asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects to announce his decisions on the report and study for the South-East Economic Planning Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what decisions he has now made on the proposals of the South-East Regional Council in the light of the Government's economic measures outlined in the budget.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 20th March.—Vol. 761, c 111–113.]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in the seaside areas, where there is a fall off in employment, we need a policy? What do the Government propose to do about industrial development certificates? Cannot he make a statement so that we may get the economy going again?

We have yet to give our response to the Report of the South-East Regional Economic Planning Council but hope to be able to do so before very long.

May I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has said? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the South-East Study is vitiating ha rd against some seaside areas?

The Study drew attention to some of the problems of these areas. The Ministers concerned will be considering it further when we come to reply to the Economic Planning Council's strategy.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he now intends publishing the Government's proposed national plan; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, what effect the recent Budget proposals will have on the National Plan.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he will publish a new national plan.

We aim to publish a substantial planning document in the autumn describing the economic and industrial prospects over the next four to five years. This could serve as a basis for further planning work next year. It will take account of all the relevant factors including those referred to by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell).

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the stationery bill has gone up by £6·5 million this year? Is not publication of these plans, which never seem to work, a further waste of money? Would it not be better to abolish the whole idea?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's view is shared by those engaged in planning and certainly not by the N.E.D.C., or by the large number of firms anxious that the Government should carry on their planning work.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this time the new national plan is put together more intelligently than the last one? Will not he concede that the last National Plan had certain weaknesses, particularly its failure to take account of that most obvious contingency, the balance of payments crisis?

This document will make the best possible use of the available information, but I need hardly remind the House that one of the problems with the 1965 Plan was the great shortage of statistical material available to the planners and forecasters.

What happened to the first National Plan? Has it been pulped?

The forecasts and assumptions on which it was based were invalidated by events in 1966.

While appreciating that there is no shortage of planning, particularly with regard to Humberside and South Yorkshire, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that what we require there is a little less planning and a little more action?

My hon. Friend will know that we have already given our response to the very excellent report on preliminary strategy produced by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will publish the preliminary paper on the economy since devaluation prepared in connection with the new planning exercise for the second national plan.

No, Sir.

If the Ministry will not publish this report, could the hon. Gentleman tell us the estimated growth of the gross national product over the six years 1964–70? Is it the 15½ per cent. we have been led to believe, or the full 25 per cent. proposed in the National Plan?

As the hon. Gentleman has just heard, my right hon. Friend expects to publish a substantial planning document in the autumn. I hope that it will go some way to meeting the hon. Gentleman's requirements. Meanwhile, a very informative Financial Statement has been published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will the paper give any indication of how the forecasts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year totally differ from the forecasts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year? Will it analyse how Government economic policy has completely broken down?

I cannot accept that. This Government have gone a great deal further in publishing economic forecasts than was ever done in the past.

When the Minister devises the second national plan, would he make it clear, which was not made clear in the first National Plan, whether it is a forecast or a target, because it cannot be both?

Obviously the plan will have elements of a forecast and a target in it. After all, the Government, in publishing this planning document, are responding to a great deal of pressure placed on them by industry as well as to their own need for a basis for their own public expenditure proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many people are engaged upon studies for a new national plan.

No Government servant is engaged solely on work of this kind, which enters into the work of all those concerned with economic policy and forecasting.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider referring this activity to the National Board for Prices and Incomes to see whether it thinks we are getting value for money with all this national planning?

The hon. Gentleman is clearly completely out of touch with the needs expressed by industry of this country for Government planning, and also equally out of touch with the Government's own requirement to make a basis for public expenditure which his party continually insists we should keep under control.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will appoint a member on the South-West Economic Planning Council to represent the agricultural industry and the family farmer.

My right hon. Friend announced on 1st April the names of the members of the South-West Council who he has appointed for a further period.

But the failure to appoint someone who knows about the problems of agriculture in the South-West is an insult to the farming community in the South-West. Would the hon. Gentleman think again and appoint someone who really understands the problems of agriculture in the South-West?

The hon. Member will appreciate that there are on the Council two members of local authorities, one trade unionist and one independent member, all of whom have close links with the agricultural industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he has taken to deal with the economic problems of the South-West as expressed in the Tress Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what immediate plans he has to deal with the economic problems of the South-West as expressed in the Tress Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what immediate plans he has to deal with the grey areas of the South-West as expressed in the Tress Report.

