asked the First Secretary of State what decisions he has reached concerning the publication of pledges made by Her Majesty's Ministers in 1953 on the conditions under which the Federation of Central Africa might be dissolved.

I have been asked to reply.

While welcoming publication of the White Paper, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree with the judgment of The Times this morning that the Government's argument fails lamentably and that the pledges cannot be denied? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what concerns us on this side of the House is not so much that Her Majesty's Government should now have broken pledges made in secret by earlier Ministers which contradict constitutions presented to Parliament and ratified, but that these pledges should ever have been made by Her Majesty's Ministers, limiting as they do powers which are vested in this House, and that they should have concealed these pledges from the British Parliament and people until they were revealed in another place 10 years later? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that this sort of conduct is compatible with the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Ministers?

I do not accept that. I have no direct knowledge of these matters, but I have studied them very carefully indeed. I do not accept what is said in The Times this morning. We always quote The Times when it happens to agree with our own point of view. I entirely disagree with it. I think that the White Paper which has been published makes entirely clear that the discussions related, and only related, to the review and what amendments might be brought about through the review, and it has never been suggested at any time, either to Parliament to anywhere else, in the whole of these 10 years, that a pledge of the nature which the hon. Gentleman suggests existed.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the three ex-Ministers concerned all stated in another place in a recent debate that they had made pledges with the same significance as was given to them by Sir Roy Welensky? How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly maintain the position he has just put to the House in view of the statements made in another place by the noble Lords, Lord Chandos, Lord Boyd and Lord Swinton?

There is to be a debate in a few days in another place in which my noble Friends Lord Chandos and Lord Swinton will speak. I cannot anticipate what they will say.

They have already said it.

That was before the publication of the White Paper. I am certain that at no time has any pledge been given, nor could one have been given, that would limit the freedom of this House.

asked the First Secretary of State on what conditions he contributed to the finances of the Central African University.

I have been asked to reply.

Did these conditions include any safeguard concerning British citizens who are on the staff of this university? Is he aware that Dr. Terence Ranger, a member of the staff of this University, was deported because he engaged in inter-racial activities when a lecturer at an inter-racial college? Under conditions like that, ought not our Government to stand for the elementary liberties of British citizens in a university to which the Government contribute?

Although I understand the feelings of the hon. Member, that supplementary question is quite a distance away from his main Question. The position is that the constitution of the college establishes—as he knows; he has been there, as I have—that the college shall be multi-racial. That is written into the Charter of 11th February, 1955. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question surely goes outside the provision of C.D. and W. grants to this university.

asked the First Secretary of State whether, during his visit to Central Africa, he discussed with the Federal authorities the alteration of the Constitution in regard to responsibility for immigration.

I have been asked to reply.

Did the First Secretary at no time discuss with the Federal authorities the operation of the immigration laws, the king series of arbitrary expulsions from the Federation of persons with whose political views the Federal Government did not agree? Did he at no time make any representations about the widespread indignation felt among all parties in this country about the treatment of Dr. Terence Ranger?

My right hon. Friend was concerned with matters of broad policy and discussions with the Government concerned. On the immediate question of Dr. Ranger, there is some difficulty in my commenting, partly because these matters are within the Federal Government's immigration powers but more particularly because Dr. Ranger has entered an appeal, judgment on which has been reserved until 20th February.

But did not the right hon. Gentleman make any representations about the treatment of Dr. Ranger before this difficulty arose? Will not he undertake to do so when the opportunity arises?

I will convey the views of hon. Members in this matter to the First Secretary, but I must remind the House of the point that I made a moment ago. Because of what I have said, I do not think that it would be right, in any case, to comment about the matter.

But will the right hon Gentleman and the Government consider making representations to the Federal authorities, through the High Commissioner in Salisbury?

I take it that the hon. and learned Member means after 20th February?

Yes.

If the hon. and learned Member wishes, I will put the point to my right hon. Friend.

asked the First Secretary of State if he will now convene a conference to revise the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia.

asked the First Secretary of State what plans he has for a new Constitution for Northern Rhodesia.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday in Central Africa the Northern Rhodesian Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority to secede from the Federation, or expressed the desire to secede from the Federation, and that on the same day the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia said that it would be wise to make a clean break with the Federation now? As all the Territorial Governments now wish to end the Federation, and any hope of economic co-operation between the constituent parts depends on recognising the end of the Federation, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why his right hon. Friend is still delaying and dilly-dallying on this matter? Is there some other secret pledge yet to be published if we take some other step?

