asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library a complete transcript of the proceedings at the recent National Energy Conference.

Yes, Sir. I shall do so as soon as possible.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Will he assure the House that he will give due weight to the pronouncement of Sir Brian Flowers at the National Energy Conference to the effect that for something as basic as energy nobody should rely on a product with a by-product as dangerous as plutonium unless he can be satisfied about the existence of a foolproof method of waste disposal and unless he has taken full account of the long-term social implications of a move towards an international plutonium economy?

I listened to Sir Brian Flowers' speech and fully recognised the importance of what he said. Any Minister with the responsibilities which I have for nuclear power is bound to take the safety question extremely seriously. I met the Nuclear Inspectorate the other day on this general question, and I had in mind that I should formulate, with the assistance of those who would like to write in with their own questions, a series of questions to the Nuclear Inspectorate with a view to those questions and the answers of the inspectorate being published. It would be wrong for questions of safety to be put and received privately. Therefore the hon. Gentleman, along with other hon. Members and others who might like to do so, will be able to contribute to the questionnaire.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in the same speech the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution accepted that hitherto Britain's nuclear programme had had an excellent safety record and that there was no reason for any alarm in that connection? Does he also accept that nobody is proposing that Britain should become dependent on plutonium fuel reactors but only that one reactor should be built and demonstrated in use in the next 30 years? That would hardly make us dependent upon it.

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said, namely, that the safety record in the nuclear industry in terms of the number of deaths compares very favourably with other fuel industries. The House appreciates that the nature of the safety problems of the nuclear industry is different in character from other fuel industries where industrial accidents may take place, because of the long-term hazards that might follow certain decisions. Nobody should read into the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) anything other than my desire to see that all the relevant information is published, so that when decisions are arrived at people will know the basis on which they have been made.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in office long enough to publish the information?

I do not claim that the duration of the life of toxic waste—namely, 24,000 years—would cover my period as a Minister, but I shall be happy to consider any proposal put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal more was discussed at that conference than the alleged danger of the fast breeder reactor? Since this country has been working on such reactors for 25 years, should we not keep these matters in perspective?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, but as Chairman of the Select Committee which handles energy matters he has played a notable part in bringing to public attention factors that should be taken into account and I am sure I can count on him to support me in seeing that these factors are made public by the Department of Energy when important issues are concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has considered offering further incentives to those companies likely to be in the market for oil production platforms to bring forward their orders.

Extensive discussions which are continuing with the operators on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf have not revealed any potential order the advancement of which would be ensured by any reasonable incentive that the Government might be able to offer.

Will the Minister give particular attention to the study published on 10th July by the Fraser of Allander Institute in which Mr. Alexander Kemp of Aberdeen University, having considered 12 North Sea oilfields, concluded that petrol revenue tax as at present constituted is not working towards one of its prime objectives—namely, the encouragement of the development of marginal fields?

I have a high regard for that institute, and some of its previous papers have been useful, but I have not had time to study that one. Almost all operators inform us that they are appraising fields. No company has gone so far as to say that economic considerations are holding it back. There is in existence the Oil Taxation Act, and we have a provision for marginal fields, which we shall examine if asked. We also have the Offshore Supplies Interest Relief Grants Scheme and the Accelerated Project Scheme. Furthermore, we might be able to help, if asked by any of the companies, with the possibility of a refund of royalties. In other words, if it appeared in a specific case that incentives might lead to the advancement of a platform order, we would consider a refund of royalty.

Will my right hon. Friend say anything more about the talks he had with Mr. Robert Sneddon, other officials of the AUEW and shop stewards at Redpath Dorman Long, Methil?

I have nothing further to report. It may be that we shall have another meeting shortly. We are hoping that there may be some other work coming in for the yard. I shall not go any further than that at present.

Since the Government threw away £26 million of public money in providing facilities at Hunterston and Portavadie which have not been used, and are not likely to be used in current circumstances, may I ask the Minister to give an undertaking that sums of that order will be made available for helping all existing yards in Scotland, particularly in relation to the development of new technologies such as that of sub-sea completion units?

The money is committed and cannot be spent twice over. The Scottish National Party, with other parties, pressed for an increased capacity to handle platform building orders.

indicated dissent.

I withdraw that. It was certainly the case that most other parties did so. He would be a brave man who said that there will be no need for these sites within the foreseeable future. I agree that they will not be needed in 1977, but I would not rule out later years.

Does my hon. Friend realise that a serious situation is developing at Methil, where there has been a complete cessation of platform orders? Can he say whether it is possible for this yard to diversify into other aspects of the North Sea oil operation?

I am concerned about Methil, as I am about Graythorpe for that matter. We have given strenuous advice to the company and the work force to the effect that if they can diversify in the short term it is possible that they may be able to take advantage of orders for steel platforms that may come in 1977.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy by what criteria he will decide the long-term investment programmes for coal and nuclear energy.

I expect both coal and nuclear power to play an important rôle in the long-term supply of energy. The balance between the different fuels will be the subject of progressive decisions over the years. I would expect the same investment and other criteria to apply to both.

To make things quite clear, may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that he has made no prior commitment, either at the Durham miners' gala or elsewhere, to give undue preference to coal and that the paramount criterion in these decisions must be the interest of the consumer?

I fully accept that the consumer interest should be dominant in our thinking on energy policy. At the same time, the House must appreciate that with 300 years of coal reserves available to us it would be foolish to do anything to the mining industry that made it difficult for the industry to contribute coal not only for domestic use and electricity generation but, later, for use in petrochemicals or the development of synthetic natural gas. It would be difficult to give a private assurance at the Durham miners' gala, which is attended by 100,000 people.

Would my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the date by which he expects to reach a decision on the commercial aspect of the fast breeder reactor? Does he agree that it is an important development for those who work at Dounreay? Does he accept that this is a rather different time scale of decision in that it is very much an insurance policy for the 1990s and beyond rather than something which affects the immediate energy demands of the country?

I accept much of what my hon. Friend says. The time scales in the nuclear industry vary from the immediate need for thermal reactors through to the rôle of the fast breeder and the development of fusion. The balance between the time scale and the demand for the energy that these systems might provide is one of the central questions of energy policy. I shall certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that sufficient funds are available under existing legislation to enable the National Coal Board to implement to the full the development plans for the industry for the years 1976 to 1980 in line with his stated policy.

As was explained when the National Coal Board (Finance) Bill was under consideration last December, the present borrowing limits for the board are expected to accommodate its borrowing requirements for about two years. Requirements beyond that will be covered by further legislation that the Government will place before the House in due course.

Can the Minister confirm that the cost of expanding the industry is now nearly 100 per cent. higher than was estimated two years ago and that the £300 million which was announced by the chairman last month is far and away above the £219 million mentioned in the February White Paper on Public Expenditure? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government will not affect this programme by any of the public expenditure cuts which are to be announced shortly?