The Government's response to the economic problems of the South-West are fully set out in their reply to the report of the South-West Economic Planning Council. The Government will be able to give further consideration to the needs of the region in the context of the findings of the Hunt Committee, whose report is expected in the autumn.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we in the South-West are just not prepared to accept the situation which he has brought about? We want action. Will he look it this matter again and ensure that we have something positive in the near future?

I think that we have given a positive response to the Tress Report. In particular, we have accepted the crucial importance of the spine road, which is the central part of the Tress Report's strategy.

What comment has the right hon. Gentleman to make on the undoubted fact that the 50 per cent. increase in Selective Employment Tax will enormously increase the economic problems of the South-West?

That is a different Question, but the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we were considering the remission of Selective Employment Tax to hotels in the rural parts of development areas could have some promise for parts of the South-West.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to a report which might be prepared on the Hunt Report, which is due in the autumn, which is reporting on the Report of the Tress Committee, which has now reported, because we should like to know that eventually these Reports, which we have been reading and studying for many years, will lead to some action by some body?

The document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, I think, the evidence which has been submitted by the South-West Regional Council to the Hunt Committee. This evidence was prepared probably only in the last few weeks, and it will be considered by the Hunt Committee which, I gather, is to visit the area soon.

I assure my right hon. Friend that there is bound to be disappointment in the South-West at the Government's response to the Economic Planning Council's Report. I welcome his assurance that he will give further consideration to those parts of the Report related to the Hunt Committee's finding. Would he go a little further and assure the House that he will give further consideration to other parts of the Report which appear to have been rejected out of hand?

Regional planning, and particularly long-term regional planning, of the kind which the regional councils are doing does not lead to total acceptance or refusal at a particular point of time. There is a continuing exchange of views between the councils and the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what studies he has made into the significance of road communications for the economy of the South-West.

Regional economic planning implications are taken into account in the consideration of road programmes for the South-West, as for other regions. The Government's decision to give high priority to the provision of the spine road reflects recognition of the key rôle of this route for the future development of the region.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's refusal to give a definite date for the No. 1 priority in the Tress Report has caused widespread disappointment in the South-West?

Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that this matter must be seen in the context of the full 1970 programme which has yet to be announced. Surely he equally welcomes the fact that this has now been put into the preparation pool.

I welcome the assurance that the spine road concept is accepted, but does not my hon. Friend think it a little disappointing that the part of the spine road proposed in the development area was not accepted in the Government's reply? Would not he agree that road communications become more and more important the further away parts of the country are from the centres of population?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. But the Council, in its Press statement, recognised that the programme announced by the Government was all that could be expected within the time span up to the mid-1970s. In addition to the spine road, we have agreed on five bypasses in the Cornwall area.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects to receive the Report of the Exeter University research study, commissioned by his Department, of tourism in the South-West.

By early summer, 1969.

While the South-West is glad to know that this Report will be available in the summer of 1969, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that we already have at least 10 reports on the tourist industry in the South-West? Would it not be rather more simple and quicker to abolish S.E.T. for the tourist industry straight away, and save all these reports'?

The value of the reports is shown in the fact that we have had modifications of S.E.T., and investment grants have been introduced for hotels.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade said the other day that there would be no provision made in the Estimates for the year 1968–69 for any additional help to the hotel industry except the modification of S.E.T., about which we await to hear?

I can only repeat that the information, as I understand it, is that there are to be investment grants for hotels differentiating between development areas and non-development areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the economic progress of the North-East Coast since 12th March.

Regional development is a continuing, long-term process, and it is difficult to gauge progress on the basis of a four-weeks period taken in isolation. What can be said is that on Tyneside and in the region as a whole unemployment is falling while the number of jobs vacancies continues to rise.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the way in which the investments grants are dealt with in our region is to the detriment of large-scale industry being attracted there and to the industries already there? Will he fight the Chancellor of the Exchequer until he comes out on top?

It would be interesting to know the basis of the hon. Lady's analysis. My knowledge of what is going on in the region is entirely to the contrary. These grants, plus the regional employment premium, plus £5 million in Selective Employment Tax, are a great advantage to the region.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that before he took up his present appointment, and in days of Conservative Government, we were told that we did not know how to plan? Now the Labour Government are reverting to our development district principle, which was always right.

The Conservatives showed us how not to plan. The analysis which I have made, showing increases in job vacancies and falling unemployment, rather shows that we are a bit better at it than they were.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will arrange for Ministers of departments who are responsible for implementing the recommendations of the Council to receive a deputation from Members of Parliament whose constituencies fall within the boundaries of the Economic Planning Council, with a view to improving the economic progress of the region.

