asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make an early official visit to Scotland.

My right hon. Friend and I have been to Scotland five times in the past 12 months, and we both have plans to visit Scotland at least three times before the end of this year.

Is the Minister aware of the great concern in Scotland about the difficulties facing the building industry there, especially in view of the liquidation in the last three months of three large well-known firms, all of which have been engaged in public contracting?

We are aware of the difficulties affecting the building industry all over the country, but I would not have thought that the industry's difficulties in Scotland are as great as the hon. Member suggests. I am not always sure that it is wise to refer to liquidations and bankruptcies and to suggest in such references that these are the cause of particular difficulties. These arise for other reasons as well.

When my hon. and right hon. Friends visit Scotland in the near future, as I hope they will, will they look at the suggested new prison for women to be built at Cornton, near Stirling, and give consideration to the fact that this project will cost £1½ million and, I understand, is to be built by borstal boy labour? Will he look into the matter to ensure that the interests of the building industry are safeguarded?

I certainly will.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he has now obtained the permission of the members of the Bolton Committee to publish his Department's evidence to that body.

I have now arranged to provide copies of this evidence for the Library and others who may be interested.

While I welcome the Minister's decision, may we know why this has not been done for such a long time?

There is no particular reason why it was not done before. It is simply that the matter did not arise until now.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a further statement on the present brick stockpile.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what action he now proposes to take to reduce brick stocks from their present high levels.

At the end of March stocks of bricks were 1,124 million. As I said in the House last month, I expect the industry to benefit progressively from the measures announced by the Government to stimulate the housebuilding programme.—[Vol. 799, c.198.]

Does the Minister agree that this is another Labour record, a record glut? Will he be kind enough to explain the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) about " planning the bricks "?

I find the present brick stocks far too high. On that I think the hon. Member and I would agree. Nevertheless, the fact remains that as demand increases so the surplus is shown in its true capacity. I am seeing members of the Brick Development Association tomorrow and I think they will point out that if there were a great expansion now what appears to be a large glut might not be so large.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that stocks of bricks this spring have been the highest in our history? Will he confirm that the brick manufacturers probably believed the Prime Minister in his remarks about the National Plan and expansion which never came about?

Certainly the brick glut, or stockpile, at the moment is the highest there has been. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, it is certainly higher than it ought to have been, but I noticed that Sir Ronald Stewart, Chairman of the London Brick Company, was quoted in the Financial Times on 6th May as saying that there are signs of strenthening in demand.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the infusion of many new Labour councillors to the local authorities will do a great deal to expand local authority building?

I think that if we go on like this there will be more Labour councillors than there are bricks.

In view of the Prime Minister's pledge to plan the bricks and the fact that the target of the National Plan has been missed by no less than 33 per cent., can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we are likely to have on television a pledge to plan the bricks or not to plan the bricks this time?

I think that if the hon. Member waits, let us say, until the end of the year he will find that the brick situation is very satisfactory to all parties.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will undertake further research into the effect upon construction output of all-the-year round British Standard Time.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will place in the Library a copy of the report of his National Consultative Council on the subject of the effect of British Standard Time on the construction industry.

The requirements of the current review of British Standard Time are met by the survey of the industry recently undertaken by my Department on behalf of my right hon. Friend's National Consultative Council. Copies of this were placed in the Library on 16th April.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the Government are to take a decision in July or August on the whole future of British Standard Time? Will he make the strongest representation to the Home Secretary that B.S.T. has added £30 million to building costs?

Without accepting wholly what the hon. Member has said, we will of course accept our responsibility for stating the case on behalf of the industry to the Home Secretary.

To strengthen the Minister's hand, will he consider conducting a survey of the other Government Departments to find how much their time has been wasted and their costs have been raised by this ridiculous decision?

It is not our job to consider surveys of other Departments, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

In view of the fact that the survey carried out by the Ministry came down firmly, on both the trade unions' and the employers' side, against continuation of British Standard Time, will my hon. Friend draw the attention of other Departments concerned about the future of British Standard Time to this and ensure that the construction industry does not have another winter with British Standard Time?

