asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress has been made in the last month in the consultations with the National Economic Development Council over the planning document he is preparing for discussion with that Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs having regard to the revised economic policies announced on 22nd November, 1968, what amendments he now proposes in his revised economic plan for early publication.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs at what intervals he intends to publish statements of the economic prospects.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now state a date when he expects to conclude his discussions on the new planning document with the National Economic Development Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now state what he expects to conclude his discussions on the new planning document with the National Economic Development Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has yet placed before the National Economic Development Council a planning document assessing the economic prospect up to 1972; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will confine the number of alternative forecasts of the economic prospects until 1972 to one.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of his national planning document.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of his national planning document.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what was the result of his discussion with the National Economic Development Council on the new national planning document.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the new planning document now in course of preparation.

The draft planning document prepared by officials as a basis for discussion by the National Economic Development Council was circulated to members on Monday, 2nd December. It assessed the economic prospect to 1972 in terms of a range of possibilities for economic growth. The draft was not finalised until after 22nd November, 1968, and was, therefore, able to take account of measures announced on that day.

May I send my good wishes and those of the whole House to the Secretary of State for a speedy and complete recovery from his illness?

We will certainly not be damned, anyway. I have already said that the document has been produced by officials for discussion at the N.E.D.C. Those discussions are described in my main Answer. We are now working on further papers which we have been asked to produce in time for the January meeting. That meeting will determine whether or not we can get full agreement and, when we have seen how that goes, we can look at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about publication.

On the question of making forecasts, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he and his Department would be much better employed going over their past, seeing how wrong their forecasts have been and learning from the deplorable results of those mistakes a degree of modesty which might lead them to refrain from misleading every-body in future?

If hon. Members on both sides of the House were to spend their time going back on the ghosts of Christmas past they would not feel too happy about the results. We are now producing a document, which I have described, on a completely new basis and we are confident of the results.

The right hon. Gentleman has still not answered a most important question. Why is it that these proposals and this plan have not been put before the House? Is it true that earnings are to be restricted to an annual average increase of 3½per cent.?

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are schizophrenic about this. One of them wants us to be damned, while some of them want us to go on and produce the document. If only they would make up their minds. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the rate of growth, I am not responsible for what appears in the newspapers. I simply said that we are discussing a wide range of possibilities, and that is the fact.

Is it true that the document holds out no hope at all for a reduction in the present burden of taxation before 1972? Would the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to place a Green Paper before the House after the January meeting so that hon. Members have something to be going on with?

I said that, in preparation for the January meeting, we are now preparing papers which were asked for at the last meeting of the Council. Those papers will then be analysed and discussed at the meeting; and, at that stage, we will be able to decide whether or not they can be produced. I assure hon. Members that I am taking the feeling of the House and that I do not necessarily dissent from it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern)? How do the Government expect to be able to contain the rate of advance in wages during the coming period below the levels achieved during the period of compulsory wage and prices policy?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget strategy that the balance of payments really must be brought into surplus. This is something that we thoroughly intend to do in the next year.

Does the National Plan say when we will get into surplus, what growth rate we can expect and what level of unemployment is expected over the next year?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose pessimism about unemployment I do not share, has seen today's figures, which are very good indeed for the fourth month in succession. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I have already answered the point by saying that I am not committed to a particular growth rate and that we are working on a number of growth rates.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in extending good wishes to the Secretary of State.

I would answer the hon. Gentleman's question about Press leaks by telling him to render unto Mr. Keegan the things that are Mr. Keegan's.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a broad common desire for this planning document to be published so that there may be the widest possible discussion of it in 1969? Does he recognise that the first priority in such a document should be the need for a 6 per cent. rate of economic growth in 1969 and subsequently and that a document which is founded on a 3½ per cent. growth rate is not worth the paper on which it is written?