That is a very unworthy comment. Of course I am aware of what has been happening in Central Africa recently. The general election to which the hon. Gentleman refers was, after all, completed only on 10th December, 1962, and whatever the shortcomings of that Constitution for which I have been a good deal criticised, it has at least produced a Government which reflects the majority held in the Legislature by the African parties. I think that what is in the minds of people at the moment is really the future association of the territories. That is the present concern, and not perhaps the question of immediate constitutional change.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be any stability in this type of territory, any new constitution should at least be given some time to prove that it works properly? Does not he also agree that the most urgent thing to do at the moment is to call a conference in Africa, and not in Lancaster House, in order to discuss the whole future of the Federation?

I agree with the general tenor of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but the question of the venue of such a conference, if one is called, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary.

With his great experience of these matters, will not the right hon. Gentleman accept the fact that any hope of a fruitful association between these three territories—as many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe—is extremely important, and that it will depend on accepting that the Federation was a mistake, allowing it to be dissolved, and allowing the constituent Governments to get into contact with each other from a clean sheet?

I cannot altogether accept that suggestion, although I accept parts of it. Everybody knows the position in relation to the Federation at present, but I think that I am right in saying that in most people's minds the immediate question is not so much one of constitutional advance for any given territory—although that will come—but the future of the association, and what form it should take, between these territories.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether the Government of the Republic of Cyprus have yet made an approach to him about the constitutional dispute over the composition of municipal councils.

No, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the question of the division of the Civil Service and the major municipalities was settled when the new independence Constitution was brought in? Is not the setting up of these improvement boards a contravention of the Constitution?

I do not want to enter into the controversy myself, but we very much hope that the two communities will manage to settle this matter between themselves.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why, when the Trinidad Government had on several occasions in 1961 refused to make the requested financial contribution to an expanded defence programme proposed by the then Federal Government, he has nevertheless made acceptance of this obligation a condition of financial aid to Trinidad; whether he is aware of the resentment this has caused in Trinidad, particularly as the Trinidad Government have not been informed of the make-up of the sum demanded; and whether he will now cancel this alleged debt.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. Right up till July, 1962, the official position of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago was understood by the other Governments concerned to be, in the words of the Trinidad Government, that they were "not disposed to object" to meeting their share of the Federal Government's expanded defence programme. The condition in our Aide-Mémoire of 30th October, 1962, refers solely to this share which Trinidad and Tobago agreed in December, 1960, and rejected in July, 1962.

Has the hon. Member read the new White Paper from the Trinidad Government, in which the reasons are given, namely, that the Trinidad Government understand that at a meeting held on 10th December, 1960, with the then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies present, an agreement was reached under which the British Government would pay roughly one-third of this expanded defence programme, and that the Trinidad Government refused to continue with its payment when they discovered that the British Government refused to honour that agreement? Is this statement in the Trinidad White Paper—a statement which reflects on the British Government—true or untrue? It is important for the good name of Britain that a clear answer should be given on this matter.

The British Government never agreed to pay that sum, especially when there were funds available from Federal sources. We merely undertook to consider it. Of course I have read the White Paper, and it is made clear in it that Trinidad and Tobago, in February, 1961, would not agree to contribute one cent more to any expansion programme. What we are discussing is the contribution which, as the same White Paper says, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago had already agreed to make.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, since the British proposals for financial settlement with Trinidad have been rejected as offering an unsuitable form of economic aid, he will reopen negotiations on the basis of Trinidad's suggestion of an Exchequer loan of £5 million, as set out in the letter from Dr. Williams on 5th November, 1962.

No, Sir. This suggestion was taken fully into consideration before we made our offer to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. I think that the offer was reasonable; it compares favourably with those made to other countries and accepted by them. It did not constitute an "unsuitable form" of economic aid.

Has the hon. Member read the letter dated 5th November last year, from the Prime Minister of Trinidad to the British Prime Minister, in which he said that he had asked for this kind of loan as long ago as the previous January, and had never had a formal reply? Is this really the way to uphold our position as head of the Commonwealth? Secondly, would it not be a good thing, now that the whole thing has broken down on the basis of the British Government's offer, to try to reopen negotiations on the kind of offer Trinidad would prefer, after which it might be possible to settle all the outstanding difficulties?

