asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what part of the hurricane fund granted to British Honduras in 1931 is still outstanding; and whether this debt can now be cancelled in the interests of the Colony.

No part of the hurricane loan is outstanding. Outstanding capital and interest was remitted by His late Majesty's Government in 1949.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which Colonies in the West Indies have now passed pioneer industries legislation; and to what extent the resultant legislation conforms to the standards he has required in this respect.

Laws to encourage new industries by the grant of Income Tax and Customs Duty concessions have been enacted in Barbados, British Guiana, British Honduras, Jamaica, Antigua, Montserrat, Trinidad and St. Lucia. No directions about the form of such legislation have been given to Colonial Governments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if the number of persons employed by the War Damage Commission, Kuala Lumpur; and the annual expenditure thereon for the year ended 31st December last;

(2) the average administrative cost involved in the settlement of claims for war damage already completed by the War Damage Commission, Kuala Lumpur;

(3) the number of claims for war damage lodged with the War Damage Commission, Kuala Lumpur; and how many of these claims have been settled.

Two hundred and ninety six persons are employed in the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, including 183 subordinate staff, at a total cost of £218,000 in 1951. Up to the end of 1951 administrative costs were 2 per cent. of the total value of awards assessed. About 200,000 claims have been lodged in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya Final awards have been assessed on 80,000 claims, on which divideneds between 30 per cent. and 60 per cent have, so far been paid.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that the investigation into these claims will be expedited as much as possible because many people in this country with claims outstanding in Malaya are very concerned at the delay in settlement?

I have already promised to see if I can accelerate the settlement of claims.

Will the Minister state how many claims have been submitted by tin and rubber companies whose offices are situated in this country?

No, Sir, I have not the information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

In view of the fact that many of these claims have been outstanding for over 10 years and that both my right hon. Friend's predecessors promised they would accelerate their settlement, will my right hon. Friend see if he can do better than either of them?

That will be my constant object.

asked the Prime Minister (1) what regulations have been laid down to govern the acceptance of gifts and services from commercial undertakings to Ministers of the Crown in their capacity as Ministers; and what other gifts and services similar to that of the Cunard Company have been provided to him and the Foreign Secretary since the present Government assumed office;

(2) what estimate was made of the amount which would be payable by the Treasury to cover the expenses of himself and the Foreign Secretary previous to acceptance of the offer of the Cunard Company to provide free travel facilities to and from the United States of America.

No specific regulations have been laid down: but it is well understood that no Minister or public servant should accept gifts or services which would place him under an obligation to a commercial undertaking.

The cost of the two passages by me and one by my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, which were given by the Cunard Company would, I am informed, have amounted at normal rates—that is to say, three passages—to £1,752. Some similar facilities were provided by the United States and Canadian railways.

The gifts and services of the Cunard Company as well as those of the United States and Canadian railways were not to Ministers but to the British taxpayers. I appreciate the courtesy and compliment implied in the action of the British, Canadian and United States bodies concerned. I cannot feel that there is anything discreditable in what happened, except perhaps the spirit that prompted the Questions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the spirit that prompted the Questions was a zeal for public efficiency? Is he not aware that if he had been prompted by the same spirit he would have declined to accept this gift and would have informed the Cunard Company that if they wish to make a donation to relieve the British taxpayer there is nothing whatever to prevent their making an anonymous contribution to the Exchequer?

Apart from this particular incident, may I, on the question of principle, ask if the right hon. Gentleman can recall the case of the late Mr. Ramsay Macdonald many years ago when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government or of the Opposition—at any rate a Member of this House? Mr. Macdonald was alleged to have received from Sir Alexander Grant a sum of money and a motor car, acts which were regarded by the Conservative Party as reprehensible. In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that it is equally reprehensible for members of the Government to receive gifts of any kind, either from commercial undertakings or from private individuals?

It happened that the ship was delayed for a day and so I got the day's papers, which otherwise I should not have seen. I saw in those newspapers—in a certain class of them—elaborate accounts of the extraordinary luxury prevailing on board these liners which compete for world traffic with great advantages to us.