I can confirm that the Government's commitment to the plan for coal holds. We are thoroughly committed to it. It is true that the original estimate of the cost of the plan for coal has been subject to inflation, like anything else. In addition, the National Coal Board has now been able to make a more realistic estimate of the total costs.

Will my hon. Friend also confirm that there is another side to this equation which has not been made public to any great extent? Does he agree that the National Coal Board has handed over about £13 million to the State as a result of the new so-called partnership deal with Gulf and Conoco in the North Sea? Will he also confirm that the NCB has not taken up several million pounds worth of stocking aid grants which could have been taken up in the past financial year? In view of all of this, is it not worth recording that the Government have a further debt to the miners? Would not my hon. Friend do well to lend his support to mine and try to ensure that the miners attain their goal of an earlier retirement age shortly?

That was a long supplementary question, raising some important points. My hon. Friend knows that there have been various conference commitments on the part of the miners to an earlier retirement age and that the Government have said that they are not unsympathetic to this. They believe that men who work in the bowels of the earth should be considered for early retirement in due course. The point about the North Sea holdings of the NCB has been answered on an earlier occasion. The Government have given a firm commitment about the stocking aid grant or any other form of assistance. They have put their money where their mouth is.

May I ask whether, as part of the plan for coal, the board is looking seriously at the question of reopening pits which have been closed although resources are still in the earth? If the board has been doing this, may I inquire as to the degree of seriousness in this approach?

There has been, naturally, an examination into the question of new reserves of coal in existing pits. It is more economical and profitable to obtain coal in this way. The board has looked at all aspects of this which would be beneficial to the nation. The coal industry examination gave a specific target for the commitment to coal. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that policy is being operated.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a general direction to electricity boards to cease to install overhead ceiling heating systems.

Developers and consumers should be free to choose this system if it is properly installed in suitably insulated buildings.

I am sure that that answer must be born out of ignorance of the criticism that has spread throughout the country, in Scotland and elsewhere, particularly among council tenants and tenants of private housing associations. All of them agree that these schemes are totally unsatisfactory for the kind of structures now being erected by local authorities. Will my hon. Friend reconsider his answer and extend some sympathy to those who have criticised these systems? Will he offer local authorities assistance in providing alternatives likely to produce heating systems better than those which have been installed?

While I have a great deal of sympathy with many of my hon. Friend's comments about the costs of energy, I should point out that any guidance to developers and builders is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for the building regulations.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this method of space heating by electricity is comparable in efficiency with other methods? Is it not the case that, even with changes in prices, this is a most unsatisfactory method of heating?

I am not saying that it is more efficient than any other system. All I said was that the consumer should have a choice. The electricity supply industry has a statutory obligation to operate economically and efficiently. It is aware of the need for conservation of resources. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a need for information to be given to consumers about what is the best buy. We try to help all we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Plowden Report on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to conclude his consideration of the Plowden Report on the organisation of the electricity industry; and if he proposes to introduce appropriate legislation in the next parliamentary Session.

The Government are still considering the report. We recognise the need to end the present uncertainty in the industry, and proposals will be brought forward without unnecessary delay, but any Bill to reorganise the electricity supply industry will have to compete with other claims on legislative time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report has now been with him for some months and that delay is unsettling both for the management of the industry and for the trade unions? Would it not be as well, whatever my right hon. Friend's view of the Plowden recommendations, to issue a White Paper fairly soon?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, although in an article which he wrote in February he recognised that I would need time to consider the recommendations. It is a very large piece of reorganisation that is proposed, including the abolition of all the statutory distribution and supply boards, and it would very much impact upon relations with the Government. I ask my hon. Friend to give me a little more time for discussions, but I shall bear in mind the point he has raised.

Has the Department considered the part of the report which suggests that the electricity supply industry has not been using its fuel as efficiently as it should because it has not done enough to promote a satisfactory power scheme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for this reason Plowden has recommended that there should be changes in the industry?

Every part of the report has been discussed. Dr. Walter Marshall, my chief scientific adviser, is examining the heat and power point that the hon. Gentleman makes very much his own in questions, and I respect him for doing so. We expect Dr. Marshall's report later this year, but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, any change would be a fairly major one and immediate results cannot be expected.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the secretaries of the EPTU and the Electrical Power Engineers Association have anxiety about the shortage of senior executives on the Electricity Council? Is he aware of their keen anxiety that the present uncertainty should be resolved as speedily as possible? Therefore, will he reconsider the answer he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) and place before the House at least the expectation that we can have legislation on the Plowden Report next Session?

I have already dealt with the legislative point. By the normal methods that Ministers adopt, and not being able to anticipate the Gracious Speech, I cannot go beyond what I have said. I saw the letter in The Times. I discussed appointments with the two joint authors of that letter beforehand. I have discussed the whole question of the Government's approach to Plowden with the unions and with the industry. I think it is fairly widely understood that a change of this magnitude, which would involve the abolition of all the statutory boards in the various regions of the country, would need to be considered carefully, especially in the context of devolution, where the desire has been for decisions to be taken closer to the areas that are affected. In those circumstances, I think that I am entitled to take a little more time. I have pointed that out to Mr. Prior, who is the full-time member of the Electricity Council with responsibility for industrial relations, and to Mr. Richardson, who is a part-time member.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has yet reached a conclusion on whether to instruct the gas and electricity boards to discontinue the practice of disconnection for non-payment; and what plans he has to implement other recommendations contained in the Oakes Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the Government's proposals to implement the Oakes Report on fuel payments.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has yet reached a conclusion about instructing the electricity and gas boards to discontinue the practice of disconnection for non-payment; and what plans he has to implement other recommendations outlined in the Oakes Report.

The report is still being considered and my right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many traders do not have the powers that are available to the gas and electricity industries but that they collect their debts? Does he accept that these two industries are overloaded with bad debts? Will he consider the possibility of having special categories of exemption, such as old-age pensioners and single-parent families? Will the Secretary of State accelerate a decision on this matter as it is of importance to the industry as well as to the consumer? It is particularly important to people on lower earnings.

As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, I have reported on this matter to my right hon. Friend. The industries have put their point of view, and I am hopeful that the Secretary of State will make a decision as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although there have been various reports of this kind, we have gone through a difficult winter for poorer people and we are now about to embark on another winter of disconnections and misery for many people if a decision is not made shortly? The Government must get on and make a decision. Is my hon. Friend determined to hear yet again the rearguard action of the industries to the sensible proposal that he is making?

I have made my report to my right hon. Friend, and the industries are entitled to put forward their point of view on the report. I agree that there is an acute need for urgency in this matter. A decision must be taken before the autumn and winter months.