I have assured the House on three occasions that we are not confined to any specific rate of growth which may have appeared in a newspaper. I accept the need for wide dialogue on this matter. We are doing precisely that in the N.E.D.C. We then intend to discuss these matters in the little N.E.D.C.s with each of the industries—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. We are trying to get as wide a dialogue as possible with industry, a dialogue which, up to now, with the C.B.I. and T.U.C., has been far and away more constructive than anything I have had this afternoon with hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while none of us objects to him having consultations with industry, we object strongly to him ignoring the House of Commons? Will he therefore agree and concede now to publish as a White Paper, Green Paper or Yellow Paper the documents which he has submitted to the N.E.D.C. so that we may have consultations, too? Will he also tell his right hon. Friend that it is not only my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) who will find totally unacceptable a 3½ per cent. rate of growth and that if we are to have any growth rate at all it must be a much higher one than that? Will he—

Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

I was just about to conclude my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Questions concerning the continuity of surpluses of this type must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept what I said earlier; that this document was produced by officials for discussion within the N.E.D.C. One cannot present to Parliament a document which is not in any way finalised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am explaining why—and which has not yet even been discussed adequately with our colleagues in the N.E.D.C. When we have completed that stage, the question of publication will arise. I have said—[Interruption.]

Order.

Answer.

Hon. Members are entitled to ask questions. I am entitled to give the answers.

Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to put personally to the Prime Minister the very strong feeling that clearly there is on both sides of the House about the question of publication? Does he realise that the danger is of creating an entirely new category? If this is to be a private paper for the N.E.D.C, we can understand that, but in that case there should have been no Press conference and no leaks. This House has a right to be informed in front of the Press on matters of this importance.

I do not disagree with one word uttered by the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly, on the question of publication, I will discuss the matter with the Prime Minister. I must not be interpreted as saying that we are opposed to the document's publication. I have not said that.

rose—

Order. Supplementary questions and answers should be reasonably brief. We have many Questions to get through.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that what perturbs many people is the fact that a group of people sitting in "Chequers" are deciding the economic growth potential of this country over the next few years? Is he also aware that this is a matter of such serious importance that we must have an early debate on it and that the papers must be presented to the House so that we, too, can take part in this discussion?

The House is rightly jealous of its position in this matter. I have given an assurance that nothing that we are doing detracts from our responsibility to the House of Commons, but that we must have this dialogue with industry to make sure that that which we produce stands up when industry examines it, and that we shall then want to discuss relevant matters with the House of Commons.

Reverting to the point of substance, could not the right hon. Gentleman get either prediction or results right? What is intolerable is to get both wrong.

We are very optimistic about getting both right this time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he plans to take to contain the rise in the cost per job to public funds of providing employment in the development areas, in view of its rise from£1,130 in 1964–65 to£7,770 in 1967–68.

I do not accept the hon. Member's figures, and would refer him to my reply to his similar Question on 14th November. We intend to continue to strengthen the economy of the development areas, including the provision there of new employment.

If the Minister of State cannot accept my figures, why has he not published his own? Is he aware that these figures are derived from Parliamentary Answers? Does he not realise that no one will believe him until he is brave enough to publish the true figures?

I would advise the hon. Gentleman that it is virtually impossible for him to calculate, on the evidence available to him, and reach the conclu- sion that he has apparently arrived at. In fact, the only development area assistance which is strictly and specifically relevant to the provision of new jobs is under the Local Employment Acts, and the figure is£630 per job.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House, if not on the other, there is a strong feeling that he should resist any attempt to reduce the support being given to development areas as long as unemployment is as high as it still is in many of our constituencies?

I take note of my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that he will be aware that the policies in train are having the desired effect in the development areas, and I cannot see any possibility of reduction at this stage.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that neither pressure from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) nor from the Leader of the Opposition will turn the Government aside from continuing their very fine work in the development areas until we are assured of what is the most important thing for any man, which is that he has a job and is able to care for his family?

I am sure that the whole House—or at least hon. Members on this side—will note what my right hon. Friend says. I appreciate the point she makes. In the economic debate just two or three weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition described the area incentives as a Shibboleth. It is high time that the Opposition came fully into the open and told the country, as well as the House, their attitude towards the generation of new employment opportunities in those areas.

Is the Minister of State aware that the root of the question lies in the argument about value for money; that we on this side do not share the optimism exhibited on the benches opposite that the Government are getting value for money in terms of new jobs? Will he not recognise that there is a very good case for increasing spending on the infrastructure rather than individually subsidising individual firms?

It must be understood that a good deal of time is needed to gauge the influence of particular aspects of incentives. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the figures of industrial development certificates show that the combination of assistance to both labour-intensive and capital-intensive industries is attracting a large number of new jobs. We are not complacent about the position, but the development areas as a whole have been strengthening their industrial basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proportion of the gross national product he estimates will be taken up by the manufacturing and construction industries between 1968 and 1972.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the proportion of the gross national product in 1972 that will be absorbed by manufacturing and construction investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimates he has made of the proportion of the gross national product over the next five years that will be absorbed by manufacturing and construction investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the proportion of gross national product which will be devoted to capital investment in the period 1969 to 1972.