Knowing the kind of mood that is about in certain quarters, I proposed to pay all my own expenses for entertainment myself, apart from transportation, but when I made this proposal to the Company they brushed it aside and made this offer. I was not to be financially affected in any way, and I considered in the circumstances it was a public spirited action on their part and one which I was fully justified in approving. I may say there are precedents for Ministers accepting the hospitality of this company, but as they would carry me down to the depths prevailing in some quarters I will not attempt to call them to mind.

Will my right hon. Friend say how the figures he has just given compare with those of his predecessor when he chartered a Stratocruiser airliner, which took him and his staff to America and remained there for several days and brought him back at the market rate?

It is well-known that a special aeroplane for travel across the ocean is a very expensive thing, but the occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman had to go was one which was considered, most important and critical and good results followed therefrom, and I do not remember that anybody on the Opposition side of the House raised any questions of this character.

While not wishing to deter the right hon. Gentleman from accepting any properly offered hospitality, may I ask whether he does not think that Her Majesty's Prime Minister should be provide with adequate travelling facilities when on official business from funds voted by this House?

If there was a very strong sentiment that the money should be refunded to the company by the Exchequer I should be willing to consider that, but I really think the House would be behaving in an unwise way to insist upon that. There were luncheons and so forth given at which prominent members of the Front Bench opposite sat. Ought they not to have accepted those spontaneous offers of hospitality? I had no interest of any sort or kind in the matter.

asked the Prime Minister how far the actual expenditure on the re-armament programme for 1951–52 will fall short of the expenditure originally proposed.

I cannot give an exact figure, but the present indications are that expenditure will fall short by about £120 million of the £1,250 million which it was hoped it might be possible to spend in the current financial year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that will mean that the programme will have to be extended over four or five years instead of the present three?

It will certainly take longer than three years, but we are going to have a debate on this subject next week.

asked the Prime Minister the extent of the shortfall in th0 re-armament programme, due to lack of materials and other causes, and the revised overall expenditure necessary to maintain the previously announced £4,700 million quantity of supplies, due to the decrease in the purchasing value of the £; and how far he intends to extend the period of fulfilment of this programme.

It is not at present possible to forecast over what precise period it will be necessary to spread production of all the equipment included in the original three-year programme, and therefore to estimate what is likely to be the total expenditure on defence during the revised period of the programme.

The White Paper on Defence Estimates and policy will be circulated tomorrow, and we hope there may be a debate on defence on the Thursday following.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that as soon as he has the facts and figures available he will make a statement to the House or give us an opportunity of putting a Question?

I hope the hon. Member may be fortunate in catching the eye of the Chair in the debate on defence.

I asked the Prime Minister a simple question. He said the facts and figures are not yet available. I am asking that when they are available he will either make a statement to the House or, through the usual channels, make arrangements for a suitable Question to be asked so that he can give the facts and figures to the House.

The facts when they are apparent will be made known.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this estimate includes the new expenditure likely to arise as a result of new policy on the discovery of the atom bomb?

I should be very sorry to put myself forward as seeking to deprive the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues of the credit that is due to them for the progress that has been made.

Can the Prime Minister say whether any estimate has been formed to show how much we will get for such money as we are able to spend as compared with what we could have got for the same money at the time when this re-armament programme was framed?

I think that is a very fair point to raise in the forthcoming debate.

asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to announce the revised expenditure on armaments to replace the late Government's programme of £4,700 million over three years.

The programme has not been replaced. On the contrary we are pressing forward with it to the best of our ability though inevitably it must now be spread over a somewhat longer period.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we should be more likely to get a greater quantity of effective units for a given sum of money spent if revision were planned ahead rather than a reduction left to the free play of material shortages?

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement, consequent upon his conversations in the United States of America, on the future of the.280 rifle.

As was indicated in the Communiqué which was issued after my talks in Washington on 9th January, neither we nor the United States consider it wise to take the important step of changing our rifles at the present time, and we shall both continue to rely upon rifles and ammunition which are now in stock or are being produced. Both countries will produce new rifles and ammunition on an experimental scale only, and this will apply to the production of the.280 rifle in the United Kingdom. Every effort will be made to produce a standard rifle and ammunition for all N.A.T.O. countries.

Does that mean that Her Majesty's Government have now abandoned the hope of persuading the Americans that our rifle is better than theirs?

I see no prospect of carrying out that process of conversion.