There have been a number of recent opportunities for M.P.s from the region to make their views known, for example, the debate on the Northern Economic Planning Region on 8th March, in which the hon. Lady took part. Although there does not seem to be a case for the meeting proposed, I am always prepared to discuss with hon. Members any further points they have to make on the recommendations.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem able to ensure that public investment in the North-East is comparable to that in Scotland and Wales, is he aware that I should like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer face to face so that I can tell him what I think about this?

As I pointed out in the debate to which I have referred, public investment is rising pretty rapidly in the North. While, as yet, it is not the size of that in Scotland, I believe that we are now on a rising curve which is showing results.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour hon. Members have had no difficulty in seeing Ministers and have always been satisfied? Is he further aware that the trouble with the hon. Lady is that she has been frustrated ever since she entered this House?

My right hon. Friend may be a better authority on that than I. I prefer not to venture into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, in view of the increase in average weekly wage rates in the 18 months July, 1966 to January, 1968 of 8·1 per cent. as against 7·4 per cent. for the 18 months before that he now proposes to proceed with a policy to direct restraint on wage rates as the main weapon against inflation.

The Government's economic strategy was set out in the Budget statement. The Government have now published a White Paper in which the purposes of the policy for productivity, prices and incomes are explained.

Is the Minister aware that these figures show, at best, that the Government's present statutory policy will be useless and, at worst, will bring legislation into disrepute? Is it worth all the cost and bother and agony to his hon. Friends to make this kind of policy the centre of his economic planning?

The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". The answer to the first part is that he is misinterpreting the figures here. It is true that incomes rose very sharply during the first 18-month period and rose almost as much again during the second 18-month period. However, during the second 18 months, a good deal of the increase was a carry-over from the pipeline increases that were there in July, 1966.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the probability that, in spite of the economic justification for wage restraint, the dissension and strife which will be caused in industry may well outweigh any advantage derived from it?

This is a very serious matter which we have considered most carefully. Against that, we have had to consider the very great dangers to the British economy which would follow from a failure of incomes policy during the coming 18 months.

The Secretary of State has referred to the White Paper. Is he aware that, when both his predecessors produced White Papers on these matters, they made statements to the House and faced full questioning on them? Why did he run away from the House yesterday?

First of all, I made a long speech during the Budget debate, which very closely foreshadowed the White Paper. Secondly, I was aware of the fact that I should be answering Questions on incomes policy today.

But is the Minister not aware of the fact that in his own White Paper he puts a maximum increase on incomes of 3½ per cent. during the coming year and in ensuing years, whereas manifestly the cost of living increases in this year will be two or three times that amount? Would he not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) now that there will be grave industrial unrest as a result of his policy?

It is perfectly clear and has been to everyone that, during the first year following devaluation, 1968, prices would rise more than incomes. That is part of the penalty to be paid for devaluation. But it must be balanced against the very great advantages to the future of the British economy that devaluation will bring.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's determination to restrict wages makes the workers more than ever determined to go forward for increases of wages? Would he not look again at the problem of productivity as a possible means of achieving the desired objective, rather than restricting wages?

The second part of my hon. Friend's question is the important one, when he turns to productivity. While it is true that the 3½ per cent. ceiling is meant to be a ceiling, there is a hole for genuine productivity bargains, and that policy will be applied.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that the long speech to which he has referred was made when no questions could be asked or answered? Was his failure to make a statement yesterday on the White Paper due to his belief that it was too trivial or too unpopular?

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the report of my speech in HANSARD, he will see that I gave way at least 10 times.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree, firstly, that we need no advice from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about freezing wages, because they would freeze wages by creating large-scale unemployment? Secondly, can he now say whether the Government will continue their consultations with the T.U.C. along the lines of the rather more rapid economic growth foreshadowed in the T.U.C.'s recent economic review?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are prepared to consider with the T.U.C. and with industry all measures which will lead to a more rapid rate of growth. That is what the planning consultations that we are having and have had with them are about. As to the first part of his remarks, my hon. Friend is quite right. The alternative being urged upon us from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is the simple one of large-scale unemployment and deflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the action he has taken pursuant to the visit of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to Sunderland.

Action has been taken on all the points raised. The most important point was that of the Pennywell site, and as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade announced on 22nd February, the Board of Trade has entered into negotiation to acquire the site.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what recommendations the Northern Economic Planning Council has made to improve the prospects of employment in the Sunderland and Wearside area.

The Northern Economic Planning Council has made no specific recommendation about Sunderland and Wearside. The Council is, however, concerned at the high level of unemployment in this area and supports the Government's efforts to bring new industries to Wearside and to encourage the formation of a shipbuilding group on the Wear.