In consultation with the N.E.D.C, we are discussing the implication of a range of possible growth rates of output and investment up to 1972. The need to increase productivity and to switch resources into exports and import saving clearly implies that output and investment in manufacturing should be higher in relation to total national product than in the past.

Is it not a clear fact at the present time that the figure for out investment is lower than it is amongst any of our industrial competitors? Now that these consultations are at an end, can the Under-Secretary of State tell the House clearly what proposals he has made, and what ideas he has, for improving the position?

On the first point, the hon. Gentleman has to take into account the fact that the ratio between ourselves and Germany and ourselves and Japan has improved since this Government came into office and that, in fact, while hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office we were virtually at the bottom of the league table in investment terms throughout that last decade. As to our industrial competitors, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that in investment terms we invest proportionately more than the United States.

Is it not the fact that Japanese and German investment has gone down rather than that ours has gone up? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if we want more investment, we must have a Government that do not attack capital, do not tax capital, and have a progressive attitude towards savings?

On the last occasion when the hon. Member raised this question I pointed out that, taking the last five years, during the three years that we have been in office the investment ratio in relation to G.N.P. has been better than when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were in office. As to confidence, I should have thought that the mischievous efforts of the Leader of the Opposition have certainly been damaging nationally and inter nationally.

Will my hon. Friend agree that one way to get rid of capital investment is to go for a sustained rate of economic growth, and to prevent an excessive outflow of private capital to advanced countries abroad?

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. This was the whole point of the exercise which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was trying to describe, amidst the catermauling of hon. Members opposite, when replying to Question No. 1.

If the level of investment is as disgracefully low as hon. Members opposite suggest, what is happening to the hundreds of millions of£s which this Government are giving to private investment?

This is having to be done, in fact, in order to encourage private industry to invest with a sense of social responsibility which it has not had in terms of regional development.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs taking the national average at 100, what is the proportion of public expenditure per head of population spent in the North-West area and Scotland, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how public expenditure per head of population in the North-West Region compares with the national average.

Most items of public expenditure are not separately identifiable for English regions, and it is not possible to give either of the comparisons asked for.

Is it not a fact that twice as much per head is spent in Scotland as is spent in the North-West of England? In view of the special problems of smoke pollution, dereliction and slum clearance in the North-West, will my hon. Friend undertake to try to close this gap? Is he aware that on the basis of these figures, there would be a very good case for a Lancastrian Nationalist Party?

Replying to my hon. Friend's point about the Scottish position, if we take the national average for Great Britain as being 100, the corresponding identifiable figure for Scotland is 123, but I would repeat what I said about the difficulty of extracting individual regional figures in order to make a comparison with Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman may find difficulty in giving any figures in answer to the Question, but is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works gave me some figures on this topic two days ago which showed that in 1966 and 1967 expenditure on new construction by the public sector per head of population was 20 per cent. and 17 per cent. lower in the North-West Region than the national average? Is not that position disgraceful?

There is an essential difference between those p.e. figures and the construction figures, as I know the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. There are other figures. I note those he quotes from the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and I note his concern, but that is not in accord with the Question on the Order Paper.

Is the Minister aware that his initial Answer was remarkably evasive? In order that we can see whether there is any credibility in this, can he say which economic services can be broken down and which cannot be broken down?

The public expenditure figures are made up of all sections of public expenditure. If we talk in terms of per capita figures it is even more difficult to arrive at this conclusion because the requirements of areas vary so widely. They are so very considerably different that to talk in terms of per capita means nothing at all. I seriously doubt the percentage figures for the North-West previously quoted by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr Blaker).

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the result of his discussions with the North-West Economic Planning Council about the Council's document, "Strategy II; The North West of the 70s."

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what further representations he has received from the North-West Economic Planning Council on further economic assistance to the region.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has now had discussions with the North-West Economic Planning Council over "Strategy II" and the need for further investment in the North-West; and what, in view of his refusal to treat investment per head as a sufficient criterion for making regional comparisons, are his criteria for regional public investment.