I certainly have read the White Paper. The request from the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago was received in March. In April, the British Government proposed a discussion on economic matters which took place in June. This was considered an answer to the request. But I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very difficult to deal with this matter by Question and Answer. It is very much better to deal with these rather complicated matters through the usual diplomatic channels and if there is a misunderstanding let us clear it up.

While recognising that the offer to Trinidad is broadly in scale with offers made to other countries, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would accept that it is the feeling of many hon. Members on both sides of the House that too often these offers to countries on independence are almost entirely taken up in liquidating the commitments made by previous Colonial Governments before independence, particularly with regard to the compensation of civil servants and such matters? Would not he use his influence with the Treasury to try to ensure in future that more generous treatment is handed out to these new States?

I only wish that the public purse was fuller. But it must be remembered that the national income of Trinidad and Tobago is many times that of other Commonwealth countries like Tanganyika. I wish that we had more money to give to all our friends in the Commonwealth.

asked the Minister of Education what steps he proposes to take to secure greater uniformity between the maintenance allowances paid by different local education authorities and, in particular, to raise the level of the allowances paid by those authorities now making the smallest grants.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on 31st July last.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are still great variations among local education authorities in this matter, and that in this democratic age most people think it inequitable and indefensible that there should be variations in these allowances and that educational opportunity should depend upon where the student lives?

As my hon. Friend made clear on that occasion, this is a matter essentially for the discretion of local authorities. We have ascertained that no local education authority pays maintenance allowances below the rate recommended in Circular 327.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are certain classes of students—for instance, students of art—who are particularly badly treated in certain local authority areas? Will he make a special study of this group?

I will pay attention to what the hon. Lady has said.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Weaver Working Party Report and the Ministerial action that followed has resulted in stepping up the maintenance allowances, which represents a move towards greater uniformity? Is he aware that there is still a great need, and will he consider setting up the Weaver Working Party again?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion. I am, of course, aware that the majority of local education authorities do pay scales which are either similar to or above the rates recommended in the Weaver Report.

asked the Minister of Education (1) if he will undertake a special campaign to recruit for the teaching profession men and women over 21 years of age at present employed in industry and commerce;

In the general drive to recruit more teachers considerable emphasis has been laid on the recruitment of older people to training; eight day colleges have been set up to cater specially for mature students and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a recent pamphlet on late entrants issued by the Department and aimed at recruits from industries and commerce as well as at married women working at home. One year courses are provided in the four technical teacher training colleges and shortened courses are available in most other colleges for suitably qualified candidates. Training grants have recently been increased, and special allowances are now available in certain cases for older people to help make good losses in salary.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I am sorry that he has lumped these two categories together, because they are very different? Does not the hon. Gentleman know that in the first place there are far too few places for mature students, even with the stepping up? Is he aware that there is in the country a considerable number of people, both younger and older, who could be recruited if, first, provision were made in the colleges and, secondly, adequate financial provision were made for older people with families?

The hon. Member will be aware of the further increase in the size of teacher training colleges which has recently been announced. I share his wish to see more mature students coming into the teaching profession. In fact, the 2,250 students aged 25 or over who entered training colleges in 1961–62 included about 500 who were mostly people with industrial or commercial experience attending technical training colleges with a view to obtaining employment in further education.

asked the Minister of Education when he intends to publish his proposals for the future of primary education.

My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement next month.

It will be interesting to hear that announcement, but will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to bear in mind that, although secondary and all higher education is of great importance, the majority of children start their education in our primary schools? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the condition of many of these schools leaves much to be desired? Is he aware that some are a hundred years old and that they need modernising or rebuilding? Is he aware that often they are staffed by unqualified teachers? Will the Minister bear these points in mind and see that far more money is made available for primary education, in view of the fact that so many children start their education in primary schools?

It is because my right hon. Friend attaches such a high degree of importance to primary education that he is considering the possibility of an inquiry of this sort.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend whether he will take steps to close the 500 schools that were blacklisted before the war as being unfit for children to be taught in, but in which children are still being educated? May we have an assurance that in the new plans those schools will disappear?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that within the rising total of allotted school building every effort will be made to get rid of these schools as soon as possible, but, as he will know, attention has been focussed upon secondary schools during the last three or four years.

asked the Minister of Education on what date he received a request to meet a deputation from the Norfolk County Council to discuss urgent educational problems in Norfolk; and what was the date and nature of his reply.

