asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the siting of the fast breeder reactor.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is yet able to state the location for the proposed fast breeder reactor.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) on 23rd November.

Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be in a position to make a statement on this project? In view of the very serious blow being given to the Scottish economy by pit closures and the announcement yesterday on hydro-electric development, does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is vitally important on social, economic and political grounds that a decision should be taken in favour of siting this reactor in the Scottish Highlands?

My hon. Friend must appreciate that I am well aware of the complicated nature of the problems affecting the Scottish economy at present. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland answered the question about the hydro-electric schemes yesterday. I am not able to give a date, but we are dealing with this matter as expeditiously as we can and I hope to be in a position soon to put the facts before the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman cognisant of the communications which I have had with the Atomic Energy Authority on this subject and will he bear in mind the desirability of siting the reactor on Rettie airfield, Banff?

I am aware that discussions have taken place, but it is not possible for me to say where it will be sited. I have already answered that I am not yet in a position to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the technical requirements are met by the atomic energy establishment at Dounreay and that the decision to be taken will be wholly a political and economic one when he eventually takes it?

I know that that is not the position, other than to say that Dounreay fulfils the qualifications in the same way as many other sites do where claims are being made for the siting of the reactor, but we are not yet in a position to say where or when it will be sited.

asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for giving assistance to the British computer industry.

The Government's initial programme for assisting the development of the computer industry was announced on 1st March. Since then the National Research Development Corporation has announced that it will be making substantial investments in development projects with computer firms. My Department has placed research and development contracts with the industry and with research organisations totalling £187,000. Contracts for about a further £300,000 are under consideration.

Would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that Government agencies and nationalised industries buy British computers instead of American?

I have been using that influence to the best of my ability for some time, but one has to recognise that it is influence that one tries to use and not a directive.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a European conference in London recently to study the question of the computer industry it was generally agreed that it was unlikely that there was a sufficient basis in Britain alone to make a viable British computer industry? Will my right hon. Friend consider this question along with other European countries?

This is quite a way from the original Question. We are giving the closest attention to joint efforts in this field, but we in Government circles feel that we can make a viable British computer industry.

asked the Prime Minister what steps he will take to accord with the representations he received from Members of Parliament on 2nd August asking for drastic cuts in arms expenditure much earlier than were proposed by Her Majesty's Government in the summer.

asked the Prime Minister what action he is taking to secure a speedy and large reduction in arms expenditure.

My colleagues and I are vigorously pursuing the Defence Review, Sir.

Will the Prime Minister agree that the moves so far do not meet the Parliamentary Labour Party resolution of that date? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Will my right hon. Friend reduce the British forces in Germany, costing us £190 million a year, which are not needed and when the German Government are cutting their arms by £80 million a year?

The review is not yet completed and we cannot yet announce what action will have to be taken to relate commitments to the available resources both in real and monetary terms.

Would the Prime Minister not accept that the very heavy strain on the economy which this level of armaments expenditure represents is proving a burden to the achievement of the Government's social programme and is intensifying our balance of payments difficulties? Will my right hon. Friend look again at the expenditure of £500 million a year on overseas bases to see whether this can be justified, either in terms of its burden on our domestic economy or by a realistic assessment of our peace-keeping operations?

I have made it clear a number of times that we are looking at both the foreign exchange component in this expenditure and the general burden on our resources, but we are not yet in a position to announce what our answer to this will be. As far as costs are concerned, I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the total expenditure this year on defence is not more than two-thirds, and may be a little less, of the programme which all the arguments were about in 1951.

While reinforcing the plea that the defence burden of about £2,000 million a year should be reduced as far as possible and as quickly as possible, may I ask the Prime Minister whether at the same time he will bear in mind the necessity of our remaining capable of meeting our obligations to our Commonwealth partners, not least the Republic of Zambia?

That perhaps may come up on another Question, but so far as the wider issue is concerned we are very much alive to the need of meeting our obligations to our Commonwealth partners and to our allies. It is a question of cutting commitments to a point we can fulfil, and the commitments are highly competitive with one another.

asked the Prime Minister what consultations with other Governments have taken place on the question of an embargo on oil shipments to Southern Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to implement the United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an oil embargo to be included in economic sanctions against the Smith régime in Southern Rhodesia.