My right hon. Friend together with other Ministers concerned, had hoped to meet representatives of the Planning Council before Christmas to discuss "Strategy II". The meeting has had to be postponed but will be rearranged as soon as possible. This will give the Council an opportunity to make further representations about the problems of the region. Ministerial discussions with the North-West Council, and the Government's subsequent reply, will cover also the criteria for public investment.

Was not that exactly the Answer given six weeks ago when this Question was put down? Why have there been no discussions, which were promised, meanwhile, particularly since the Minister's hon. Friend and my hon. Friends have pointed out earlier today that the North-West is seriously prejudiced concerning public expenditure, and has been ever since this Government have been in power?

And long before.

The hon. and learned Member referred to the Answer I gave six weeks ago. I am sure that he does not deliberately overlook the fact that I have already said arrangements had been made for a meeting before Christmas, but, because of circumstances beyond our control, we have not been able to have it. We will meet the North-West Planning Council as soon as possible after the Recess to discuss the whole of the implications and strategy.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is now an overwhelming case for giving areas such as the North-West, North-East Lancashire in particular, the same sort of grant-aid to help to clear derelict sites—of which there is a disproportionate number, and has been throughout the time when hon. Members opposite were in government? Why do the development areas get 85 per cent., while we get considerably less?

The questions posed by my hon. Friend are clearly tied up with the Hunt Committee, which will be reporting very soon to my right hon. Friend. I am sure my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment prematurely. Indeed, I do not know what might appear in the Hunt Report.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he has not answered my Question, that there is great need for public expenditure on roads in the North-West, especially to our ports, and that for the public sector we receive about half the amount that is spent in Scotland?

The hon. Member and his hon. Friends have to make up their minds whether they want the Government to reduce public expenditure or to expand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes. We are constantly subjected to this by the Opposition. I nevertheless appreciate the import and the intent of his Question. There is similar clamour from every region throughout the country on the question of roads and it is receiving attention according to merit.

The hon. Gentleman said that the meeting will take place after the Parliamentary Recess. Why could it not take place on 1st January? Why delay until we come back? Will the hon. Gentleman get it into his head that the North-West has had a raw time compared with the rest of the country, and that this is shown in all the by-election results and will continue?

I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Member based his remarks. When I said "after the Recess", I meant after the Ministerial recess, not necessarily the Parliamentary Recess.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the North-West has had more help from this Government in four years than it had from the Tory Government in 13 years? Will he bear in mind that the North-West is not only a region of great problems but one of great achievements and great potential?

I accept the point made by my hon. Friend. What he has said is not singularly applicable to the North-West. Although great strides have been made in meeting a difficult situation in the region, this is applicable to every region in the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what studies he has carried out into the employment generated by the payment of regional employment premium as compared with the same payment applied to the improvement of the economic infrastructure; and in respect of which region studies have been made.

It is difficult and to some extent misleading to make comparisons of this kind, but we are keeping the effectiveness of all regional measures under close review.

I trust that the Minister has answered the right Question. Surely his Department cannot expect to be taken seriously as an economic Department until it has made such studies and published the results?

We are constantly studying the whole aspect of employment generated in this field. The hon. Member may be interested to know that there are quite a number of new jobs created as a result of the policies we have in train.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the regional employment premium has the great merit of encouraging development of labour-intensive industries in a development area whereas some of the other policies on machinery and so on tend to encourage capital-intensive industry?

Yes. If my hon. Friend will look at the whole field of techno logical development he will see that there is an increasing tendency to increase capital intensive industries. On I.D.C. approvals related to this Question, applicants for the first nine months of this year estimate that the total additional employment to be created when projects are fully manned is almost 55,000 jobs, of which 38,000 are for males. In the comparable period last year the number was 41,000, of which 27,000 were for males. These figures refer only to jobs to which I.D.C. approvals apply.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what check is kept on the allocation of expenditure by the public sector in the different regional planning areas in the light of their economic and social needs.

For regional planning purposes work is concentrated on public expenditure on new construction in the regions. Apart from the continuous review of needs conducted by Government Departments, checks on allocation are provided by the representations from local authorities, who are the principal spending authorities in this field, and the comments of the regional planning councils who receive figures of past and forecast expenditure in this sector.