The request was received on 31st December, 1962, and answered on 9th January, 1963. The authority was told that my right hon. Friend could not increase the size of its 1963–64 school building programme and that the size of the 1964–65 programme had still to be settled. In these circumstances he felt that no useful purpose could be served by his meeting a deputation to discuss the school building programme.

Upon reflection, will not the hon. Gentleman agree that this was a bad snub for the Norfolk County Council, of which I am a member, on the part of his right hon. Friend? Is he aware that among the many urgent educational problems in Norfolk we have the problem of village schools which are completely out-dated? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is also an urgent need for secondary schools, and particularly for one at East Dereham in my constituency? If the Minister is not prepared to meet a deputation from the county council and to listen to our problems, will the hon. Gentleman ask him to make certain that extra money is available so that we may get on with building the new secondary school which is so urgently needed at East Dereham?

My right hon. Friend carefully considered the case of the Norfolk authority and made certain that the authority had received its fair allocation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not the first request which has been received from the authority for the Minister to receive a deputation. As my right hon. Friend could not receive a deputation from every local education authority I think that he was right to send the reply which he did.

asked the Minister of Education if his Department was invited to send representatives to the British Association for Commercial and Industrial Education Conference on Industrial Training held on 15th January, 1963.

Yes, Sir. The Department was represented by an Assistant Secretary, whose name appears in the list of members circulated at the conference.

asked the Minister of Education if he will ensure that the replacement of Friarswood School in Newcastle-under-Lyme is included in the next school building programme for Staffordshire.

My right hon. Friend has been unable to include this project in the 1964–65 programme.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his Department consented to the replacement of this school in 1936 but unfortunately the war stopped work on it? Ever since that time, 27 years ago, his Department has refused to allow the school to be replaced. Is he not aware that it is a public scandal in north Staffordshire that this obsolete school is still in use? It should be replaced urgently. Will he, therefore, kindly reconsider his decision?

The 1964–65 major building programme for Staffordshire has had to be devoted to projects needed to provide school accommodation for additional children expected from the growing population and new housing. Even so, it totals over £1¼ million.

Has not the Parliamentary Secretary just heard the support in the House for urgent priority to be given to getting rid of slum schools? This school was considered obsolete 27 years ago when his Department agreed to its replacement. Therefore, will not he immediately put it on the list as an urgent matter?

No. I am not able to put it immediately on the list.

On a point of order. In view of the totally unsatisfactory answer, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Education why Mr. Dinnis of Blackburn, a married student of 21 years of age at present undergoing a three-year teachers' training course, has been classed as dependent on his parents for grant purposes, in view of the fact that he had been earning his own living for nearly two years before taking up training, is receiving no financial help from his parents and has a wife and baby to support.

Under the grant arrangements men students are treated as independent of their parents if they are over 25 before they begin their course or have supported themselves for at least three years.

Does not this case prove how absurd these grant arrangements are? Does the Parliamentary Secretary believe that the right way to get the urgently required teachers is to tell a student that he must be either over 25 before he is married or that he should postpone his training until then? What is the good of the hon. Gentleman talking about the need to get more mature teachers in training when the Government are treating existing trainees in this way? My Question refers to a man who has been supporting himself for two years, who is now married, and has a baby 11 months old. Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider these grant arrangements in the light of experience, as his predecessor agreed to do when these Regulations were first discussed?

I will certainly undertake to look at this matter again, but this matter was endorsed by the Anderson Committee and it has been the practice that dependants' allowance should be paid only to students who are themselves treated as independent.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that the Government quote the Anderson Committee when it suits them and differ from it when they decide differently? Therefore, they cannot quote it in aid on this matter. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we had the strongest representations on this from the National Union of Students and other bodies? The present Regulations, with their present age limit, are quite unrealistic and out of keeping with modern trends. Will he ask his right hon. Friend to look seriously at this again?

I have said that the point will be considered, but, whether one quotes the Anderson Committee always or sometimes, the fact remains that this body of people came to the conclusion that this was the right arrangement.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Education if he will state the proportion of grammar school places available in the excepted district of Newcastle-under-Lyme in each of the last five years.