While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has done, may I ask whether he realises that these Answers are not really satisfactory and that what we want is to have prompt and concerted action about the problems of Sunderland? Above everything else, we want a more ambitious provision of employment.

Yes, Sir. That is why I mentioned the Pennywell Estate, which will add considerably to the amount of industrial land available. In addition, I know that my right hon. Friend will rejoice, as I did when I heard on Monday, about the £10 million of orders which have now been placed on the Wear with shipbuilders there.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been advised by the Economic Planning Council of the detrimental effect on employment on Wearside of the Government's decision not to take up the South African arms order?

No, Sir. I have not been informed of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to facilitate appeals by economic development councils in event of disagreement between them and himself on the recommendations of such councils.

No, Sir.

Is it not a fact that these development councils are Ministerial creatures of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he appoints them? As the majority of them now are making recommendations which are totally contrary to Ministerial policy, who is to arbitrate in the matter, or is the Minister finally arrogating to himself the position or an economic gauleiter without any regard to the recommendations of his Midlands Council?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman means economic planning councils, not development councils. He should bear in mind that there is no such body as the one to which he refers in his Question. These are advisory bodies, and the Government, in the last resort, have to make decisions in the light of the interests of the whole country, not just the self-interest of individual localities, which is what the hon. Gentleman is pursuing.

In view of that very unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by what percentage wages have risen since the sign ing of the Declaration of Intent on prices and incomes; and by how much it was estimated they would rise, during the same period, before the declaration was signed.

rose—

Hurry up.

I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House, and to the hon. Member, for the delay.

I thought that the Government believed in planning. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he brought in the Declaration of Intent without having made any plans for the growth of incomes during the next three years?

I did not bring in the Declaration of Intent, but I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was the first step in the evolution of a prices and incomes policy, and that it was what its title suggests, a declaration of intent.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in money wages in Britain since 1964 has been one of the lowest in any West European country? Would he also confirm that the rate of increase in unearned incomes in this country since 1961 has been among the highest?

I am not sure about the answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question about unearned incomes, but if he puts down a Question I shall try to deal with it. As regards increases in earnings, I think that the increase in Britain during this period is not out of line with increases in incomes in comparable European countries. Where we have fallen behind is in the increase in output which should go with it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he takes that long to find Answers to Questions we shall need injury time added on? Can he say why the original object of the Government's policy, which was to keep incomes in line with increases in real output, has been changed to merely keeping increases in incomes at a somewhat slower rate than the increase in the cost of living, which is what the White Paper now does?

I do not accept that there has been the change suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for prices, incomes and productivity.

On a point of order. In view of the great importance of this Question, and so that we may have more than the minute or two that we will otherwise have, I wonder whether the Minister will agree to answer this Question at the end of Question Time?

That is a matter for the Minister.

I think that we have substantial time in which to deal with this Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Windy."] It is for Mr. Speaker to decide how long he wishes this Question to go on, but we have at least 10 minutes in which to deal with it, and I start by saying that the White Paper on Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969 was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) knows, published yesterday.

On a point of order. As I am particularly anxious to reach Question No. 24, and do not want 10 minutes spent on this Question, may I ask whether it is true that I can terminate answers to this Question by merely saying that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply?

That is so.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that he may avoid considerable industrial disruption if he concen trates on the basic voluntary part of the statement in paragraph 11? In this way he will use his compulsory powers only in the last resort, indeed if at all.

I am clear, as are the Government, that there has to be a tremendous reliance on voluntary cooperation if this policy is to work. We look on these powers which we foreshadow in the White Paper as being the buttress to what is still essentially a voluntary policy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he proposes to keep the net result of wage negotiations at four separate levels, as indicated in the White Paper, within one ceiling?

This is basically a problem for those who are concerned with direct negotiations, but I have no doubt that this will prove practicable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an ill-thought-out piece of work, with very confused ideas indeed? As this is bound to lead to industrial antagonism among trade unions and workers, I appeal to my right hon. Friend—and I mean genuinely appeal—to take this back and drop the whole concept of a policy of compulsory wage legislation.

I always listen with great care to my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot give him the assurance for which he asks. There are problems in a policy of this kind, but I think that he is exaggerating the difficulties we will encounter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his White Paper he is trying to restrict all incomes to a certain level, including individual incomes, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under the close company regulations issued under the 1965 Finance Act, is at this time instructing the Inland Revenue that close company directors must take more income during this year and next, whether they like it or not?