Can there be any justification of the energy boards' claim that the cost of fuel will have to go up by 10 per cent. if the automatic disconnection policy is changed? Has the hon. Gentleman had any evidence from the electricity or gas boards as to the number of people who could equally well pay if there were a threat of being taken to court?

The industries have put forward that point of view. However, there is some doubt as to how they arrive at the arithmetic of the figures.

What is my hon. Friend's attitude towards providing pensioners living on their own with free gas and electricity, as urged by Jack Jones and others, especially as both industries are working at less than full capacity? If ICI can be granted a rebate of £91 million a year by the gas board on its gas bill, the boards should surely grant something to pensioners rather than apply disconnection.

I do not want to go into the long-term contract question that my hon. Friend has raised. The issue of free supplies of electricity and gas were not in my report. Possibly that is a matter for decision for the Department of Health and Social Security rather than by my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what additional orders for drilling rigs and production platforms can reasonably be expected from the next round of licences for oil and gas exploration in the Continental Shelf.

It is not possible to make firm estimates at present because there are too many uncertainties involved. The number of rig orders will depend on the response to this round, the drilling obligations agreed with successful applicants and the availability of existing rigs. Orders for production platforms will depend on the number and nature of any hydrocarbon deposits discovered.

How can the Government be so certain that the process of consultation with the oil companies, the trade union movement and other industries will of itself automatically ensure success and get the best possible bargain without endangering the success of the next round of licensing?

Frankly, I cannot understand that question. If the hon. Gentleman cares to rephrase it in a way that I can appreciate, I shall be happy to reply.

How can the Government be so certain that the process of consultation with all the parties concerned will of itself succeed in getting the best possible bargain without endangering the success of the round of licences to which the Minister has referred?

I think that all industries, not only the oil companies—I shall do my best to answer the question—including the trade unions and those involved with the ancillary industries, prefer to be consulted. We have had some rather disappointing experiences from the fourth round. There was a great deal to learn from that, and we are anxious to learn from the past. The consultations will not prove everything, but they will help us in making the fifth round a success.

On the basis of the last part of my hon. Friend's answer, if it is true that further hydrocarbon discoveries will make the outlook better, will this help Methil?

Yards such as Methil are involved in steel platform orders. There may be one in 1977. Methil will be competing for that. If it is successful, its future will be assured for some time. However, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), Methil and similar yards get on with ancillary work if they can compete successfully for it.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there might have been employment advantages if the fifth round could have been brought forward instead of the Government having a row about participation with the companies?

That is not true. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to us. I am not blaming the Tory Party in any way, as we might have made the same error, but the great mistake was that the fourth round was too large and was spread over too long a period. We are trying to conduct smaller rounds more quickly, and I hope that the fifth round will be allocated later this year.

If I may try to clarify the situation stated by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), perhaps my hon. Friend could understand it better if he appreciated that what the hon. Member was trying to say was that the Government having taken the oil away from the oil companies, why should the oil companies, on the basis of losing all this wealth, discuss further licences with the Government? Is it not the case that, if only the hon. Member for Hazel Grove would divert his attention away from the Daily Telegraph and look at what is really happening, he would find that we are not taking sufficient oil away, contrary to what we said we would do in our manifesto, and my hon. Friend would be able to appreciate, understand and answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question?

The fact is simple. If one reads the Daily Telegraph, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) recommends, and the Morning Star, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) contributes, one finds that the truth lies in the middle.

May I suggest to the Minister that he should draw the attention of all firms concerned to the initiative shown within the last few days by Highland Fabricators of Nigg Bay, which has made an arrangement with EMH of France to promote in this country a new and highly sophisticated articulated column design which will help considerably in the exploration of marginal fields?

I welcome that development very much and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on adding yet another boost to his constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take action to evaluate the scheme, proposed by the National Consumer Council, for the use of self-cancelling token meters in the supply of gas and electricity to domestic consumers.

The Electricity Council is taking the lead in a study of the practicability of using token meters. As the recent report on payment and collection methods said, there is clearly no question of token-operated meters being available in the short term.

Will not my hon. Friend accept that the record of the fuel boards on this issue so far can hardly be said to reveal any burning enthusiasm for radical change? Will he reconsider his answer in the light of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries for a thorough-going evaluation of this proposal, to be carried out by his Department and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, whereby added weight would be given to the needs of consumers in this very important matter?

I think that the series of reports which have been coming forward on fuel problems has concentrated the minds of the industries. Research is taking place, and rather than that each board should conduct its own research it was agreed that the Electricity Council should take the lead.

Would not a greater use of token meters, prepaid meters or self-cancelling token meters lead to an improvement in the cash flow of the boards and, therefore, help to reduce prices?

I think that it would help the boards themselves and I am certain that it would help many consumers as well.

Do not the wide implications of my hon. Friend's report, which contains many recommendations beyond the one on disconnection, emphasise the fact that some early action has to be taken on this problem? Does not my hon. Friend also agree that the House should debate the Oakes Report in order that we could determine what is the Government's attitude?

I should be delighted to have a debate, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and this week the House is pressingly busy. We have recommended that investigations should take place into the question of token meters, but there could not be results in the short term because it would be an enormous job to convert meters throughout the country and there is the problem of getting the right kind of token and so on. Research into the matter is, however, being conducted by the Electricity Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to take any initiatives as a follow-up to the recent energy forum.

Yes, Sir. I believe—and this was a view widely expressed at the conference—that there is a need for a more permanent body which can consider energy policy and the decisions to be taken in the energy field. I am considering what form this body should take and am meeting representatives of some of the principal interests concerned later this month to seek their advice on this.

While welcoming that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the energy forum has made it easier or harder for him to reach some of the major policy decisions which are awaiting him, particularly on whether the SGHWR programme is to be scrapped?

My general response is that the conference contributed to the education of all those present, including the Ministers and the civil servants involved. In addition, people who had hitherto had a specialist interest in energy may, by listening to others, have come to appreciate the wide range of interests in this matter, and the Minister will be assisted, in reaching his decisions, if there is some opportunity of discussing them with a smaller body representing the same general interests. I am about to send out invitations to 20 or 21 people who represented a wide range of interests at the conference, and I hope that the resultant meeting will help to bring forward proposals for an advisory commission.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the growing awareness of the extreme danger of nuclear waste, which has been raised in the House many times, and take it into account when considering any further development of the nuclear energy programme, including our taking into this country nuclear waste for reprocessing?

The first public discussion, which was held after I was appointed to my office, arose out of the proposal to take the Japanese fuels for reprocessing. As a result of that public discussion, we managed to make arrangements to meet the problem which my hon. Friend has raised about the return of toxic waste when the vitrification process is complete. A knowledge of that issue helped. By publication of all the information, Ministers have the opportunity of knowing public feeling before decisions are made, while the public know the basis on which those decisions are being made.

