asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the level of aid provided by the United Kingdom to Kenya in 1976; and what are the projected figures for 1977 and 1978.

In 1976, £11·5 million; the estimated disbursement for 1977–78 is £15 million. These figures do not include pension payments of £3·1 million or loans by the Commonwealth Development Corporation of £6·4 million in 1976.

In view of the substantial sums forwarded by the British taxpayer, will the Minister add his support to any approach to the Kenya Government to stop the blocking of funds which comprise the savings of many British citizens who have the misfortune to have them controlled by the Kenya Government and who have no ability at the moment to get their money back?

If the hon. Gentleman has specific problems in that direction, I hope that he will write to me so that I can give the matter the serious consideration that it will no doubt warrant.

In considerng this aid, will my hon. Friend remember that at all times since Kenya's independence in 1963 she has made the most sensible use of the aid that she has received from this country?

That is certainly so, and that is why the Government have strong concern for the need to support the Government in Kenya, in accordance with our aid strategy.

Does the Minister still believe that the Nairobi-based development division is the best way of administering aid both to Kenya and to the rest of East Africa?

The question of the development divisions is under continuous review. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular problem which he thinks makes it less than the best way, if he gives me his detailed view it will receive the consideration that it merits.

Does the Minister take into account the fact that the Kenya Government are most concerned about the possibility of threats from the Somali border? In that context, is he giving every consideration to aid for defence for this part of Africa, which is essential to keeping a democratic structure within central Africa?

The Government are very much concerned about the problem, but we do not use aid funds for defence purposes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the reason for that.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what sums remain outstanding of the 1971 loan to the Government of Paraguay.

None, Sir.

In retrospect, and bearing in mind the nature of the régime and the fact that it is reported in Paraguay that many critics of the national electric power network project for which that money was advanced in 1971 have been arrested, will the Government now say that no similar projects will be entertained in the future as long as the present régime in Paraguay remains?

No projects are anticipated at present. As in all other areas in the world, human rights considerations are seriously taken into account in any decisions that are made in relation to the aid budget.

Can the Minister confirm today's report that the Government have withdrawn the £19 million loan to Bolivia because of representations by the NUM about human rights in that country? Can the Minister indicate—

Order. This Question is about Paraguay. The hon. Member should put his question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether feasibility studies into sheepskin processing, mutton freezing and local television have yet been authorised for the Falkland Islands.

An adviser has just visited the Falkland Islands to give practical demonstrations on sheepskin processing and to advise on the feasibility of establishing a small skin processing project in the islands and on marketing possibilities. The Falkland Islands Government have not yet asked my Department to provide feasibility studies in mutton freezing and local television, but I should be prepared to consider any such requests sympathetically if they were made.

That answer is fair enough as far as it goes, but as the recommendations of the Shackleton Report were made 16 months ago, and as a whole range of feasibility studies has been promised in the Falkland Islands, should not greater progress be made? In any event, would it not be right to ensure that the results of those studies are made known and that any development schemes are agreed with the Falkland Islands Government before there are any further discussions with the Argentine dictatorship about the future of the islands?

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I had discussions with the Governor of the Falkland Islands about a month ago, and I can give an assurance that we shall do everything we can to promote the economic development of the Falkland Islands while discussions with the Argentinian Government proceed.

Will the right hon. Lady promise the House that a full answer will be given to what should be done about the Shackleton Report and essentially about the extension of the runway in the Falklands, which would make the whole situation much easier? Will she bear in mind that, with the new wealth being discovered in the Antarctic, it is more important than ever that we maintain our interest in the Falkland Islands?

I assure the House that we are deeply impressed and concerned with all these aspects of the matter.

Do something about it.

We are providing a great deal of technical assistance to the Falkland Islands to explore all these possibilities. We shall continue to do so and we shall certainly inform the House as soon as we can of our conclusions on the economic prospects for the Falkland Islands.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that fish is as important as sheepmeat and that the most important feasibility study we can do here is that in connection with fishing? Is she aware that the seas are teeming with fish being caught by Communist nations and Japan and that Hull, among many ports, is teeming with vessels which cannot get to sea to catch fish because of the Icelandic blockade?

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we are now touching on matters which perhaps concern our colleagues in the EEC even more than the Argentinian Government and the Falkland Islands.

In view of a reply to an earlier Question of mine that the development of fishing must be made dependent on co-operation with Argentina, may I ask the Minister whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Argentina should be allowed to put a brake on the exploitation of the resources of the islands for the benefit of their British people?

No, not at all. It is a question of balancing the discussions with the Argentinian Government and the best interests of the Falkland Islanders. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the best interests of the Falkland Islands are at the centre of my thinking.

In view of the Minister's totally unsatisfactory answer, I propose to raise the whole matter of the Falkland Islands on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what conclusions she has now reached about British funding of the Viphya forestry project in Malawi.

During discussions in May, my officials provisionally agreed to a tentative allocation of further capital aid of about £3 million over the next four years for the maintenance of the existing pine plantations and related development plus some additional planting. I now await detailed proposals.

Given that this project is in a deprived area, what are the immediate prospects for continuing with local employment? Can the creation of such a substantial asset at Viphya now be made commercially viable?