The hon. Gentleman has pointed to a well-known contradiction in policy. It has existed ever since 1945. The reason why my right hon. Friend wants close companies to distribute more of their profits is so that he can tax them all the more, whereas they would avoid taxation if they simply ploughed back profits.

As the White Paper allows for increases above the 3½ per cent. norm if there is an increase in production and output, may we take it that if professional agitators cause more strikes, and foster more strikes, they will be entitled to claim increases for this work?

That is rather difficult to foresee, but no doubt if a serious claim were made on behalf of agitators for pay increases above 3½ per cent. I would have to refer it to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

As the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government's disasters of the past three years have been caused, not by soaring wages, but by stagnating production, and also by soaring Government expenditure, is not the effect of the White Paper going to be that when the whole policy explodes it will destroy confidence at home and abroad, quite unnecessarily?

The lesson is clear that the main emphasis of policy must be to get productivity up in this country. The difficulty here, and the reason why the short-term need is so great, is that we cannot get a sustainable substantial increase in productivity year by year over the next 18 months. We can get some increase, but we cannot get an increase of the order that will make it unnecessary to have an incomes and prices policy.

Is it not the ca e that the 3½ per cent. ceiling is by no means rigid, and that the Budget proposals provided for the contingency of an increase of more than that figure?

As my hon. Friend points out, there is an upper case forecast for the increase in production this year. But the policy, as he says, is not a rigid one. In so far as increases in income can be genuinely attributed to increases in productivity, then, of course, they can go through the ceiling. I think that this is a very important and constructive element in the new policy.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is the appealing complexity of this mass of statutory and non-statutory legislation which will in fact militate directly against that which he has just said is his primary aim—to increase productivity and get expansion going? Does he not realise that he would do much better by listening to many of his hon. Friends, and hon. Members on this side, and scrapping this statutory policy?

I have not heard much wisdom from the other side of the House, though I have heard some interesting suggestions from behind me. Incomes policy and prices policy are complex matters and they remain complex whether one is relying wholly on a voluntary system or on a voluntary system buttressed by statutory powers.

Are the proposals outlined in this White Paper regarded by the Government as a permanent feature of our national life? If not, why is my right hon. Friend seeking powers to renew them at the end of 18 months.

The White Paper makes it clear that we are seeking powers for the next 18 months, which is the crucial period, during which we expect to get this massive switch of resources into the balance of payments. We also say in the White Paper that we are leaving open, and leaving ourselves with, the possibility of renewing all or some of the powers at the end of that 18 months. This, of course, indicates the obvious fact that one cannot be absolutely certain of the time scale at the end of which we shall have achieved this victory in the balance of payments which we are seeking.

But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his predecessor told the House that the previous legislation was for one year and that that was the critical period? Those promises have been broken; why should we believe him?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that, in the intervening period, we have had to face this great problem of devaluation of the £—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] This is not the occasion to go into all the causes of that, but, if we did, a lot would be said about the handling of the British economy by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not know of any independent or serious observer of the British scene who denies that, in this year, after devaluation, we need a prices and incomes policy—and I think that, in their hearts, hon. Gentlemen opposite know it too.

rose—

On a point of order. In order to terminate these unfair Parliamentary blood sports against the Secretary of State, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment, in view of that unsatisfactory Answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the North-West Economic Planning Council.

During the past three years the North-West Economic Planning Council has made considerable progress towards evolving a planning strategy for the economic and physical development of the region. It will shortly be publishing its next report entitled "North-West Strategy II". In addition, the Government have sought and received the Council's advise on a wide range of questions relevant to regional planning.

But is not the position of the Council impossible while there are three or four Ministries and dozens of councils with executive powers? Therefore, pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, should we not have a Minister for the region with specific executive powers under one particular Ministry, rather than a series of Ministries, as we have at present?

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the planning councils are backed by a planning board, which has just this function: it is a single body bringing together the various Departments concerned with the problems of the regions.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement about the composition and programme of the body set up by his Department on 20th March, 1968, to coordinate the planning strategy for South-East England.

The composition of the commissioning body for the proposed technical study is set out in my announcement of 20th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 111–113.] Its task will be to reach agreement on the broad scope of the work and the machinery for carrying it out. My hon. Friend will be holding the first meeting shortly.

When is it likely that the proposals arising from this investigation will start to be acted upon? Would my right hon. Friend agree that this body must be involved in some way in the general inquiry into the site of the third London Airport? In that case, how will it be so involved?

There will, of course, be continuing and close liaison between the inquiry into the third London Airport and the body which will be carrying out this further development of the regional strategy for the South-East.