I would not be prepared to guarantee that we shall not have another winter on British Standard Time. Our job is to represent the interests of the building industry in this examination of the effects of British Standard Time. This we shall do.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will hold a public inquiry into the deviations which have been announced from the Martin Buchanan plan for Whitehall.

No, Sir. The Martin Buchanan Reports were welcomed by the Government as a broad framework within which future development in the area should take place. That is still the position.

Since the Martin Buchanan Report was based on the exclusion of through traffic from Parliament Square, is it not highly unrealistic to continue to work on portions of that plan when its main prop has been pulled away?

I do not think that any useful purpose would be served in setting up the public inquiry for which the hon. Gentleman asked.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what expenditure he has sanctioned in the Bristol area in each of the last five years.

Not all the information is readily available. However, the main expenditure on capital and running costs for accommodation provided by the Ministry, including that for the Post Office and other repayment clients, in and around Bristol was for the five years starting 1965–66 as follows:

Will my hon. Friend confirm that this marks a significant increase in the amount of expenditure in the Bristol area? Will he accept my congratulations to his Department and the Government, as this reflects the Government's intention, and their carrying-out of that intention, to provide the citizens of Bristol with telephones and a greater degree of public services than ever before?

Too long.

Some hon. Members say " Too long ". I thought that my hon. Friend's supplementary question was almost too good. I can confirm that the expenditure is a substantial improvement on the yearly expenditure in the last five years in office of the Conser- vative Party. I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) why information is not available regarding building and construction firms in Scotland which have gone into liquidation in recent years; and if he ill make a statement;

Records have not been kept in the form previously requested by the hon. Member. I have, however, now obtained limited information from the first quarter of 1969, which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. No information is available for other than limited companies.

In reply to an earlier Question the Minister said that he was not concerned about liquidation figures as pointers to the health of the industry. Will he accept that we in Scotland are concerned about the figures of liquidations of building firms in Scotland? Is he aware that 18,000 building and construction workers in Scotland, 9½ per cent. of our building labour force, are unemployed? We in Scotland want to see something done about this.

I do not think that my right hon. Friend said that we were not concerned about liquidations anywhere. We are concerned about them. But we ask hon. Members to be careful about attributing liquidations and bankruptcies solely to the political climate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that information could never be entirely helpful in explaining these matters unless there is a full disclosure of accounts going back over the years, which the Opposition have always resisted, and that we should have to make very careful studies of managerial practices over that period of years?

That was precisely what I meant when I respectfully cautioned hon. Members about attributing liquidations and bankruptcies solely to political issues.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what sums were paid out during 1969 in compensation under the terms of Part II of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953; and whether he will specify the number of applications for compensation which were received.

The figures are £14,709 and eight respectively.

I am rather disappointed by that figure, which is somewhat down on the 1966 figure, when it was thought proper to spend about £20,000. May I also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report by Sir David Walsh on the protection of field monuments and his conclusion that monuments are being destroyed at such a rate that the problem needs speedy and decisive action? That means spending money. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that more will be spent in future years?

We are very concerned about it. We want to give every possible assistance, and we do so, even to the extent of facing up to the cost of compensation. If my hon. Friend has particular cases in mind I shall be glad to consider them.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what change he expects in the index in the cost of new construction in the course of 1970.

It is too early to make a reliable forecast of the movement in construction costs in 1970.

Is the Minister aware of the E.D.C.'s estimate that construction costs may rise by between 5 and 7 per cent? Is not that disturbing? Does the right hon. Gentleman plan any measures to combat that rise?

The National Federation of Building Trades Employers believes that there should be about a 3 per cent. rise as a result of the increase under the productivity agreement, provided employers do not get a return in productivity. But they probably will, and that is the point of it. Material costs are expected to rise by 2 to 3 per cent. The whole forecast must be seen in the light of those two assessments.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the value at constant prices of house-building output in each of the past three years; and what estimate he has made of the likely value of house-building output in 1970.