The fact that we are, as I have said, making a tentative allocation of further capital aid of £3 million over the next four years indicates the importance that the Government feel this project represents to a very deprived area of Malawi and obviously has significant repercussions for employment and for other benefits to come to the economy of that area.

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a deprived area of Malawi, but can he say approximately what proportion of Government aid over the next four years this £3 million represents?

My right hon. Friend is trying to do his mental arithmetic, which is somewhat faster than mine. I cannot do so now, but I shall try to give a reply later today.

If my hon. Friend is considering the allocation of resources in Africa, and in Malawi in particular, will he give careful attention to the possibility of developing the cold chain for immunisation against diseases which can be prevented in that area?

My hon. Friend will know from the discussions which he has already had with me the level of importance that both I and the Ministry attach to this project. As I have told him, we are willing to have further discussions at any time to see how progress can be expedited.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total amount of Government assistance to Mozambique during the current year; and for what purposes that assistance has been given.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on her recent visit to Mozambique.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development which areas of development the recent aid to Mozambique is intended to cover.

British aid to Mozambique consists firstly of two programme loans, each of £5 million. The 1976 loan, which was offered following the Mozambican closure of its border with Rhodesia, was to buy British goods, notably vehicles including bus chassis and trucks, textile machinery, electrical generating equipment and transformers, and spare parts. The 1977 loan was made in response to the appeal of the Security Council of the United Nations last June and will be for spares and maintenance items.

Secondly, we are providing £10 million of project aid to finance three electric power projects and for rural roads, to help agricultural development. Thirdly, we have provided 5,000 tonnes of food aid. I am publishing further financial details in the Official Report.

My visit to Mozambique was for the purpose of signing the 1977 programme loan agreement and of discussing the most useful way of directing our aid programme.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread indignation in this country—

Nonsense.

about Government financial assistance to the Marxist régime in Mozambique, and that she has no guarantee that part of this very substantial aid is not being used by the Mozambique Government for the furtherance of the terrorists who are based there and who are murdering the Queen's subjects in Rhodesia?

Naturally, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Let me tell him, however, that there is total control over both the project aid and the programme aid to Mozambique, and no part of it is in fact going for anything that can be construed as assisting warfare. Second, may I say that perhaps it might be better if the hon. Gentleman took a little less notice of what I can only call the somewhat irresponsible and mischievous reports that appear from time to time in the Press about Mozambique.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the aid that the Government have agreed to give Mozambique. Is there not a degree of hypocrisy in the attitude that has been taken in certain quarters, since there was complete abandonment of any interest in the amount of arms supplied to South Africa and the use to which they were put in relation to holding down blacks and perpetuating apartheid in that country?

I would, of course, entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The facts and assessments upon which we base our aid to Mozambique—certainly the programme loans and the most recent one which I signed in Mozambique on my recent visit—are based on very detailed United Nations assessments of the cost to Mozambique of sanctions against Rhodesia and the cost to Mozambique of, among other things, armed attacks from Rhodesia. Indeed, we expect today—I cannot be quite certain—to be one of the co-sponsors at the United Nations in New York of a resolution which will endorse the conclusion of a United Nations report saying that an additional $87 million of assistance plus food support is urgently needed by Mozambique on these counts.

If it is right for the Government to cancel a £19 million aid project to Bolivia on the grounds that that régime has abused human rights, how can it possibly be right for the Government to provide £20 million of taxpayers' money to support a regime which is providing a base to enable guerrillas to attack Africans and Europeans in Rhodesia? How can the Minister support a régime which is advocating a militant and violent solution in Rhodesia while her colleague the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is advocating a peaceful solution in that country?

The hon. Gentleman and I were both present at the debate on Friday on the Rhodesia sanctions order. He heard, as I heard, what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had to say. It is clear that there are two views about this matter. Plainly, there is a war situation in Southern Africa— it is not of our doing, but it is a fact—and that war situation means that there are guerrilla fighters stationed in Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique. Our aid to Mozambique is not concerned with that; it is concerned partly with the poverty of Mozambique and partly with the direct economic consequences to Mozambique of playing its part in what we hope will be a peaceful solution to the Rhodesian problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in this country appreciate the sacrifices made by the people and Government of Mozambique in carrying out a sanctions policy against an illegal régime? Would it not be better if Conservative Members spent less time defending those who are in rebellion against the Crown and more in supporting those who are carrying out the policy of this Government?

Hon. Members opposite would be well advised to read the United Nations report and to understand the very real economic sacrifices imposed upon an already difficult economic situation in Mozambique by the closing of the border with Rhodesia. They would do well to read some of the factual evidence on this subject.

Is the Minister aware that those of us who regularly read United Nations reports on the state

The gross national product per head of Mozambique puts it well within the category of the poorest countries of the world. Falkland Islands, I am afraid, does not quite fall into that category.

Secondly, I wish that some hon. Members opposite would take the opportunity to visit Mozambique—I do not think that any of them have done so—and see just what poverty there is in the rural areas of Mozambique, following 50 years of Portuguese colonialism when nothing was done to benefit the ordinary people of Mozambique. I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would go and see for themselves rather than rely on mischievous reports in the Daily Telegraph.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.