating to membership of the E.C.S.C., not only in relation to coal but also to steel.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the coal industries of the Common Market countries are experiencing problems far greater than the difficulties of the British coal industry? Does he not agree that our entry into the Common Market is likely to exacerbate the existing problems of the British coal industry?

It is true that some of the Common Market coal industries are having a very extensive rundown at the present time and there has been a significant reduction in production, but not, I think, in imports from outside the Six. My hon. Friend will have seen that the estimate of the National Coal Board is that it would hope for an increase of up to 3 million tons in our exports to the Community if we succeed in joining.

Would the Prime Minister agree that one of the most serious burdens on Scottish economy is the differential prices for coal and gas? Would he confirm that neither the Government nor the Ministry of Power will accept unreservedly the E.C.S.C. rules which would make these differentials permanent and perhaps increase them?

It is a matter of how we go on in the negotiations. I do not think that it is the view of my right hon. Friend that anything involved in the present operations of the E.C.S.C., whose practices are in some cases rather difficult to define, would have any adverse reactions on the coal industry of this country generally or Scotland in particular.

asked the Prime Minister which Ministers are currently responsible for studying alternatives to joining the Common Market.

The Government as a whole considered the alternatives carefully before we decided to apply for membership of the European Communities. I do not think that any further studies are needed at this stage.

is the Prime Minister aware of the growing number of people and organisations seriously interested in studying the alternatives? Could the Government not perhaps publish a White Paper giving in outline some of the alternatives so that we can think about them in the case of a breakdown?

As I have said a number of times, not least in the debate, there are possible alternatives and we would not regard failure to get in as meaning the collapse of all hopes for the future. We think that getting in is the best answer for our economic policy. In the debate on 8th May and succeeding days, my right hon. Friends and I gave the House considerable details about what the alternatives were and what our judgment on them was.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the consequences of our determined application to join the Common Market is that our traditional trading partners are beginning to make plans for the diversification of their own trade? Is he not aware that in the event of our failure, which many of us hope will come about, the situation for creating an alternative will be very difficult indeed?

The diversification by some of our traditional trading partners has been going on for many years and has nothing to do with our recent application. The Prime Minister of Australia told me that he had seen the figures on the very morning on which we met. I cannot remember them exactly, but they showed that about 40 per cent. of their exports, if not more, go to the countries of South-East Asia, and their orientation in trading matters has been going in that direction for many years.

asked the Prime Minister what representations were made to him by the Prime Minister of Australia on the matter of the Rhodsian problem in his recent conversations with him; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Would the Prime Minister accept that Australia, and almost every other country in the Commonwealth, has believed for a long time that the Rhodesian policy is now failing in its objective? Would he further accept that the mooted petrol rationing in Great Britain is making us look singularly ridiculous?

The hon. Gentleman is always ready to cash in on problems. He knows that the oil problem is due to the Middle East situation. I am not aware of any suggestion from the Opposition in the debate on the Middle East which would have created a situation any different. We were then urged to be tougher on the side of Israel, and I imagine that that would have made the situation the same, if not worse. The Australian Government is in full support of British policy over Rhodesia. It was fully discussed both by my right hon. Friend on his visit and when Mr. Holt came here, and the Australians are cooperating fully in the sanctions policy.

Did the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Holt any possibility of the Australian Government playing a part in trying to solve the Rhodesian problem?

We have discussed this on a number of occasions. There is no specific rôle for the Australians except in acceptance—I think this is their view—of the decisions of the Commonwealth Conference and the decisions of the United Nations. Certainly Mr. Holt did not suggest any other rôle that they might play.

Can the Prime Minister say when the Secretary-General of the United Nations is likely to publish the reports which he has received from member nations on the effect of sanctions? When it is published, may we take it that the Commonwealth group will be meeting and concerting together at the United Nations?

Without notice I cannot answer that question. I do not know whether the Secretary-General has a timetable in mind. That matter was not raised in the representations made to me by the Prime Minister of Australia.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Lord Alport's mission to Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister whether, following the visit by Lord Alport to Rhodesia he will give an undertaking that the Government are still committed to No Independence Before Majority Rule.

asked the Prime Minister what response he has had from Mr. Smith to Lord Alport's mission; and whether he will make a statement.