Arising from the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) about the SGHWR programme, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive the assessment of Britain's nuclear reactor generation now being undertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority? Will he have that report made public? Does he not agree that the interests of open government are best served when his decisions are not trailered to journalists, however distinguished, even when the journalist is Mr. Chapman Pincher?

It has never been my pleasure to meet Mr. Chapman Pincher, so one may say that I am not tinged with feelings of guilt about what he has written. I am happy to make information available to the House. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that the significant body of opinion which two years ago wished us to buy American reactors and cancel our SGHWR programme is still very active. There has been renewed activity on that front. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take my word for it that I shall not be easily persuaded that the purchase of American reactors would be the right decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on gas prices.

I expect a further increase in tariffs in the autumn, but it is too soon to predict its details.

Is it not very distressing when prices for essentials are rising so much and are causing hardship? Can the hon. Gentleman give us two assurances: first, that the public expenditure review in which the Secretary of State took part today did not include any process for a gas tax and, secondly, that in the autumn, when prices go up yet again, there will be complete removal of the differentials between Scottish and English gas prices?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question by the hon. Gentleman is "Yes". The answer to the second part is that it is not the Government's present intention to impose a gas tax. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on the third part of his supplementary question concerning the differentials in domestic tariffs between the Scottish Region and the English regions. They have been narrowed in the last two tariff reviews, and at least five of the 10 English regions are paying the same domestic tariffs as Scotland and Wales, which are on a common tariff. I hope that the process will continue in this matter, which is being considered by the Price Commission under a new Price Code not yet formally promulgated and by the National Gas Consumer Council.

Can my hon. Friend give any idea of the range of increases in gas prices to which he has referred? Can he assure us that any increase which is agreed to will reflect an increase in costs and will in no way reflect the increase in gas tariffs which is being urged by the electricity industry in particular? If this occurred, it would be totally unacceptable to consumers and to many of us on this side of the House because workers are being asked to limit their wage increases.

The Government are not primarily responsible. In the first instance it is for the British Gas Corporation to make proposals. We expect that the increase will be well below the average of 20 per cent. made last time.

Will the Minister guarantee to Scottish consumers that, as a result of having paid up to 50 per cent. more for gas over the years and thereby contributing to the gas grid network, we shall receive a corresponding concession when Scottish gas is piped south of the border?

These are matters for future consideration. When one takes the average revenue per domestic therm, which is the basis used by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)—[Interruption.] Yes, I would associate myself with what has been said. I deplore the differentials in the prices over the years, and I hope that we shall move towards homogeneity of prices, even though it is English gas we are consuming. Gas prices in Scotland have been somewhat distorted by the fact that in Scotland average domestic consumption of gas is lower, and that is not an unfair point.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

I have regular meetings with the chairmen of all the industries for which I am responsible.

Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the National Coal Board that it should do its own opencast mining instead of contracting it out to private enterprise? Some private contractors are very hostile to the trade union movement and are forcing workers to work 12-hour shifts and more than 60 hours a week. Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the activities of J. Murphy and Son, Ltd., some of the management of which were recently convicted for tax swindling?

This is a matter primarily for the National Coal Board. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend gave me one or two hours' notice, I shall raise this matter with the board and the National Union of Mineworkers, and will let him know the outcome.

Will the Secretary of State persuade the National Coal Board to introduce a meaningful incentive scheme on a localised pit basis, so that there is a real incentive to workers to earn and produce more?

This is a matter for the board, in conjunction with the NUM. There was discussion on this subject last year, and a pithead ballot on the matter. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to assume management responsibilities in the nationalised industries on matters such as this.

In the light of his recent visit to Silverwood colliery, in my con- stituency, will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise that this Government have taken a series of helpful and wise actions to ensure that Britain maintains a vigorous coal industry and a capacity for energy that will enable this country to be self-sufficient?

I can confirm that. Although I cannot pretend that there are not outstanding problems in the coal industry, the latest of which is the very strong pressure for early retirement, in general the NUM and the NCB recognise that this Government have helped the coal industry to contribute considerably to national energy needs.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a general direction to the British Gas Corporation to send quarterly bills to all consumers without prepayment meters.

It is already the normal practice of British Gas to render bills quarterly to credit customers, apart from the larger commercial and industrial users, who are billed monthly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain cases the Gas Corporation waits 11 months before sending out accounts? Recently, after 11 months, I received an account for £112. I shall find it very difficult to pay this. [Interruption.] Yes, I shall. This applies to many people who are in a less fortunate position than myself. Can my hon. Friend ensure that in future accounts are sent quarterly or monthly?

I shall try to ensure that my hon. Friend is not disconnected. It is normal practice to render a bill quarterly, but in every organisation there will be occasions when something goes wrong with the administrative arrangements. If my hon. Friend wishes, I shall raise his case with the British Gas Corporation.

Yes, please.

On the general question of prepayment meters, can my hon. Friend confirm that the Electricity Council will take two years and spend a mere £15,000 on the study of token meters? If that is the case, will it meet the criteria that my hon. Friend is hoping to get?

I do not have the available figures in front of me, but I shall write to my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether it remains his policy that British funds will be used only for the purchase of "mixed" British-owned farms in Tanzania.

It has been agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania that British project aid funds will be made available to the Tanzanian Government for the development of British-occupied mixed farms. Purchase is only the first step towards such development.

Is the Minister aware that British farmers in Tanzania believe that the United Kingdom Government have ratted on a commitment made at Arusha on 28th November 1974 under which British farmers whose land was to be expropriated would be compensated? Does he accept that that kind of precedent is very dangerous since a similar commitment might have to be made one day to white farmers in Rhodesia?

I do not accept that premise. At the meeting to which the hon. Member referred, Mr. Mungai, who was then the Tanzanian Minister of Agriculture, expressed the intention of the Tanzanian Government to take over the ownership of British-owned farms in general. That policy involved no commitment to an aid programme. There has since been an agreement that we should apply aid funds to the purchase of mixed farms because we believe that category to be the most relevant to development. Taking over these farms will promote more intensive use of the land, and that is conducive to the rural development of Tanzania, whereas the simple transfer of ownership of a ranch or plantation would not have that effect.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a further statement on the implications for his Department of the follow-up to UNCTAD IV.

The United Kingdom intends to participate fully in the discussions in all the various international fora in which follow-up action to UNCTAD IV is to be considered. As I said in the House on 14th June, the conference referred the proposals of the developing and developed countries on the main policy issues concerning aid to the next meeting of the UNCTAD Trade and Development Board in October 1976.