The Minister said this afternoon that he has studied it once, but will he study once more rather more carefully the table of new construction orders per head of the population for each of the planning regions in 1966–67? In those tables he will see that the North west area has been at the bottom for the last two years. If he has studied them and if he has an adequate check made on the figures, he will see that the North-West needs more than anyone else.

I have already answered in part the question which the hon. Member asks. It is part of the normal duty of Government Departments to obtain the knowledge and information for which he is asking. They have all been very considerably assisted by the work of the regional economic planning councils in this regard.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between the White Paper on the Scottish Economy of 1966 and the revised national plan now being prepared.

The economic assessment for 1972, now under discussion in the N.E.D.C., applies to Great Britain as a whole and so has implications for Scotland. But, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has said on several occasions, the aims set out in the 1966 Scottish White Paper for improvements to the Scottish economy remain unchanged and efforts to achieve these aims are being fully maintained.

As this Scottish White Paper was directly related to the National Plan, which was later abandoned, how can it also be relevant to the new planning document?

I have already said that the new planning document takes into account the 1966 White Paper. There is no contradiction.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the new National Plan will not deviate from the very successful regional development policies, because, if it did, and if it adopted the policies of the Leader of the Opposition, the whole of the North-East of Scotland, the whole of the South-West and the Borders would be excluded from those policies, with great ill-effect on the employment problem? Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that in 1964 the Scottish proportion of United Kingdom unemployment was 19·4 per cent and last year it was reduced to 13·3 per cent. because of Government policies?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will have noted, though apparently hon. Members opposite have not, that during the past four months that favourable trend has increased each month and that today's figures, even in December, are again showing improvements on the unemployment levels in September. This is the result of the Government's development area policies; and we propose to maintain them.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the total cost to. public funds of his Department during the current calendar year; and how this figure compares with the corresponding figure for 1967, after allowing for changes in functions and responsibilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what reductions he is now proposing to make in the numbers employed in his department; and what reduction this will produce in the estimates of his Department for the coming financial year.

The cost of the Department in the current calendar year is estimated at£1,340,000. The corresponding figure for 1967, adjusted to take account of the transfer of responsibility for prices and incomes policy to the De- partment of Employment and Productivity, was£1,210,000. I do not foresee any further significant reduction in numbers or cost.

What did the tax payers get for the£1·3 million spent last year? Would not any taxpayer listening to Ministerial replies this afternoon think that this money could be saved, to great advantage to the nation's economy?

Members of the public, after listening to the quality of the questions, might well reach the same conclusion. We believe that the Department has done an exemplary job.

In the light of an earlier Answer, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the one form of saving in public expenditure which would result in universal applause would be the abolition of his Department and, to use their own jargon, would it not be better to redeploy them into activities helpful to exports?

I do not agree. To eliminate this great Department would be very short-sighted indeed. The economic planning which has gone on is a great advance on anything which went on before.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement upon the report of the Humber Feasibility Study Unit with particular reference to the starting date of building the Humber Bridge.

As explained in my answer to the hon. Member on 11th December last, the Government hope to publish the Humberside Report in three or four months' time. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual elements in the Report at this stage.

Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that this added delay merely aggravates the feelings on Humberside of M.Ps., industrialists, and those in local government alike? Does not my hon. Friend accept that it is impossible to plan Humberside without joining the two banks of the Humber? In view of this, why do not the Government at least state that they will build a Humber bridge, even if they do not give us at this moment a starting date?

I know that my hon. Friend is deeply concerned, as are many of my Ion. Friends, not only about the report, but about the Humber bridge itself. I cannot add anything to what has already been said on the subject. Other planning work is still going on and can proceed even in advance of the presentation and consideration of the recommendations in this report.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what further study he has made of the economic advantages of retaining British Standard Time through the winter; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make an estimate of the loss or gain of production caused to date by the introduction of British Standard Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what inquiries are being made by his department to ascertain the effect upon industrial production of British Standard Time in the winter.

A few months experience is an insufficient basis for assessing any effects which the introduction of British Standard Time may have had on industrial production. Although the Government placed little weight on the economic arguments when introducing this measure, such arguments will, of course, be covered in the comprehensive review in the spring of 1970.

When will the Government recognise that they cannot stop the sun from rising earlier on President de Gaulle and points further east in Europe than it does in Britain and that we there fore have a worse problem of dark mornings than these other countries have?

At least the Government accepted the responsibilities of facing up to this issue. The Opposition did not even take a line on it. If they can not accept the responsibilities of opposition, they are not fit to accept the responsibilities of Government.