I have at present nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 13th June to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and to my replies to subsequent Questions about Lord Alport's visit.—[Vol. 748, c. 305.]

Since Lord Alport apparently has been refused permission to visit the African Nationalist leaders, does this not show that the ruling clique of Salisbury is not willing to make any concessions? Would the Prime Minister not take too much notice of those people in Britain who sometimes act as if they were the fraternal delegates from the Rhodesian Front?

I do not know anything about that particular form of acting.

So far as Lord Alport's visit is concerned, it would be deplorable if his request to talk to leaders of the African Nationalists were refused by the ruling régime in that country. It was extremely deplorable when my right hon. Friend, who was there for some weeks last year seeking to talk to all sections of opinion, was firmly refused permission by Mr. Smith to visit Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole. I thought it a deplorable decision. Hon. Members who sometimes regard us as a little slow to enter into talks should recognise that we entered into the talks on H.M.S. "Tiger" despite that very discourteous refusal to my right hon. Friend. I hope that Lord Alport will be treated differently.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is precisely the time at which the British public and the Rhodesian Government should be told firmly by the British Government that there are certain fundamental points of political morality at stake in the situation on which we are not prepared to compromise and that N.I.B.M.A.R. is one?

The fundamental points of political morality which are at stake, and which have been at stake throughout the lifetime of this Government and the lifetime of our predecessor's Government, are the six principles.

Has not the work of the Constitutional Commission in Salisbury and certain developments in Rhodesian Front politics made it urgently necessary to reopen talks if anything is to be saved of British trade and influence in Rhodesia? Will the Prime Minister seek urgently to talk again, to make peace, and to recognise the fact of Rhodesian independence on an honourable basis?

There is no fact of Rhodesian independence. It is totally illegal. In December I offered Mr. Smith very honourable terms—some would feel too generous—to enable Rhodesia to have independence. It could have had it by now on honourable and legal terms. This was refused. The hon. Gentleman voted to support the rejection of this offer.

As for Lord Alport's visit, we were told by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that Mr. Smith was anxious for talks and had sent messages to that effect. I think it is deplorable that last week Mr. Smith should have denied that he had sent any messages. At least one right hon. Gentleman opposite knows the truth about that.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that if Lord Alport has any positive reactions he should report them immediately? Has my right hon. Friend received any information from Lord Alport or the Governor?

No, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said on Tuesday. It is still the position that we have had nothing from Lord Alport in the sense which enables him to form a judgment on the task that he went out to undertake. He is talking to a very wide section. and it is gratifying that people of all sections of opinion seem anxious to talk to him, though the question is how many of those he will be allowed to talk to.

While adhering to the six principles, would the Prime Minister be prepared to drop the humiliating terms he proposed for the return to so-called legality?

I have nothing to add to what was said in debate. These were not humiliating terms. It was an offer to a rebel Government to reconstitute that Government as a legal Government within 48 hours and to enable it to go through the whole of the procedures that have been discussed with it when it was a legal Government for being granted independence in four months if, and only if, the people of Rhodesia as a whole wanted that to happen. It was a very honourable offer. The suggestion to get rid of some of the extremist members of his Government, if that is the humiliating term, was a suggestion made to me by Mr. Smith.

As the church leaders in Rhodesia estimate that 75 per cent. of the population owe allegiance to the Nationalist leaders, will the Prime Minister instruct Lord Alport that until he sees the leaders of 75 per cent. of the population he should no longer talk to the leaders of 13 per cent?

I have, and I am sure that the House has, enough confidence in Lord Alport to know that in any report which he makes he will take account of how representative have been the people to whom he has been speaking. I think the house will also judge that if he is refused access to the leaders of African Nationalist opinion that in itself will be a reflection on the régime and on the amount of trust which the House would wish to hand over to people of that kind.

Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he will make a statement to the House as soon as Lord Alport reports and that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

It would certainly be my intention to report to the House after Lord Alport has returned and after there has been a chance of discussing the situation with him, and on present timetables I would certainly hope that that would be before the House rises. A discussion of the situation in the light of such a statement is, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House.

rose—

Order. We are past Question Time.