In 1969, output of private contractors was £968 million valued at 1963 prices, in 1968, £1,088 million and in 1967 £1,044 million. The total value of work done is likely to be less than in 1969 but a rise in the level of activity will follow the rise in completions in the private sector which has already started. This rising trend is expected to persist in 1971.

How can the Minister remain so complacent while the building industry crumbles away in his hands, with record brick stocks, record unemployment and the housing programme falling off? Will he recommend his right hon. Friends to abolish the S.E.T. and betterment levy and give priority to loans for house-builders and let them get on with the job?

The hon. Gentleman is out of date as regards lending. He must reread the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. If he thinks that I am complacent about the house-building situation, what must he think of his own Government, which built only four-fifths of the number of houses we have built, and spent £40 less for every £100 we are spending on roads, hospitals and schools?

If we are talking about the value of the output, would my right hon. Friend lend one of his staff to work out what a value-added tax would mean for output, to help the Opposition cost their proposals for a value-added tax on houses?

The effect of a value-added tax would be not to crumble the building industry but to blow it up.

Having made his boasts about his house-building achievements, which will deceive nobody, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects the level of private house-building to rise to the levels attained in 1964?

The measures already announced are beginning to take their effect on house-building. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these measures take a certain amount of time to carry through. Nevertheless, the situation is still infinitely better than it was during the period of the last Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland in two years more private houses were built under the present Government than in any similar period for over 30 years?

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he next proposes to attend a meeting of the Economic Development Committee for Building.

On Monday, 6th July.

I am delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is going back there again because I hope that he will take some action regarding its former gloomy forecast for private house completions. Additional costing in the building industry look like rising—

Order. Supplementary questions must be questions.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why, in view of the City of Westminster's large expenditure on anti-pigeon activities, he continues to licence bird-food sellers in central London.

We do not consider that the modest arrangements in Trafalgar Square have any significant effect on the pigeon problem.

Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Department of Health and Social Security and the Greater London Council, since the Government are unable to protect the ratepayers of London even from this form of chemical warfare, and do something about the growing pollution and danger to health which thousands of people in the area believe to be going on?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so carried away by his own eloquence because, unfortunately for him, the two licensees to sell bird food in Trafalgar Square are both disabled ex-Servicemen. One was licensed ten years ago and the other eight years ago. It was nothing to do with this Government. He had better direct his attention to his right hon. Friends.

rose—

rose—

Mr. Maclennan.

On a point of order—

Order. Mr. Maclennan.

I rose to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for pigeons but I have called the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the abusive—

Order.

reply of the hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary—

Order. The elementary rule of order is that when Mr. Speaker is on his feet an hon. Member sits down. The hon. Gentleman will get his point of order in a moment. Mr. Maclennan.

Will my hon. Friend consider drawing the attention of the devotees of hare coursing to the greater attractions of the ancient sport of bird liming? Perhaps we could then get them off the moors and into London where they could do something.

What we are dealing with here is the problem of pigeons in Trafalgar Square. There is a health problem, quite apart from the problem of aesthetics. But I do not think that the withdrawing of licences to sell bird food would improve the situation, because we had the same problem before the licences were issued. It would be extremely difficult to stop the general public from feeding the pigeons in any case.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the abusive reply of the Parliamentary Secretary—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must give notice in the conventional way.

In the conventional way then, whatever the conventional way is to reply to an abusive and irrelevant answer by a Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total central Government expenditure on the maintenance or preservation of historic buildings in Sheffield in 1969–70.

My Department is not responsible for the preservation of historic buildings in general but as the lessor of a historic building in Sheffield we spent £1,930 on it in 1969–70. No other central Government funds were spent on maintenance or preservation of historic buildings in Sheffield in 1969–70.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable and neces- nary that some central fund should be made available, especially to industrial cities like Sheffield, where the number of buildings worthy of preservation is limited and may be eliminated by the process of redevelopment?

The listing of historic buildings and the matters arising therefrom are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much capital repayment and how much interest falls due for payment during the current financial year on long-term loans to Her Majesty's Government from foreign Sources.

With permission, I will publish the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

What is the amount of money available in Government funds for the repayment of these debts and what proportion will come from " hot " money?