What representations were received from those who were against the introduction of this Measure? In view of the interests North of the Border, what representations, from industry and other wise, against this Measure were received from North of the Border?

As was explained on Second Reading, there were wide consultations. North of the Border there was, in relation to population, a higher pro portion of consultations than took place South of the Border?

asked the Prime Minister if he will publish the representations he has received from the Prime Minister of South Africa concerning the modifications of external guarantees as set out in the "Fearless" proposals; and what reply he has sent.

I have had no such representations, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to scotch the rumours altogether that the Government are pre paring to make concessions beyond those offered in "Fearless"? Does he appreciate that he would have widespread respect and support in the House if, in the light of the intransigence of the regime, he felt that he should withdraw the "Fearless" proposals altogether?

In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, we have made it clear that we have gone as far as we can in this matter and that we regard the "Fear less" proposals as reasonable and right and not subject to further extension. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, he will understand that the Government do not accept the advice he gives.

asked the Prime Minister what overseas visits he is planning for the next 12 months.

On my visit to Bonn and West Berlin next February, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 10th Dec ember. Apart from this, I have at this stage no plans to announce for overseas visits later in the year.

As the Prime Minister now feels that there is a strong underlying improvement in our economy, would it not reinforce this feeling in the world if he went on an extended tour of the Commonwealth to meet the people there after the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference and particularly if on the way he called in at Gibraltar to show that Britain totally rejects the United Nations resolution?

With regard to the extremely serious point made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his supplementary question, as he will know I was in Gibraltar only a few weeks ago. On that occasion I had the opportunity on Gibraltar television of telling the Gibraltarians:

"We shall…stand four-square behind you and defend your rights to judge for yourselves where your interests and your own future should lie."

When my right hon. Friend goes to Bonn next year, will he inform Herr Joseph Strauss that we can do without his strictures on the British trade union movement and will he remind him that the British trade union movement was a bulwark against Fascism in this country and has been of great help to Germany?

There seems to be some doubt about what in fact the Federal Finance Minister said last week, or indeed whether he made that speech at all. However, I am sure that if Herr Strauss reads, with his well-known interest in our affairs, HANSARD he will know at any rate what my hon. Friend thinks on this point.

Has the Prime Minister marked the contrast between the Government's attitude to wards sovereignty over Gibraltar and that over the Falkland Islands?

There has been no contrast at all. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, applaud the words used on behalf of this country by Lord Caradon yesterday. The contrast which I noticed is that between what the right hon. Gentleman is saying now and what he said when I criticised his decision to offer frigates to Spain when the Spaniards were claiming Gibraltar.

For the avoidance of doubt, is the Prime Minister aware that there will be overwhelming support for the views expressed by Lord Caradon at the United Nations in regard to the Gibraltar matter and an overwhelming feeling of solidarity for the people of Gibraltar, who wish to remain British?

Yes. I was not in any doubt that that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman, of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of the whole House.

When the Prime Minister is considering overseas visits will he consider visiting Japan, which has made enormous economic progress without anything like the defence expenditure that we have? If he goes to that district, will he also try to visit the island of Okinawa, which wants to get back to Japan and not be an American nuclear base?

It does not seem to be necessary for me to visit Japan, since that country has such a passionate apologist in the House in the shape of my hon. Friend.

Could the right hon. Gentleman make any proposed visit of indefinite duration, so that every one would benefit, except his host?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is rapidly showing how keen he is to compete with his hon. Friend the Membed for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in these subtle intellectual jokes, will know that I have this question regularly put to me, either by himself or some other hon. Gentleman, at about this time of year. Even so, it does not stop my wishing both hon. Gentlemen a very happy Christmas.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech that he made to the Press Association in London on Tuesday, 26th November, 1968.

I did so, Sir, on 29th November.

But does the Prime Minister recall that in his speech he said that he would do everything possible to obtain the release of Anthony Grey, and since then all we have had, as usual from his Administration, has been words? [Interruption.]

Order. We are on a very serious topic.

When will the Prime Minister take action to obtain the release of Mr. Grey from the barbarous imprisonment which he is undergoing in Peking?