As the Answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Do the figures show an increase or a diminution in the chances of a grammar school education?

A slight increase over the period the hon. Gentleman mentions.

asked the Minister of Education what is delaying the completion of the new premises for the London Nautical School; and when he expects these alternative premises to be ready for occupation.

This project has not been delayed. It is on the L.C.C.'s 1963–64 school building programme. The authority is going ahead with plans and expects the new premises to be ready in September, 1965.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary regard this as satisfactory, since the building now being used was erected over 85 years ago and promises were given to the governing body that new premises would be provided in the past 10 years? During that period new nautical schools have been provided at Southampton, Cardiff, South Shields, Plymouth and many other places. Why should London lag so far behind?

I have said that the project has already been authorised, and I understand that the London County Council is making as great haste with it as it can.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what study he has made of the report from Family Service Units on accommodation and rents in the London area; and if he will make a statement.

The report confirms what is well known—namely, that there is not enough cheap rented accommodation in London to go round. The answer lies mainly in the provision of more accommodation by local authorities and that is why I have been encouraging the London County Council and other authorities to increase their stock of dwellings for this purpose.

I thank the Minister for that lengthy reply. Does not this impartial report also show that the Government's attitude, as witnessed by their Rent Act and their subsequent action in having more houses built for sale than for rent and encouraging private house building against local authority house building, is one of the major causes of the difficulties which the Minister mentioned in his reply? Will not he change his policy and give those who need rented accommodation an opportunity to get it?

No. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman here, though I freely agree, and have agreed all along, that there is a serious problem for lower rented housing accommodation in London. The fact is that this report shows that there is accommodation to rent but it is at too high a price for the lower family incomes. That I accept. But before the Rent Act there was practically no accommodation to let at any price, because it was all sold.

Are we to take it that the Minister is saying that now there is more rented accommodation available but it is at such exorbitant prices that none of those who need it can afford to have it? What good is that? Will he not do something to bring the rents down so that those who really need accommodation can get it?

Those who really need relatively cheap accommodation should look to the local authorities, whose stock is going up continuously. However, this is—I do not wish to hide it in any way—a very serious problem on which I have promised to make a statement as soon as I can.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a list of the commodities in relation to which, following an application for anti-dumping duty under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1957, he has achieved an agreement with the exporter complained about to raise the price, together with amount of increased price and the duration of the agreement.

With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the eight products for which, following a decision by the Board of Trade that duties under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, would be justified, the exporters concerned have preferred to enter into equivalent price arrangements. These arrangements for the most part have not

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the redundancy of 1,100 workers from 22nd February at the factory of Remington-Rand, Millington, Glasgow; and what action he proposes to take.

I was sorry to learn about the reduction of the scale of operations at this factory at Hillington, and the consequent discharge of part of the labour force. The company, which has been in touch with us, regrets that it must take this step for commercial reasons. Although there is nothing that I can do in this particular case, I shall go on doing my utmost to encourage the introduction and expansion of industry in the area by the vigorous use of my powers under the Local Employment Act.

Could not the President of the Board of Trade give us something more than the stereotyped reply he gave in the latter part of his Answer? Has he actively intervened with this company to see whether this redundancy can be avoided? This will give rise to a dread-

In replying, I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the letter he wrote me on this subject and say that I went into the matter very closely, and so did my officials, and I was quite certain that there was no intervention which I could usefully make in a situation which I personally regretted very much.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that this redundancy is of two-thirds of the labour force? Is he aware further that the people employed in the factory are of the opinion that there is no lack of orders for their product? Does he not think that this is a case where a special inquiry should be made by his Department?

No. Unfortunately, what the employees think is not the case. The firm would dearly like to have the orders and to keep in production, but it has not got the orders.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we should like a little more work, vigour and effective action from him? There is certainly no evidence in Scotland of the vigour and action he says he has been applying to this task. When will the Government get down to business? This is happening week after week. The out-flow of jobs from this pipeline is taking place much more speedily than the number of jobs coming into Scotland from the much heard of pipeline.

I do not want in any way to minimise the seriousness of the unemployment problem in Scotland, but the evidence of the many new factories in Scotland is proof of the vigour with which we are pursuing this policy.

The factory in this Question is one of them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce Income Tax allowances in respect of travelling expenses to and from work.