Repayment of the long term debt is calculated in the balance of payments forecast which are contained in the Financial Statement. The hon. Gentle- man will have noted what the Chancellor said about the question of " hot " money in his Budget speech.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer of each payment made by the Paymaster-General on behalf of a Government Department.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 24th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). —[Vol. 796, c. 291.1

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that inquiries made since then, and possibly not yet complete, make the figure nearer 2s. than the 6d. given in the answer then?

No, that is not correct. I had seen a computation which was quite inaccurate because it did not allow for the maintenance of the Department's payroll of more than half a million public service pensioners.

In view of the excellent work which the Paymaster-General did in helping to save the jobs of the workers at Cammell Laird, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that any increases which may come from the Paymaster-General's office are acceptable so far as I am concerned?

The Paymaster-General and his office of course work with the maximum of efficiency.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the recent increase in the cost to the Paymaster-General's Office of such transactions, he will now arrange for Government Departments to arrange payments of salaries and pensions, and other financial transactions, through the National Giro rather than through the Paymaster-General's Office.

There has been no significant recent increase and the unit cost is likely to decrease. Departments are already free to use the National Giro for any financial transactions where it is economical, efficient and convenient to do so.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that from recent Parliamentary Answers it is clear that Government Departments do not use the Giro very much? Will he go to Bootle and see the great amount of unused capacity there, and will he encourage Departments to take their business away from the Paymaster-General so that he can concentrate to the maximum on the work of helping industry, such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has mentioned, instead of concentrating on archaic activities?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that use of the Giro should be encouraged. I use it myself, and I hope many Members will. When it comes to Government payments, large payments are more economically made through the Paymaster-General's Office. It is only when there are small payments that it is more efficient and economical, as in the case of the 50 million payments by the Department of Health and Social Security, for which the Giro is used.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the loss to the public revenue involved in the present tax arrangements regarding criminals who write their memoirs for newspapers, he will seek to change the present law so that money paid by newspapers to convicted criminals for memoirs is not an allowable expense to be off-set against profits for tax purposes.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that is a very disappointing reply? Is he further aware that many people detest the fact that newspapers pay criminals vast sums of money for writing so-called memoirs? They can cease to buy the paper, but they are not aware that as taxpayers they are subsidising the newspaper proprietors. Will he ensure that this is stopped because it cannot really be a legitimate business expense to pay these criminals such vast sums?

There is a serious problem here, but after looking into it very carefully I am satisfied that the line of approach suggested by my hon. Friend is not practicable. There are difficulties about the scope of the disallowance, definition difficulties and difficulties of identifying payment in the case of all criminals.

Since there is some considerable doubt about the authenticity of the latest batch of memoirs being circulated, which might well render the newspaper liable for false pretences under the Trade Descriptions Act, how does my hon. and learned Friend satisfy himself about the authenticity of the various claims made?

The only question with which the Revenue is concerned is whether the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of earning profits. If any definition of this kind were attempted, we should need to know whether it would apply to relatives and associates of criminals. We should have to identify each contribution made, and it would be quite impossible to tackle it in this way.

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

asked the Minister of Transport on which date he now estimates the Great Barr Interchange on the M6 will open.

In July this year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when it is open the stretch of road between this inter-change and the City of Birmingham will be one of the most congested stretches of road in the West Midlands? What does his Department intend to do to relieve that congestion?

I assume that my hon. Friend is talking about the A34. Traffic routeing plans have been made to relieve congestion which may occur on this road during the period between the opening of the Great Barr Interchange and the completion of the programmed improvements of the A34.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a transcript of his broadcast concerning Government policy in the This Week programme on Thursday, 16th April.

I did so, Sir, on 20th April and also repeated an extract from the broadcast in the House on 28th April.—[Vol. 800, c. 1049.]

How does the Prime Minister reconcile the high moral sentiments he expressed in that broadcast with the proposed Labour Party advertising campaign, which constitutes a dive into the political gutter—

"Oh!"

which the Prime Minister personally authorised?