In the light of the rather disappointing stance of the Government at Nairobi, will the Minister assure the House that he will fight, fight and fight again for this country's rather meagre aid budget in the present discussions? Will he ensure that the point is got across that aid is not only a moral imperative but an example of enlightened long-term self-interest for this country?

Clearly it is important that in overcoming our present economic difficulties we should not tread still more on the backs of the already deprived elsewhere in the world. It is and always has been the Government's view that we must do everything we can as rapidly as possible to move towards fulfilment of the 0·7 per cent. target when our economic situation permits.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, even though the Government might not be able to take constructive initiatives within UNCTAD's preparatory committees, they can nevertheless fulfil a useful role by trying to organise in the EEC a position which is sympathetic to the common fund?

We have reservations about the effectiveness of the common fund as an instrument for its declared objective. We believe that it is sensible to put those reservations clearly on the table. As on other issues, having done that we shall work closely with our colleagues in the EEC to see whether a co-ordinated position can be reached.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development what will be the additional charge on the overseas aid budget as a result of the increase in fees for overseas students studying in the United Kingdom and subsidised by his Department: (a) in 1976–77 and (b) in a full year.

The fee increases announced on 16th December last year are likely to increase the charge to the aid programme for overseas students supported from my Department's current programmes of technical co-operation by about £600,000 for the academic year 1976–77 and by similar amounts in subsequent years. Those announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 5th July last would result in a further addition of the order of £1·75 million starting in the academic year 1977–78.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this represents a cut in the aid budget unless countervailing increases are made available to offset the scheme? Is he pressing the Treasury for these increases?

I agree that the scheme represents an increased allocation from within the aid programme for this purpose, but it is an important purpose and I have no doubt that the Government will be bearing that in mind in their present considerations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a lot of us think that the Government are right in this matter?

We are always grateful for my hon. Friend's support on this and other issues.

asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a statement concerning aid in British medical equipment and expertise to Latin America; and whether this conforms with the recent white Paper "The Changing Emphasis in British Aid Policies—More Help for the Poorest".

There are three such capital aid projects now in course of implementation, in Colombia, Nicaragua and Peru. I am providing further details of these and of technical co-operation in the Official Report. All schemes approved by the present Administration conform with the White Paper policy.

Who advices my hon. Friend, apart from the usual departmental advisers? Is there a panel of outside personnel qualified in the industry which is making this sort of equipment?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the most highly qualified and expert advice is available within the Department and that we draw on this freely. But in coming to our conclusions we take account of a wide variety of considerations.

asked the Minister for overseas Development what were the contributions per head of population to official Government overseas aid and development programmes in 1975 for each of the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, West Germany, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United States of America and the United Kingdom; what was the percentage of gross national product of each of these countries devoted to these official programmes in the same year; and whether he will make a statement.

I have arranged for this information to be published in the Official Report.

Will my right hon. Friend also arrange for the Cabinet to be kept fully informed of the figures?

Yes. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I have made certain of that.

Has the right hon. Gentleman ever thought of copying the example of Switzerland and having a referendum on the expenditure on aid, or is he afraid that it might produce the same result in this country?

I hope that a referendum in this country would not produce the depelorable result of the recent one in Switzerland. I hope and believe that the majority of citizens in this country would have sufficient sense of the moral issues and long-term self-interest involved to give a different verdict.

Will the Minister bear in mind that a number of us on the Opposition Benches hope that he will be left with a still expanding aid programme after the current review of public expenditure?

I think that one of the most important factors in the aid debate in this House over the years has been the general agreement between those who have participated in them on the need to have a programme which increases steadily in quantity to meet the United Nations target and increases in its quality and effectiveness.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we hope that his aid programme will be maintained and that he will not rely on private enterprise to bolster it? Is he aware that private enter- prise investment here or abroad is designed not to benefit the people but to exploit them? Is he further aware that it is far better for underdeveloped countries if aid is generated where it is most needed and is not left to the whims and exploitation of private enterprise capitalism?

In many cases private investment can be to the benefit of developing countries and should not be described as exploitation. At the same time, it is not a substitute for official flows of aid. As I indicated in a reply to an earlier question, the developing countries need more of both.

Irrespective of moral judgments or hypothetical referenda, in our present economic circumstances would it not be an excellent idea to publish our overseas aid not only as a percentage of our own gross national product but as a percentage of what we are borrowing?

No, Sir. I think it is important to recognise that there is an international commitment to the United Nations target in this matter, and that this country has an obligation—as have all other countries in the richer one-third of the world—to meet that target as soon as its circumstances permit.

When the Minister publishes the figures, will he also include figures which show that the United Kingdom gains a quite disproportionately large share of the orders placed by the developing countries out of the multilateral aid they receive from institutions to which we contribute?

This will not arise in the reply because it was not in the original Question, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to it. It is not sufficiently realised among those who make ill-informed criticism of the aid programme that we get a very considerable direct economic return in the sense that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, as well as in other senses. On top of that there is an imponderable return in trade and in goodwill which cannot be precisely measured. I am absolutely convinced that if there had been no aid programme from this country in the last 20 years our balance of payments and many other problems would be worse today than they are.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is the first occasion in this Parliament on which we are having a debate on Third Reading of a Finance Bill. The last time that we had such a debate was on 11th July 1973. Perhaps it might be worth spending a few minutes discussing the way the Opposition have seen fit to have such a discussion on this Bill for the first time in this Parliament.

We know that on previous occasions there has been a need for a debate on Third Reading partly to discuss as a suitable time, the economic issues facing us, partly because there may have been occasions when parliamentary time was a little more readily available then we find at the moment, and partly because it is always useful, given the existence of those two earlier conditions, to have last thoughts on a Bill before it passes into legislation.

During the later discussions that we had on the progress of the Bill there was a certain amount of criticism about the time available for Finance Bills generally. Various comments were made about the way in which the Finance Bill might be split up. I look forward to hearing further discussion in due course on these matters.

These are issues primarily for Parliament as a whole. We know that there is always pressure upon Government and parliamentary time generally. The problem with Finance Bills, even assuming that there are few new measures of substance, lies in dealing with the accumulations of past measures and the changing ways in which these have to be dealt with. This in itself entails a large increase in the number of pages that we have to discuss, arising purely from existing provisions.

As a House, we enjoy our discussions of Finance Bills generally. We note that progress after midnight tends to be greater than before that time. We have seen this in a heightened form perhaps in recent weeks and months. I have sometimes thought that the importance of a subject has often varied inversely according to the lateness of the hour. It may be that if we had started later in the evening progress would have been that much quicker.