My hon. Friend will not, I am sure, expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, none the less, of the increasing burden travelling to work places on many people? Is he aware that the provisions of war-time reliefs, which are still on the form being circulated, are now out of date? Will he not give some relief of a more up-to-date kind?

This matter has been discussed on successive Finance Bills, and I think the one thing which has become very apparent is that this is not quite as easy as my hon. Friend thinks.

As we have already had statements of his right hon. Friend's intentions in relation to initial allowances, investment allowances and the repeal of Schedule A, why does the Chief Secretary take the view that we cannot expect a statement on this matter?

The hon. Member knows only too well that there may be good reasons for the special treatment in the interests of the national economy of the particular matters to which he has referred.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is high level unemployment in certain areas and great housing shortage in others where employment is available? For this reason, an increasing number of people are having to travel a considerable distance to and from their work. Will he, therefore, agree that this is a strong case for reviewing this rule?

There is a very considerable problem for people travelling long distances to work, but if the hon. Member will study the Royal Commission on Taxation's Report, paragraphs 236 and 237, he will see well set out the pros and cons on this matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, parallel to the inquiry being held into the position of Service men wishing to stand for Parliament, he will review the rules regarding civil servants who wish to stand.

No, Sir. I have no reason to believe that the present rules are other than reasonable. If it appeared that any change made in the rules affecting members of the Armed Forces might have repercussions I would then, of course, look at the matter again.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will be bear in mind that there are certain anomalies in the position as it now stands and that these might be accentuated if new rules are made affecting the Armed Services?

The question of new rules affecting the Armed Services is hypothetical but, as I have said, if such new rules arise we would certainly be prepared to look again at the rules affecting the Civil Service of the Crown.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that four residential colleges for trainees have not received the additional allowances granted by his Department, that the syllabus of the Ministry of Labour trainees at these establishments is the same as at other training centres which receive the grant, and that many of the trainees do not receive the full 100 per cent. disablement grant; and if he will take steps to put them all on the same basis.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Durham (Mr Grey) on 12th December.

Will the Minister take steps to see that wherever these men are trained, in whatever colleges, uniformity of treatment is meted out to them by the Government?

My right hon. Friend appreciates the strength of feeling on this subject and hopes to be in a position to make a statement soon.

asked the Minister of Health why audiological technicians have not been included in the grant of 7½ per cent. increase in salary for workers in other professions supplementary to medicine.

They are not among the classes covered by this Whitley agreement. They are represented on a different Whitley Council and have made a separate claim, which has been referred to the Industrial Court.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain exactly why these very valuable and highly-skilled people are left out of the increase that has been made for the professions supplementary to medicine? Why does he not include them in the category of professions supplementary to medicine?

I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that these technicians have not been left out. Their claim has been the subject of dispute in their Whitley Council and has been referred to arbitration. While it is perfectly true that the work of these technicians is supplementary to medicine, they are not quite in the same category as those covered by the Act. They are outside the Act and are dealt with by a separate Whitley Council.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the hospital technicians and medical auxiliaries accepted the new Whitley award under protest? Does he not consider that there is need for an inquiry into the whole structure of the auxiliaries and technicians, such as those mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson), since these are extremely qualified men in a rapidly developing technological hospital service?

That may be correct, but it would be quite wrong for me, in the context of that supplementary question, to comment on a matter which is now the subject of arbitration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration he has given to the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry appointed in 1959 by the Governor of Hong Kong, that the production and distribution of electrical power in this Colony should be nationalised; and what action is being taken in the matter.

The arrangement referred to by my right hon. Friend's predecessor on 5th June, 1962, in reply to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has failed to secure the consent of the shareholders. Other possible arrangements are now under consideration.

As this matter has now been under consideration for a very long time and no consent has been secured, will the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the other arrangements which are being considered?

Yes. The Hong Kong Government are now considering two different courses. One is to negotiate separate control agreements. The second is to impose by legislation a degree of control upon these companies; but, of course, this might involve compensation to shareholders, so we have to be rather careful.

asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will arrange for consultations so that arrangements can be made for televising the proceedings of the House of Commons by the preparation of films daily, or for an experiment to be made for a limited period of televising Question Time so that it can be shown on film in the evening when people are at home;

No, Sir. If I was aware of any general desire in the House for arrangements of the kind suggested, I would certainly take it into account. I do not think that it exists at present.