Since the hon. Gentleman put this Question down three weeks ago he must have had more knowledge of the advertising than I. As to the dive into the gutter, there is no such dive here. If there were, those who are diving would find themselves in the company of people who have been there for three years.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply to the original Question, may I ask whether he is aware that Her Majesty's Opposition appear to be operating a kind of " unofficial secrets " Act? If he hears anything at all about the Wheatcroft Report, commissioned by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. fain Macleod), the publication of which is more than four months overdue, will he tell us about it immediately?

These are not matters for me. There are important Questions on the Order Paper about Government responsibilities. My hon. Friend would not wish me to be responsible for the variations of Conservative policy, either on V.A.T. or on anything else.

In view of this Question, can the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for the plastic models to be placed in the Library—[Laughter.]—so that the electorate, who we want to be properly informed on various matters as they come to the election, can decide which of the two is the lesser of the two evils?

On the first part of the question, I will direct the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to those who are concerned with these matters to see whether it can possibly be arranged. On the latter part of the question, I notice that this is the second time running that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to get into the act as to who is the least of the three evils. If he insists on being in the act I will now claim to be the least of the three evils.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the heads of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries to a meeting in London.

I have no plans to do so, Sir, but my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Defence Secretary will be attending Ministerial Meetings of N.A.T.O. in May and June.

In the meantime, could the right hon. Gentleman clear up the difference of opinion which appears to exist between himself and the Secretary of State for Defence? Does he recall that on 28th April in this House he said that our nuclear deterrent would be withdrawn from N.A.T.O. only if N.A.T.O. were to collapse, and in no other circumstances? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State for Defence on 4th February said that we retain the right to use it independently if we wish to do so? Could the Prime Minister explain to the House the difference between the two statements?

I have been answering that question for several weeks and I have no doubt that I shall be answering it through the next Parliament and the one after that. It would give no satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, even if he should be here, because my right hon. Friend and I both made clear that there is no difference between us on this question.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that about 10 years ago he was a delegate at the semi-official N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference? Will he consider making this conference more official so that there may be real parliamentary criticism of N.A.T.O. Ministers, because defence is far too important to be left to Ministers of Defence?

I certainly recall that meeting in November 1962. It was one of the more agreeable meetings that I have attended, and I think that most hon. Members from either side of the House who attended what was then the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians Meeting would agree with my judgment. I am certainly prepared to consider what my right hon. Friend has said.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek a meeting with other heads of Governments in Western Europa to concert national policies towards southern Africa.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 16th April.—[Vol. 790, c. 1567–8.]

Off the cuff I do not recall the answer to that Question, but the Prime Minister will be aware that we have an arms embargo against South Africa while France is selling all the arms it can; we are imposing sanctions against Rhodesia, whilst Italy and Germany are trading merrily with that country and we are refusing N.A.T.O. arms to East Africa while Portugal is using them in colonial wars. Would not there be some point in seeking to harmonise Western European policies in this racially inflammable area?

The right place for co-ordination in these matters, as my hon. Friend will agree, is the United Nations, which has declared itself unequivocally. We are following the United Nations resolution on arms to South Africa, and any who want a different policy would have to consider our interest in trade and investment, and the great importance of our trade and investment north of the Zambesi, but apparently some right hon. Gentlemen are prepared to put this at risk. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend said about Germany and Italy. If there are cases of individual traders going against the policy of their Governments I should be glad to be informed of them.

Will the Prime Minister confirm positively that, contrary to the views of many of his hon. Friends, he wants to increase trade with South Africa?

It has never been in doubt that, while we have placed a ban on arms to South Africa, we wish to increase trade in peaceful commodities, which we have been doing. Although I have been warned from the benches opposite for five and a half years consistently that our trade with South Africa would suffer because of the arms embargo, this has not been the case.

Is my right hon. Friend surprised by the large number of people in all walks of life, including some hon. Members opposite, who are opposed to the South African cricket tour? Does not he agree that the Cricket Council and the M.C.C., if they do not recognise their original blunder in inviting the team and do not cancel the tour, will show themselves totally insensitive to race relations. to the Commonwealth and to common decency?