I have, as yet, nothing to add to the statement I made in the House on 23rd November.

Does the Prime Minister recall that the Foreign Secretary on 22nd November emphasised the need for speedy counsel in this direction? Will he now reiterate Her Majesty's Government's support of, e United Nations Resolution of 20th November and will he give us some idea of the time-scale which he has in mind to implement an oil embargo, which would be extremely effective in bringing Mr. Smith to book?

On 23rd November I ma de a very full statement about this and I made it clear that in our study of this and other problems arising out of the United Nations Resolution we could not hope to settle this kind of problem on a unilateral basis. It would be ineffective in terms of what my hon. Friend has in mind and, in fact, could inflict more damage than good, but we are pursuing this vigorously on a multilateral basis.

asked the Prime Minister what further consideration he has given to the abolition of censorship of stage and television productions.

The Government are considering how best the law relating to censorship of stage plays might be reviewed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is disquiet in some circles not only about the activities of some busybodies but also about Government interference in certain programmes——

Hear, hear.

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not wait for his applause but will get on with his supplementary question.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is alarm not only about the activities of some busybodies but also about Government interference in programmes, particularly in relation to the programme "The War Game"?

The Government have not interfered in any way with stage plays or with any of these programmes. As regards rumours about "The War Game", the Government have not interfered at all.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, during the week in which a constituent of mine, a courageous prison officer, was killed in the execution of his duty, and before his funeral, the B.B.C. chose to put on in the programme "B.B.C. 3", an item sneering at prison officers in general and accusing them of taking part in bribery? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what protection he is able to offer to such public servants?

I was not aware of that particular programme. It has always been ruled, by all parties, that we do not interfere in programmes of the B.B.C. or the other television authorities. The particular tragedy to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one about which all of us would feel sympathy, but I do not think that it arises on this Question.

Will the Prime Minister see that any correspondence between the broadcasting authorities and the Home Office in relation to the programme "The War Game" is published?

I am fully aware of all the circumstances in this matter, and I have been into it very fully. The Government have informed the B.B.C. that we have no observations to make on whether it should be shown or not.

I recognise the complexities involved in this question, but is my right hon. Friend aware that portions of television programmes are giving affront to many of our people? Will he, in virtue of his prominent position, express his disapproval of some of the obscenities which are being broadcast?

Whatever our private feelings—some of us have seen some of these programmes—I do not think that it is right for Ministers to express officially disapproval or approval of individual programmes. There is proper machinery for handling these matters. But this Question relates to the whole problem of censorship, mainly, as I understood it, in relation to stage plays, which all of us recognise as a problem. We are considering how that problem should be dealt with.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the circumstances in which the Government decided not to employ Lord Beeching's services for the study of transport co-ordination carried out earlier this year.

asked the Prime Minister why he decided not to employ Lord Beeching to carry out a study of transport co-ordination.

It has already been explained. I was very anxious that Dr. Beeching, as he then was, should do this study. But he had, in his evidence to the Geddes Committee, taken a strong pro-railway and anti-road line, and the Government considered that, unless he had attached to him assessors who could represent all points of view, there would be strong ground for criticism in this House and elsewhere. Unfortunately, Lord Beeching insisted on a one-man inquiry without assessors.

But did not the Prime Minister, in the first place, get Lord Beeching to agree to do this study single-handed and afterwards impose conditions on him which caused him to withdraw? Is not this what his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology meant by "sacking" him?

No, Sir. The statement made by my right hon. Friend made quite clear the circumstances in which that interchange occurred last week. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite are interested in this important question rather than their usual vendetta against my right hon. Friend, certainly the Government were very anxious that Lord Beeching, with his high qualifications, should do it, but I can just imagine the howl there would have been from hon. Members opposite, particularly those sensitive to road haulage interests, if Lord Beeching, after years of taking the rail point of view and after the evidence submitted last year, had gone into this inquiry alone without assessors representing the point of view of road haulage.