Will my right hon. Friend again bear in mind that not all of us are so photogenic as himself and that many of us are not so publicity minded as are others? Will he, therefore, turn a sour frown on this preposterous proposal?

May I—

Order. I had not called anyone, because I was waiting to see if the Prime Minister intended to reply to that supplementary question.

Would the Prime Minister agree that while a decision as to whether or not it would be wise to televise or broadcast by sound radio the proceedings of the House would rest essentially on a balance of the advantages over the disadvantages—and I recognise the latter, of course—to do so would stimulate attendance in the House and interest outside and give our constituents an opportunity to see just how frustrated their hon. Members may become when they have sat in the House for two days endeavouring to take part in a debate on a matter of great public interest and have failed to be called?

I appreciate the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) and I also understand that expressed by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). However, it is really a matter for the House itself. We took soundings as generally as we could in 1959 and again in 1960 and I am not aware of any real change of opinion among hon. Members as a whole.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there has been a programme on sound radio for very many years, at 10.45 each night, which has a very good audience? Might there not be a case for having a similiar, short, edited programme at about the same time on television? Would not this increase the prestige of Parliament and public interest in Parliament?

I think there is nothing to prevent there being a television programme of that kind, but that is rather different from these proposals. I am not an expert, but I should have thought that it would be rather difficult to make Question Time very good from a broadcasting point of view unless the public were given an Order Paper, otherwise the proceedings would be difficult to follow.

Whatever the photogenic qualities of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), does not the Prime Minister agree that the sound of his melifluous tones over the sound radio might well gain him a few votes? He has a very attractive voice. On the general question, however, can we really decide this by a chorus of "Hears, hears" on either side when this matter is raised? Might it not be of advantage to the House if, at some time, we had a half-day debate on the matter so that we could thrash out the pros and cons?

I should be quite ready to do that. We took fairly general soundings on the last occasion, but if the hon. Member was to approach the usual channels about his desire to discuss the matter, perhaps that would be one method. I think I am right in saying that I see no change in the general view which would justify the Government, on their own, taking such an initiative.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further announcement on the proposals put to him by the Scottish Trades Union Congress to combat unemployment in Scotland.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers which I gave to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Hamilton) on 12th February.

That is not good enough. Is the Prime Minister aware that the position in Scotland is getting steadily worse and that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon has just confirmed that 1,100 more men in Scotland, in one firm alone, will get notices to quit tomorrow? Will the Government expedite the recommendations of, firstly, the Mackenzie Committee in regard to the erection of a new coal-fired power station in Scotland and, secondly, the recommendation of the Rochdale Committee to proceed immediately with considerable dock extensions at Leith?

Regarding those two practical proposals, I think I mentioned a few days ago, on the first, that I hoped very soon to be able to make an announcement. The technical advice is now being considered and I hope that that will soon be settled. On the second proposal, that is very much in mind.

The Prime Minister referred to some Answer that he gave in the past, but does he realise that this is a very urgent and important matter involving human happiness in Scotland? Unemployment is increasing. Britain is the largest mercantile nation in the world, but we will lose that primacy unless the shipyards are given more work. Will he now take steps to accept the recent Russian offer to send contracts for shipbuilding to this country on certain conditions?

As I say, we have had many Questions and Answers on the general question and, of course, it is a very important problem which we are doing all we can to resolve. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made a statement on the special question, and I think that it would be wiser to leave the matter where it now is if we hope for a successful conclusion.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the quickest way of making a contribution to this problem is for him to ask his Ministers to see whether they could not direct orders to existing industries in Scotland to stimulate employment, rather than wait until new industries come in?

I will certainly bear that in mind.

asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the Cardiff Corporation's request that he should receive a deputation from them to discuss hardship arising out of the Housing Act, 1957.

The Cardiff City Council asked me to receive a deputation to discuss the possible hardship arising from a slum clearance order submitted to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government by the council. I understand that this order will shortly be the subject of a public inquiry, and I have told the city council that I do not think that it would be appropriate for the issue of hardship to be discussed while this matter is sub judice.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the local authority wishes to discuss the issues that arise, not out of possible hardship but out of real and practical hardship, as a consequence of the Housing Act, 1957? Since Government policy is involved here, would he give further consideration to this question, so that local authorities, other than Cardiff, which have already experienced difficulties under this Act, may know where they stand?