This is a serious question as, if I may say so with respect, you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, too serious to be treated in the way in which the hon. Gentleman treated it in his supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman, I know, would not, on consideration, want to do or say anything which would make more difficult the task of securing the release of Mr. Grey from what he rightly describes as the intolerable conditions of his confinement.

asked the Prime Minister when he is to have his next meeting with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

I have nothing at present to add to what I said in reply to Questions from my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) on 12th December.—[Vol. 775, c. 579–82.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the patient, firm and principled way in which he handled the meetings with Captain O'Neill has earned him the gratitude of all those who have been concerned about Northern Ireland? In the improved at mosphere following the courageous stand of Captain O'Neill, will my right hon. Friend continue to press equally as firmly for full implementation of equality in civil rights and electoral law in Northern Ireland?

It is a mark of what has happened over the past two or three weeks and of the tribute which I said last week I thought the whole House would wish to pay to the courage and firmness shown, that my hon. Friend, who has been very active in these matters, should associate himself with that tribute to Captain O'Neill.

Would it not be timely if the Prime Minister were to pay a wholehearted tribute to Captain O'Neill—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."]—for the enlightened and progressive approach which he has shown to the problems of Northern Ireland?

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls that I did just that a week ago, and I knew that I was speaking for the whole House. At that time, it was qualified by the concern I expressed on behalf of the House that in the difficult situation he was facing last Thursday, other views might be taken on the other side of the Irish Sea. On many occasions I have paid a strong tribute to Captain O'Neill, but I add to anything which I said before the admiration of all of us for the response to what we put to him when he met the Home Secretary and myself a few weeks ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Government are carrying out plenty of reforms of their own, and would it not be wise and timely if this House were now to leave them alone to get on with that which they are fully entitled to do without let or hindrance?

There is no doubt, as I have repeatedly emphasised to Captain O'Neill and to the House, that the reforms which have been called for are under the law and the convention within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Government. But the hon. Gentleman must form his own view, as I know my hon. Friends will, about whether they would have moved so rapidly or whether they would have done what has been done but for the acute concern expressed in many quarters of this House about the fact that these things were not being done with the required speed until a few weeks ago.

asked the Prime Minister which Department is to answer Questions on the application of prices and incomes policy to wage increases.

Questions relating to increases in the public services and nationalised industries are normally answered by the Minister primarily responsible for the service or industry concerned, while those relating to agricultural pay are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Other Questions should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State.

As the First Secretary of State is responsible for saying whether a pay increase is or is not within the terms of the prices and incomes policy, should she not, in effect, submit herself to questioning on all such increases which she has passed, for whatever industry they may be?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern here, and I regret that, when he first tabled the Question, I was not quite clear about the problem which had arisen over the transfer of one of his Questions earlier to, I think, the Minister of Transport from the First Secretary of State.

Will my right hon. Friend repudiate the rumours which are circulating in today's Press that agricultural workers' wages are likely to come under an Order, since we cannot do with any more so-called victories like the one we have had in relation to the building workers?

I know nothing about these rumours regarding agriculture. There is a wage claim being considered, but I am not aware of imminent action. I may be wrong; I am not responsible directly for that Department. As regards the building industry, I know well and understand my hon. Friend's feelings, but the matter was fully dealt with in a fairly long series of supplementary questions answered by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

The Prime Minister must be aware that there is now great public confusion as to what was agreed between industry and the trade unions at "Chequers" last weekend about the growth targets proposed by the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best way of clearing this matter up would be for the Government to publish the document which was discussed at "Chequers "? As there have been such extensive leaks—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your advice, Sir. Is this question in order? The matter which the Leader of the Opposition is now raising was fully dealt with during Questions to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs earlier this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here, he would have heard about it. Are we not now having valuable time consumed on a matter which was more appropriate for another Minister and which was dealt with today?

That may be true, but the Chair gives the Leader of the Opposition some latitude.

I am not asking for any latitude, Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has publicly announced that he is the Minister responsible for presiding over the N.E.D.C. and he was, there fore, responsible for last weekend's decisions.