Is not the Prime Minister aware that he appeared to have changed the terms of reference after he first asked Lord Beeching to undertake this survey, and it further appeared that this was as a result of pressure from the Minister of Technology? Is not this a clear example of the undesirability of having a Cabinet Minister remaining a member of the union?

It is about time the hon. Gentleman grew up and faced the facts which this serious problem presents. There was widespread criticism in the Press and elsewhere of the evidence from British Railways to the Geddes Committee, although many people felt that it was reasonable in the emphasis which it placed on the pro-railway side. There would certainly have been the most inordinate howl from road haulage interests—nothing to do with the Minister of Technology—and, I should have thought, from some hon. Members opposite unless one could have been sure that Lord Beeching had access to the views of all concerned. This was why the proposition was put to him. As regards his going back to I.C.I., this, of course, was arranged a long time ago. He was due to go back to I.C.I., but we asked him whether he would stay longer to do this inquiry.

The right hon. Gentleman has stressed that this is an important question. Can he say when his right hon. Friend proposes to provide an answer to it?

If the point of the right hon. Gentleman's question is to ask when we shall make a statement on transport co-ordination, we are very hard at work on this, but—[Laughter.] All we got in the previous 13 years was disco-ordination. I was not aware that any right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that anything had been done to coordinate the transport services in those years. They carried out a pretty effective wrecking action in 1954.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Postmaster-General at Aberdeen on 14th October on the future of the Post Office represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in that speech the Postmaster-General referred to the handicap he felt in having to answer on every detail of Post Office work in the House of Commons? Is it his intention to relieve his right hon. Friend of those responsibilities?

My right hon. Friend did not say that accountability to Parliament should not continue. He said that it created special difficulties for the Post Office, which is the only publicly-owned industry subject to detailed Parliamentary control. In fact, the words which he used were used previously by a very distinguished Conservative Postmaster-General.

asked the Prime Minister what restrictions have been placed by Her Majesty's Government on British citizens visiting Southern Rhodesia.

The travel allowance for. United Kingdom residents visiting Rhodesia is restricted to £250. The previous concession whereby a United Kingdom citizen could take shotguns and cartridges to Rhodesia without a licence has been withdrawn. There are, t present, no other restrictions.

Will not the Prime Minister agree that it is still a good thing for private citizens to visit Rhodesia, whether wishing to see relations there, wanting to go on holiday or wanting to go there for business?

I think that the arguments are very finely balanced. One of the things I have referred to in the House is the possibility of whether we should at the right moment have a Parliamentary delegation. I think that it would be very healthy indeed if we were able to have some contact with a number of shades of opinion in Rhodesia, including some of those which most need encouragement but are not getting all that much.

asked the Prime Minister what advice or instructions he gave to the leaders of the fuel industries when he met them on 17th November; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement issued from 10, Downing Street on 17th November, 1965, a copy of which is in the Library.

Will the Prime Minister reflect on the paucity of that Answer? Does not he agree that he was wasting the time of these people, who are already under considerable pressure, and does not he agree further that the intervention of Prime Ministers in the affairs of nationalised industries makes the almost impossible task of these chairmen worse than it is? Is it not wholly wrong to indulge in what appears to have been a short-term exercise conducted for public relations reasons?

There was great concern about the reasons for the power cuts, and one object of my meeting was to establish clearly what they were. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do a deal with me that neither of us will interfere in the day-to-day operations of the nationalised industries, I am prepared to consider it with him.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that for more than six years nuclear warheads have been mounted secretly on aircraft and missiles of West Germany and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter.

No non-nuclear members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have nuclear warheads under national control. The forces of a number of non-nuclear members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are equipped with nuclear delivery vehicles. My information is that the warheads for these weapons are kept under strict United States custody and control at all times.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement, first published in the New York Times and subsequently in the British Press, has caused great concern, and will he give an assurance that in no circumstances will there be a German finger on the nuclear trigger?

I am not responsible for what appears in the Press, whether it be the New York Times or any other newspaper. So far as the Question is concerned, the arrangements have always been known, I think, by this House, and certainly as far as these particular weapons are concerned there is no German finger on the trigger for the reason set out in my original Answer.

rose——

Order. Question Time is over.