I quite understand that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that while I am always ready to receive deputations—and do see a great many—in this case, since it is attached to a particular problem now to be inquired into under the procedures of public inquiry, it would not really be right for me to involve myself at this stage.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of President de Gaulle's disclosure of the matters discussed between them in December last, he will make a further statement on this matter.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers which I gave to Questions on this subject on 12th February.

I expected that reply, but now that the Prime Minister has had time for second thoughts, and since the reply he gave us on Tuesday was so evasive, will he not be as frank with us as he was with General de Gaulle, on the assurance that we will treat his confidences with exactly the same amount of courtesy and consideration?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's views, but I do not think that I have anything to add to the answers I gave to the very large number of supplementary questions on Tuesday.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the advice given by Her Majesty's Government which led to the cancellation of a visit to Paris on 9th March by a Member of the Council of State.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the advice he tendered to a Counsellor of State to cancel her proposed visit to France.

I would refer hon. Members to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) on 12th February.

Does the Prime Minister recall that on Monday he told us that this visit was mainly an unofficial one? Does he now realise that, as a result of his intervention, it has become mainly an official one? Is he aware that it is widely believed that he terminated the visit because he was determined to use the Princess as an instrument in his political feud with President de Gaulle? Does he think that good for either the country or his own standing?

If the hon. Gentlman will read what I said in that debate he will find that he has quite misrepresented it. I said that at this moment certain aspects of the visit would naturally take on a semi-official character, but whether this was a. right or a wrong judgment, it was certainly not made for the motives the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me.

Now that the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity for reflection, would he not agree that his original decision was somewhat impetuous and precipitate? Is he aware that President de Gaulle has been far more generous, in that he allowed the "Mona Lisa" to go to America? Does he not think that he could forestall President de Gaulle diplomatically by switching this Counsellor-of-State visit over to Moscow?

I will consider that.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider setting up a small committee, headed by a former senior civil servant who has subsequently had business experience, to investigate how the machinery of Government could be brought fully up to date.

There have been several committees recently which are in line with what I think my hon. Friend has in mind.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that while the Civil Service enjoys a unique reputation for industry, integrity, intelligence and fairness, nevertheless it is slow in considering matters, and very slow in reaching decisions, and that, in this speeded-up age, it might help the Government to conduct affairs better if we did not have to rely quite so much on our present machinery of Government?

I quite appreciate my hon. Friend's purpose, and I know that he has considerable knowledge of this problem. On the whole, I think that we have done best to treat it in separate compartments, so to speak. There was the Plowden Committee on Public Expenditure, most of whose Report was very valuable and is now being implemented, and there have been other Committees dealing with the Foreign Service and the Commonwealth Relations Office. I think that it may be better to proceed on those lines rather than try to have a generalised inquiry into the whole Civil Service, which covers such an enormous field.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us do not share his hon. Friend's view about inefficiency in the Civil Service, and think that there might be a case for a group of civil servants to investigate how the machinery of business could be brought fully up to date?

I thought that my hon. Friend paid tribute to the efficiency of the Civil Service, and I think that we all do that. I am sure that the purpose of any of these inquiries—the Plowden Committee and the others I have referred to—has been welcomed by the Civil Service, and has been very helpful in improving its work.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consult President Kennedy with a view to joint action by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States to prevent the supply from Formosa of explosives and napalm through Hong Kong for use in Southern China.

I am sure that all friendly Governments share our concern that Hong Kong should not be used as a base for sabotage against a foreign territory.

I am grateful for that reply, but is the Prime Minister aware that this large-scale, dangerous and ridiculous Kuomintang banditry is carried out through Hong Kong by agents who are armed by the United States and trained by United States officers, and will not he suggest to President Kennedy that he should tell Chiang Kai-Shek that this must stop?

Of course, we do everything we can to discourage this, including representations to our American friends if they have any responsibility—of which I was not aware. We are also, in consultation with the Governor, taking the most stringent action we can but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in this crowded city there are difficulties in catching the offenders. But the penalties are very heavy, and I am hopeful that we shall be able to stamp it out.

I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer, but is be aware that when I was in Hong Kong recently, I learned that this is a cause of very great anxiety and expense to the Hong Kong Government and police, and can be stopped only by the United States Government; and that if President Kennedy will say so, it will stop?

I am rather doubtful whether there is that degree of control by the American Government over the Formosa Government, but I shall certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.