I take issue about the third of my propositions—that this is an occasion for looking back over the progress of the Bill and seeing how it is fitted to deal with some of the important issues of our time. I think that the most important will not be the provisions regarding benefits in kind—useful measure as I believe it to be since it provides for the taxation not only of income but of those benefits most akin to income—or even Schedule 6, which gives powers to enter premises. I fully accept the seriousness and importance of the extension of those powers, even though they are much less than most other Western industrial countries take for granted.

In my view, those are not the most important aspects of the Bill. I regard as most important the conditional reliefs, on which we spent relatively less time, perhaps, than we might have done, and I regard them in that light both because of their constitutional importance and the way in which they reflect the manner in which Governments will have to deal with these issues as they come before us.

In relation to pay increases and the attitude of the trade unions which negotiate them, we have laid down the way in which those who concern themselves with these matters have to consider not the fictional gains which pay increases represent but with the real value of the money in the pay packet of workers, taking into account the price rises and the taxation inevitably resulting from those pay increases if they are not justified by increases in national production.

For many years, there has been a need to establish a link between the actual pay negotiated by members of trade unions and the resulting taxes and prices. Whatever importance we think should be attached to the relation between monetary policy, incomes policy and other aspects of economic and financial management, it is now essential to bring the trade unions into this consultative process, and I believe that that view is coming to be more widely shared on both sides of the House. What I consider to be of the utmost importance is that the trade unions are concerning themselves with the development of an approach to industry which should command the widest acceptance. Even though some of us knows the extent of future developments, we must not underestimate the importance of the first steps which have so far been taken.

All this ought to be common ground, and the conditional reliefs were designed to be a means for the implementation of the accord which has been reached with the Trades Union Congress. It is worth spending a moment or two to consider the sort of reception which this accord actually received.

Right from the beginning, we noticed the cold reception which it received from the Leader of the Opposition on Budget day itself. We noted also that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) called these conditional reliefs a devaluing of the Budget. On 7th July, on the other hand, we noted that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) fully and unequivocally supported the agreement, and in the same debate the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said:

"All of us on the Conservative side of the House recognise that the TUC has once more delivered to the Government an exceptional pay deal. I pay tribute to the TUC for what it has done."—[Official Report, 7th July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 1489.]

Since then, a wide variety of views has been expressed. I think it is worth recalling the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East when, referring to incomes policy, he said:

"It is not a subject on which we should be wholly dogmatic"—

I am not sure what he meant by "wholly dogmatic" in this context, but let that pass—

"… on questions of this kind there are divisions of opinion, and always have been, in both parties."—[Official Report, 3rd May 1976; Vol. 901, c. 862.]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right—there have been divisions within each party—but what is clear is that the Government stand behind this policy agreed with the TUC, and what we find disturbing is that on the central economic issue of our time nobody, even at this late stage, knows what is the policy of those calling themselves an alternative Government. Some say one thing and some another. To many of us on this side of the House, the Conservative Party seems to be awaiting the prophet of Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) bringing down the tablets on which all will be made clear.

We look at this state of affairs with some amusement, while the Conservatives work out their own salvation in their own way, but what the country knows is that industry and the Government are now closer together than they have been for some years. I believe that the Bill has played its part in that understanding, and in that spirit I move the Third Reading.

The Financial Secretary was talking about the tablets of stone, and I wonder whether, if the tablets were dropped on the way down after they had been agreed, that would make any difference to the reception at the bottom.

Order. I think that it does to the answer.

As the Government proudly present their Bill for its last rites this afternoon, I am sure that the Chief Secretary at least must feel that it is a relief to escape from the carnage of the Cabinet Room to the relatively quiet security and sanctity of the House of Commons. Sandwiched as we appear to be today between meetings of the Cabinet to discuss public spending and what I understand from the Press will be tonight's meeting of the home policy committee of the Labour Party, we can feel some sympathy for Treasury Ministers, and I think that we can also excuse the Chancellor's absence on this occasion since it is clear that he has more important matters to deal with elsewhere.

It is a pity, however, that, because of the pressing nature of his engagements in the Cabinet, with the Parliamentary Labour Party and with the home policy committee of the Labour Party, the Chancellor will not be here to see the measure as he originally presented it pass on to the House of Lords in an entirely different form. It has been a long and arduous process. We have said many times already that great difficulty has been created for us and for the world outside by the delays in publication of amendments for Report. However, I do not think that we need go over that today.

The Bill has been mishandled, but it could not have been mishandled by two more genial, if incompetent, Ministers than the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary, who throughout our sittings, though admittedly sometimes heavily tried, have retained their patience and good manners. I can say at least that of them today.

As for the content of the Bill itself, the attack on business men's perks, which has been loudly trumpeted at successive Labour Party conferences for many years, has been transformed during the passage of the Bill into a disorganised retreat—almost a headling flight, indeed—under the combined wrath of the National Union of Railwaymen, the Transport and General Workers' Union and other unions, which suddenly woke up to find that this tax was an attack on their members' pay-packets. It appears that only miners' coal and Ministers' cars have remained unscathed—we know why Ministers' cars have remained unscathed; it would be uncomfortable for Ministers to change the law—but we do not understand the position regarding miners' coal. Why cannot miners' coal be brought within the Bill? We are still wondering why every fringe benefit is within the Bill save miners' coal.

The turning point in the long-heralded attack on fringe benefits will be remembered as the moment when the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) rushed into the Chamber to announce that the shop stewards at London Airport were in revolt and that, although they favoured the principle of taxing fringe benefits, they did not like the way it affected them. From that point onwards, the whole of the attack on the business men of this country was reversed and the Government went into headlong retreat.

I am glad, that, as a result of that and other diversions, we have been able to save parts of the British motor industry—notably, Rolls-Royce and Jaguar—from severe damage, and, equally important, we have prevented the Government from further eroding the take-home pay of middle management, which, of course, would have been severely damaged had the original proposals gone through.

The clause to increase the powers of the Inland Revenue has been substantially amended. We owe something to the belated good sense of the Chief Secretary in that he was prepared to concede amendments in Committee, but it shows something either of the negligence of Treasury Ministers or perhaps the low quality advice that comes to them from Somerset House that the original clauses on the seizure of documents, search and entry ever found their way in to the Bill.

I find it difficult to believe that those clauses were entirely the invention of Treasury Ministers, because although the two Treasury Ministers now on the Government Front Bench are not wholly free of guile, are not as innocent and naive as they would have us believe, these clauses had something of that new aggressiveness that seems to be emanating from the Inland Revenue these days, and I think that some of the authorship of Chapter II derives from the Board of the Inland Revenue itself. I can see that senior officials of that Department in Somerset House are sensitive to political criticism, but if they abandon all resistence to the more outrageous rantings of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and include disreputable politically motivated clauses in the Bill, they must expect to come into the political firing line.