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman takes a different view of the function of the N.E.D.C. from the one which he took when he was the Minister, but I shall be happy to answer his question nevertheless. The right hon. Gentleman referred to leaks. I am not aware of leaks from last weekend's discussions. I am aware that the Council meeting authorised the director-general of the N.E.D.C. to give information to the Press about the meeting and also gave him general instructions on what he should say. This was done, and as far as I know, it was reasonably and fairly understood and reported. The document to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is a planning document prepared for consultation with, first of all, the N.E.D.C. and then the "little Neddies". When it was presented to the N.E.D.C, we suggested that we first wanted to hear from the two sides of industry and the other N.E.D.C. members whether they felt that it was in the right form, had the right approach and was rightly balanced to form the basis of such consultations. We shall complete the consultations on 14th January at the next meeting of the N.E.D.C. We have already put on the agenda the question whether it should then be published as an interim document ahead of consultations. In this we shall be guided by the views of industry about it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), you said that you gave the Leader of the Opposition a certain amount of latitude. That we can understand, so long as it is understood by all of us that the latitude is related to the Question under discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman's question was wholly unrelated to Question No. Q5. If the right hon. Gentleman is to get that kind of latitude to ask a question completely unrelated to the one under discussion, we, as back-benchers, should have the same rights.

Order. The Chair could not extend the same latitude. At Prime Minister's Question Time through history the Leader of the Opposition has had some latitude in the questions he puts to the Prime Minister.

Further to that point of order. I am prepared to take any latitude I am given. But on this question, the future of the prices and incomes policy must rely to a certain extent on the element of growth the Government believe will take place in the economy. Will the Prime Minister now say whether the official statement—

That is not a point of order.

Order. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we are on a point of order.

Further to the point of order, the right hon. Gentleman has not even read the Question under discussion. It is not about the prices and incomes policy. It is about Ministers answering questions related to the policy, which is quite a different matter. I repeat that if Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is on quite a legitimate point of order.

In the interests of back benchers, we should get this point very clear. If the Leader of the Opposition is to have latitude, which means, on the interpretation we have just had, that he can ask a question completely unrelated to the one asked, back-benchers should have the same right. I ask for no more.

There is a simple answer. The questions were not completely unrelated, though the amount of relation was probably a little narrower or a little scarcer than I would allow in the case of an hon. Member. But I must give both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in the inter change of questions, a certain amount of latitude. Both of them do not hesitate to take it.

Further to the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition has claimed that the prices and incomes policy largely depends on the operation of "Neddy" and the rest. Does that mean that, since the success of the policy depends, for instance, on our military expenditure, it is in order to ask supplementary questions on military expenditure on this Question?

Order. I shall rule on the question as it comes.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the latitude you have extended to the Leader of the Opposition based on your chivalrous attitude to minorities in the House?

Order. That is a most ingenious but most useless point of order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that we do not object to giving the Leader of the Opposition latitude, but that he takes too much longitude?

Order. That has been said before. I even said it on one occasion.

Reverting to the Question, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very difficult to argue the social justice of rigid wage restraint on the poorest sections of the community when shareholders have been very unlucky during the past 12 months if they have not increased the capital value of their holding by 33⅓ per cent.?

My hon. Friend is wrong to use the word "rigid" in that context. He will be aware from both his study of the White Paper published nearly a year ago and of the Bill which became law last summer that very special criteria are relevant in the case of lower-paid workers. He will also know the position as regards profits and dividends. Dividends are now subject to statutory control.

Further to the Question, which has been widened still further by the hon. Gentleman, will the Prime Minister now say definitely whether the trade unions accepted the growth target in the document put forward by the Government?

The problem is that the discussions are confidential until there is a statement and publication.

Why?

That was the view taken by the former Government when "Neddy" was formed. We have been much more informative about actions taken under "Neddy". I well understand the concern of the right hon. Gentleman. That is why the Government will be happy to publish the document, with such amendments as industry requires. On the last occasion of a similar publication, the industry complained that it had not been consulted effectively before publication. We are now going through the consultation, and at the earliest possible moment I should like to see the document published. That deals with the point the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am trying to give as fair an account of what happened as I can. The position on the growth rate is that the Government have made it plain, and the trade unions have accepted, that the balance of payments must have priority over other considerations. I think that that will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. We have therefore postulated for planning purposes, subject to consultation, a lower growth rate for the next four years than, for example, the trade unions are talking about for the coming year. But we have said that this is not a rigid figure. To the extent that imports improve further—and they have improved quite rapidly—a growth rate comparable to that which the trade unions are talking about should be possible, provided it was export-based and not based on home consumption, which would lead to inflation. I think that that is the fairest short answer I can give, but I recognise the desire of the House to have fuller information when the broad national consultations are completed in January.