In my recent public statement on this I was not concerned to talk about blunders. What I said was that if these proposals were now withdrawn this action need not be a sign of weakness or panic and would be respected by many people, so I do not want to put it in that way. In view of the threat to the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh as a result of this, and in view of the danger that many countries in future will not want to play cricket with us, I think that there is a case for reconsidering the decision. If the Leader of the Opposition had identified himself with my proposals I believe that the Cricket Council would have thought again, because it is probably more responsive to him than to me in these matters. While the Home Secretary is prepared to make available all the police necessary to maintain law and order, if the tour were cancelled there would be much less call on those police, who should be dealing with the prevention of crime and the preservation of law and order.

Is the Prime Minister aware that shore-based South African aircraft are co-operating with the Royal Navy in exercises in the vicinity of the Cape? Is he satisfied that those aircraft are up to date, and if they are not, does not he think it important that they should be up to date?

I have nothing to add to what was said on the supply of aircraft in my announcement to the House in, I think, November, 1964. I do not think that has very much to do with the irresponsibility of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in wishing to stir up community problems in this country.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination between those Ministers responsible for airport development and industrial development, respectively.

My right hon. Friends already work closely together on this matter, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that for far too long Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh, has been under-developed in comparison with other airports in the United Kingdom and that, however good industrial development has been on the east side of Scotland in the last few years, it could and would be better if Turnhouse Airport had the additional runway and the other terminal facilities for which we have been campaigning for so long?

Yes, I recognise the problems; I have been there and discussed this on the spot. I recognise the need for an early decision about the future development of the airport. Very large sums of public money are involved, and the alternatives should be subjected to a full cost-benefit analysis to enable the right decision to be reached. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or one of his colleagues hopes in the near future to make a statement on the runway development at Turnhouse.

Could not the Edinburgh authorities learn something from the Manchester City Council's development of Ringway, which is one of the best subsidiary airports in the country?

Yes, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about Ringway, but different considerations are involved in Turnhouse. Turnhouse is a staging post for aircraft services to remote areas and islands, and those services are in the nature of a public or social service.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that the prospect of industrial development in remote areas turns largely on good communications? While many of us are grateful for what the Board of Trade has done by way of grants and loans to increase employment, particularly in the South-West, the present view of the Board of Trade is that airport development is exclusively a matter for the local councils concerned, which have very limited financial resources. [Interruption.] May I shout over the barrage of the Opposition and ask whether the Board of Trade does not think it has greater responsibility and should take a closer interest in industrial development by way of airports?

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in parenthesis, which will no doubt be recalled in coming months, I agree with him and accept—and so does my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—the need for better air facilities in the remoter parts of the United Kingdom. One of my big difficulties with both Leaders of the Opposition is to explain to them that it is not possible to keep on pressing at the same time for more expenditure and for a reduction of taxation.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

I had no formal discussions, but I addressed the Congress and I had a number of informal talks with officers of the S.T.U.C. both on Scottish and on more general issues.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Scottish T.U.C. approved the Government's regional policies for development in Scotland, and what it thought about the official Tory Opposition's policy of abolishing investment grants and reverting to industrial growth points, and the Tory plan to oppose the Government's attempt to keep the U.C.S. alive?

The members of the Scottish T.U.C. did not go into all these questions with me because they, being realistic people, are concerned only with the policies of the present and likely future Government. On all that has been said by right hon. Gentlemen on investment grants, both attributively and non-attributively, their policy is a prescription for a great decline in development areas, making colliery closures and other questions worse. On Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, I saw a deputation of 100 shop stewards, and also discussed this question with members of the S.T.U.C. General Council. Our policy on this has been quite clear, and I am shocked to see reports that the Conservative Opposition are opposed to our policies for saving the Upper Clyde shipbuilding yards.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the regional policy of Her Majesty's Opposition is firmly to keep a differential investment incentive in the development areas? Will he further confirm that the Trades Union Congress in its Economic Review this year urges more selectivity in the use of taxpayers' money in the development areas, just as the Opposition are doing?

The right hon. Gentleman has spoilt his supplementary by an interview inThe Times Business Newsin February and an article in theSpectatormore recently—