The debate on powers of entry has been immeasurably damaging to the Inland Revenue for no apparent gain. Certainly it will not be any easier to collect revenue either from honest or dishonest taxpayers as a result of these clauses. We are still somewhat astonished that the Chief Secretary believes that these great big tax evaders, whom we understand he is hell bent on catching, will leave all these incriminating documents lying around their homes now that they know that a tap may come on their door in the middle of the night by the appointed officer of the Inland Revenue. It is stretching our imagination very far to believe that this incriminating evidence will be left there for the Board of the Inland Revenue to find. It must be clear from all that has been said in our debates that future Governments will not leave these clauses in the Bill in their present form, so all these discussions have largely been wasted and have done great damage to the Inland Revenue in the process.

I suppose that we must count the errors in the life insurance clauses as just an aberration. I think that was an aberration of the Financial Secretary, not the Chief Secretary. I find it difficult to understand how we can have been told that the insurance industry was in full agreement with the proposals that were being made when the opposite was the case, and the Government changed the whole basis of the Bill as it related to the taxation of premiums.

Then there were the bankruptcy provisions in the old Clause 58. These would have changed retrospectively the tax law and driven into bankruptcy many of our senior executives. Here, again, I think that the Financial Secretary, who is traditionally responsible for the Bill, might have read it before he presented it to the House.

I found it very tedious reading the Finance Bill when I was a Minister—even more tedious than I do now—but I think that ministerial office imposes some obligation upon Ministers, when their names are on the Bill, to read it through before they come and make speeches about it. I understand that the briefs that were given to the Financial Secretary did not touch on all those elements of the Bill that had been badly and incorrectly drafted, but he could have found that out for himself.

As the Financial Secretary said in opening the debate, the most important change of major economic principle in the Bill lies in the clauses on personal allowances, and at the time of the Budget we were assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Paymaster-General that these provisional tax reliefs, as they were then, could be borne by the nation only if the pay deal was concluded at 3 per cent.

When we discussed the Budget Resolutions, the Paymaster-General said:

… I emphasise that 3 per cent. is the highest which can be conceded if we are to be able to rely on meeting our inflation target."—[Official Report, 7th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 467.]

I do not know whether the promotion that followed two days later to the Cabinet was connected with that remark, but within 24 hours the Treasury was back-pedalling on that commitment and, as we know, the deal was finally concluded at 5 per cent. with the provisional tax reliefs that were related to a 3 per cent. arrangement.

We are now told that we should understand that 5 per cent. is the same as 3 per cent. and that there is no difference between the two figures, but we have yet to discover precisely how the Government worked that out. It may be that this is why the Chancellor, according to the Press, is trying to claw back £1,000 million that he is giving away in lower tax reliefs, and he is apparently trying to get it back in lower public spending.

At the time of the Budget debates we warned of the consequences of negotiating in public in this way, and how right we were! Every word that we said during those economic debates has, I fear, proved absolutely true. In winding up the debate on 12th April I said:

"Because the Chancellor's strategy is seemingly dependent on a promise from the TUC, every statement against the norm by a union leader will be studied with concern, not just in the gilt-edged market but in New York, Zurich, Jeddah, Lagos and Hong Kong, and this period of instability will last until July."—[Official Report, 12th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 1029.]

Indeed, the period of instability arose about one week later when sterling plunged to an entirely new low, and it was only following the borrowing of another $5 billion—the standby credit that we shall very shortly have to repay—that sterling rose again. The whole process by which these tax reliefs and the offsetting pay deal were negotiated has done great damage to this country, and we shall see in October or November—or whenever it is—precisely how the Government will either roll over the standby credit or replace it with a loan from the IMF.

In spite of tax reliefs, the real burden of taxation has increased on the British people, and particularly on the poorer income groups. Some of the sense of outrage felt in the Labour Party at the tax which now falls, for instance, on a war widow's pension was shown the other night. Here we have taxation arising on a weekly income of £18, and it is an astonishing commentary on some members of the Labour Party that on that occasion they protested—and rightly so—that as a result of the Government's policies the tax threshold had fallen to less than one-third of the national average wage.

Yet some of them seem totally unable to grasp the fact that the tax threshold will be raised only if public spending is cut back. Hon. Members below the Gangway who protested at the lowering of the tax threshold are the very people who are now opposing public expenditure cuts. The dilemma that we face is the interaction between tax and benefits, and I feel sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) is called to speak in the debate he will have something to say about this problem.

I notice that among the reported alternative put forward by the TUC Economic Committee to the Chancellor's impending cuts is a demand for more job creation, which seems to be the Treasury's chosen way of placing palliatives before the Labour Party. Under the job creation programme in my constituency—and I am sure that this applies in many others—projects there are paying local people £36 a week. Unemployment in my constituency ranges between 16 per cent. and 20 per cent. and people are coming to me and saying that job creation projects paying £36 a week are providing less than a man can earn in social benefits. Indeed, a combination of unemployment benefit, rent rebates, children's dinners—which the person does not have to pay for if he is unemployed—and the cost of travelling to work means that my constituents are better off on unemployment benefit than in a job creation project—and this is in my constituency where the wages are particularly low.

We are now back in the economic debate on the familiar ground of public spending. The Chancellor, who has castigated us in innumerable debates for being evil and wrong-headed about seeking more cuts next year, is now hoping that his right hon. and hon. Friends and Members of the Cabinet will rally behind him in doing the very thing that he has been castigating in debate after debate. It must be hard for his right hon. and hon. Friends, having heard him slate us for our evil views on this very subject, now to rally behind him with enthusiasm when he is trying to do the very thing that he has condemned. It is the way in which he speaks, with two tongues— to one audience here and another there—which makes his task all the more difficult.

As we go along, the Labour movement creates new heroes. Today's hero is the Secretary of State for the Environment. We all read in Friday's Guardian about his gallant defence of his Department's programme. He is now depicted as a colossus—a handsome, brilliant figure, comparable with the great men of history, defending his programme against the vandals of the Treasury who wish to destroy civilised society. According to the leak, no doubt emanating from his own Department, it has all been done in an underhand way by announcing the cuts publicly without his prior agreement.

We understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make almost any sacrifice—to use every weapon in his armoury to defend his Department—with the exception of his own job. He will not resign but he will do anything else to defend his Department against the Chief Secretary, who sits there today with such a benign look.

In fact, as every working man knows, the Department of the Environment is an empire of profligate waste, inefficiency and chronic bureaucracy. It does not need a Minister of that Department—the Minister for Transport—to come here to tell us about the workings of the Swansea Licensing Centre for us to know just how bad the Department is. I have never seen such an adequate demonstration of the incompetence of that Department as our debates on the taxing of cherished number plates, a subject which has had more than its fair share of publicity.

