asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed in the Weights and Measures (No. 2) Bill to require a person in charge of a lorry to record the net weight of coal carried when the vehicle is weighed at a weighbridge.

The hon. Member will doubtless have seen that the Bill does require this.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that we welcome the fact that the Bill has now come before the general public in its first stages? There is acute concern about the weight of coal. We welcome this provision.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether power will be sought in the Weights and Measures (No. 2) Bill to require that coal will be packaged or bagged when delivered by a lorry containing supplies for more than one customer.

The hon. Member will doubtless have seen that the Bill does not require this.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at this again in the light of the acute anxiety about the weight of coal?

I think that this provision is in line with the desire of consumers in many parts of the country, but doubtless this will be discussed at a later stage.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the light of the observations in paragraph 172 of the Monopolies Commission's Report on Cigarettes and Tobacco, he will amend the Companies Act so as to require the publication of fuller information about shares held by one company in another.

The questions of disclosure of the beneficial ownership of shares in companies and of the names of subsidiary companies owned by parent companies are matters within the terms of reference of the Committee on Company Law under Lord Jenkins. The Committee has received much evidence bearing on these matters, and I propose to await its report before I consider modifying present legislation.

Is it not clear from the Report of the Monopolies Commission that Imperial Tobacco Co. purposely reduced its holding in Gallaher in order to conceal the extent of its holding? Has not the Commission reported that the holding, even at its existing level, is against the public interest? Will not the right hon. Gentleman therefore call the attention of the Jenkins Commit- tee to this evidence in the Commission's Report in order that it should take due notice of it?

I am sure that the Jenkins Committee will not have failed to see it.

asked the Prime Minister if he will direct the appropriate Ministers to prepare a White Paper containing all the official records and information within the possession or procurement of Her Majesty's Government relating to restrictions placed during the last ten years by the Governments of the maritime nations of Northern Europe on fishing in the territorial waiters adjacent and contiguous to their coasts, with special reference to the bearing of those restrictions on the British fishing industry.

No, Sir. British vessels are not, of course, permittted to fish in foreign territorial waters. Restrictions on fishing outside territorial waters are the subject of agreements which have already been published as White Papers.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that the plans and manoeuvres of the other maritime nations to outwit and damage the British fishing industry have been remarkably successful? Does he not agree that the best way to counter these moves would be to make a full disclosure of all the facts in a White Paper so that the British fishing industry can protect itself, if the Government will not protect it?

All the facts have been published in the four agreements concerned—namely, those with the Soviet Union, Denmark, Norway and Iceland.

asked the Prime Minister if he will direct the appropriate Ministers to prepare a White Paper containing all the official records within the possession or procurement of Her Majesty's Government indicating how many international and other conferences abroad and within Great Britain relating to the fishing industry involved the attendance there of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and if, in view of the number of such conferences, he will now appoint a Minister to he responsible solely for the fishing industry.

No. Sir.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that the duties of the present occupant of the office require him to be in several places at once? Does he recall that 100 years ago an Irish Member, Sir Boyle Roche, said:

"No man can be in two places at once barring he is a bird."

asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to avert the danger that Her Majesty's forces may be engaged in armed combat against the Iraqi Army, and to prevent the unnecessary loss of British lives, he will propose to other heads of Governments represented in the Security Council that a neutral zone should be established between the British and Iraqi forces at Kuwait, and that United Nations observers should undertake to supervise it.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the need for reduced expenditure in Kuwait, he will propose to the other heads of Governments represented in the Security Council plans for a neutral zone on the borders of Kuwait.

Her Majesty's Government desire both to avoid fighting in Kuwait and to reduce our expenditure where possible. We will consider all possible means of achieving these aims.

I want to ask the Prime Minister two questions. First, in fairness to our troops, ought we not to take every possible precaution to prevent the risk of any armed conflict? Secondly, who is it that objects to a United Nations presence in Kuwait? Is it the Ruler of Kuwait, or is it Her Majesty's Government?

With regard to the first part of the supplementary ques- tion, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said. With regard to the second part, we are in this difficulty. The Soviet veto of our eminently reasonable resolution has made things more difficult in the United Nations. Kuwait is not a member of the United Nations. But we are certainly keeping an open mind on this, as indeed we are on other possible solutions of the immediate problem.

Will the Prime Minister instruct our delegate to put this proposal before the Security Council? Is it not in the interests of the Ruler of Kuwait, if he wants to establish his independence, that there should be a United Nations presence there as soon as possible?

Yes, but I repeat that the first resolution we put down, which I think everybody regarded as very reasonable, was vetoed. It is difficult to make progress at the moment. There are alternative methods, which we must not altogether leave on one side—for instance, the possibility of the Arab League playing a rôle?

In view of the Prime Minister's statement that we must keep in mind the need for reducing expenditure, may I ask him if he is aware that the House has not yet had any statement about what this expenditure is?

Order. I require the hon. Gentleman's assistance. Unless he has withdrawn his application far an Adjournment on that topic, the question is barred by his own notice.

I am not quite sure, because to the last diplomatic message I sent you, Mr. Speaker, I have not received an answer. I will, therefore, postpone that part of my question and ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the need to reduce expenditure, he will take into consideration the fact that the United States has large oil interests in Kuwait and ask her to share some of this expenditure.

I think with the general assent of all parties in the House, with very few exceptions, we carried out an operation Which we believed it was our duty to do. We are anxious, of course, to relieve ourselves of this obligation as soon as we can. Already we have been able, fortunately, to make a very substantial withdrawal of troops, and we are studying the best means by which we can get still greater relief.

Can we take it from the Prime Minister's replies that Her Majesty's Government would be willing to co-operate with the Arab League in policing the borders of Kuwait and Iraq?

All these questions must be considered. All I was saying was that we have not been able to make great progress, except that we have been able to withdraw a great part of our forces.

The Prime Minister has twice referred to a substantial withdrawal of forces. Yesterday, when we asked the Minister of Defence what size of force we were withdrawing and how much remained there, we were refused an answer. Will the Prime Minister tell us how substantial the withdrawal is?

I think that the figures were published in the Press today.

If they were published in the Press today, may I ask why hon. Members were denied these figures in this House yesterday? If I put a specific Question again to him, will be give me an answer that the Minister of Defence denied me yesterday?

I shall, of course, consider doing that.

On a point of order. Regarding your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what remedy I have about my attempts to get an estimate of the expenditure in Kuwait. I gave notice that I would raise this matter on the Adjournment. I have communicated with you asking for an Adjournment, and I should like to know what the position is likely to be.

The ballot takes place at 4.30 p.m. today, and that is why I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman at the moment.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Kennedy, Chairman Khrushchev and General de Gaulle that preliminary arrangements should be made for the holding in the late autumn of an East-West Summit Conference on Germany and Berlin.

We are at present engaged in correspondence with the Soviet Government about Germany and Berlin. If this should show that discussions are possible on the basis that I described to the House on 27th June, we shall not hesitate to undertake them.

Will the Prime Minister, with the exquisite courtesy he usually displays to Questions coming from this quarter of the House, take note of the very widely held feeling that the issues of Berlin and Germany can be settled by negotiation and must be settled by negotiation? Will he take some initiative leading to what must inevitably be a Summit Conference if this is to be settled?

I have nothing to add to the Answer I made.