Nor do we need my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), who is not here today, to tell us about the profligacy of the Department in our own backyard. All we need is the Minister for Transport to come here now and again to enlighten us on the procedures under which people apply for cherished number plates.

As I have told the Chief Secretary privately many times before, in my constituency, the South-West Regional Road Construction Unit, which has been busy over the past few years building roads, now has its representatives crawling all over the farmland between Penzance and Land's End in order to plan a dual carriageway across this virtually empty tract of West Cornwall. All that can happen when the dual carriageway is built is that the motorists will go on to the roundabout at Land's End, turn around and go back up the dual carriageway because there is nowhere to go when one reaches Land's End except back the way one has come. Hon. Members may believe it or not but that is what they are doing.

The idiocies of the Department, the way in which public spending is out of control, have to be seen on the ground to be believed. Yet the Secretary of State is defending this programme against the incursions of the Chief Secretary, who is trying to put the situation right.

Could it be that the Department envisages a land link between Land's End and the Isles of Scilly in deference to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)?

I have no doubt that to keep the Department employed it is already preparing plans to build a bridge between Land's End and the Isles of Scilly. Only by such exaggerated means can they keep everybody fully and uselessly employed.

Since the Budget Statement, this nation has continued on its path of long-term economic decline. I do not think that the British people are really deluded by the Chancellor's prospect of an economic miracle. If it is a miracle that the rate of inflation is running rather lower on an annual basis than a year ago, the British housewife still has to meet unprecedented increases in the shops. The Chancellor himself at Question Time last Thursday boasted that he had the rate of inflation down to what he described as "only" 50 per cent. above the OECD average.

If it is a new dawn that the economy is now growing at 5 per cent., or whatever it may be, it is hardly a remarkable achievement when the production base from which that growth is measured is lower than it was during the time of the three-day week. If the balance of payments has improved, it must be unprecedented for this country, and perhaps for any other—even the Argentine, for all I know—to run a deficit of this size in the deepest recession since the war.

We do not even need to question the Chancellor's great handling of the money supply. It is hardly surprising that that has been kept in line when bank advances have hardly been moving forward.

Again and again, we are attacked by the Government for having set off these high rates of inflation and the rising level of unemployment. The Chancellor blames us for having produced what the Government inherited. But we must always remind the Government that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said on 9th October 1974, the day before the election:

"Unemployment is beginning to fall. The pace of inflation and price rises are moderating."

The Chancellor himself was boasting then of an inflation rate of 8·4 per cent.

So out of their own mouths we know that the blame falls entirely upon the Government. They fought and won the last election on a platform which was false and now they are having to meet the consequences of their own profligacy during the period of the social contract.

For all the achievements about which we hear so much from the Government, the truth is plain. If it cannot be seen by the Ministers on the Treasury Bench, it is perfectly clear to the electors of Thurrock and Rotherham, who have given their views about this Government only recently. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) just squeezed past the post but the electors of Thurrock are under no misapprehension about the Government's record.

The country is still slowly clawing its way back from the precipice to which the social contract took us. We still face record unemployment and inflation. If the Labour Party is to be accorded any laurels after two years in office, it can be only for, first, persuading the right hon. Member for Huyton to resign—that was a major achievement of benefit to the country—and, secondly, for uniting with the leaders of the trade union movement in halting that rush towards mutual self-destruction which began when the Labour Party was first in Opposition.

The problem confronting the new Prime Minister—he does not have much competition, but he is an improvement on the last one—and which will confront us when we come to office is the very scale of our problems. They were bad enough in the early 1970s, but they are now quite daunting. Profits have sunk to nil and public spending has risen in two years by £25,000 million. The rush of people from the wealth-generating private sector into the public sector still goes on apace.

In the present talks in the Cabinet the Chief Secretary no doubt sits mute and uncomprehending—uncomprehending not the figures but the fact that he can have such foolish colleagues who simply do not understand that it is impossible for this country to go on spending 20 per cent. more than it is earning. We are glad that we had the right hon. Gentleman's company during the course of the Finance Bill. We look forward to his winding-up speech, although I do not know what he can say. We sympathise with him in the difficult times he is presently having with his colleagues in the Cabinet and, as always, we wish him well in his latest endeavours.

In the better tempered passages of his speech the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) referred to the representations which we had in Committee from the Transport and General Workers' Union, railwaymen, lorry drivers and airline employees. He did not bring his representations up to date by suggesting how many Rover 3500 cars would have to go into a raffle to make the prizes from the raffle taxable. No doubt that will be a matter for a future Finance Bill.

My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that questions had been raised from time to time during the proceedings on the Bill and earlier whether there might be a means whereby the procedure on the Finance Bill could be made more useful to the House and lead to the better government of the country. We must pursue these thoughts further at an appropriate time.

Suggestions have been made and many times repeated from both sides of the House that Select Committee rather than Standing Committee procedure is appropriate for parts of the Bill or for some stages in the consideration of the Bill. It has also been suggested that fuller notes on clauses should be made available and perhaps be readable into the record so that they can be widely disseminated to people who follow the proceedings of the Committee inside the House and outside.

Before going too far along these lines, we should consider the difference between the approach on either side of the House to the Finance Bill. It is notable that the Government Benches are empty, whereas the Opposition Benches are adequately filled by the cohorts of the young Turks who wish to win their spurs on the Finance Bill.

Old.

Ageing, and surely Greeks, not Turks. This arises from the innovation of Mr. Iain Macleod who, in his handling of the Finance Bill, instead of having Front Bench spokesmen dealing with the party position and Back Bench spokesmen representing special interests, parcelled round the speaking from the party point of view to members of the Committee on the Opposition side as a whole. This has meant that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been speaking from the Back Benches for the position which their party broadly represents.

I commend this thought to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I know how hard-pressed he is and how many hours of the night he has to spend reading notes on the clauses and dealing as well with other Government business. I can think of no group of men and women so inefficiently used as Government Back Benchers on the Finance Bill Committee. Woe betide any Government Back Bencher who complains of that. We should rather rejoice in our lot, at being able to stand and wait, but it is not an efficient use of Members' time, nor does it produce efficient legislation. Had we had before us some of the considerations involved in the Finance Bill—for example, benefits in kind—we could perhaps have arranged for the Bill as it emerged to be more acceptable and to have had a greater effect in the intended directions. For example, had the threshold been set not at £5,000 but at £10,000, the balance of representations received would have been very different as, I suspect, would have been the outcome of the Bill as it emerged from Committee.

The hon. Gentleman may be right, but why did not he and his colleagues on the Government Back Benches in Committee upstairs say something about it? There was nothing to prevent them doing so. Was the hon. Gentleman scared of the basilisk stare of the Chief Secretary, or of the Government Whips?