asked the First Secretary of State what representations he has received from the United Nations or its committee on colonialism regarding the constitution of Southern Rhodesia.

The hon. Member will be aware of the United Nations General Assembly Resolutions of 28th June, 12th October and 31st October, 1962, on this question. The Secretary General has also drawn attention to the terms of the Resolution of 31st October by correspondence. The Committee of Twenty-four also passed a Resolution on 8th April in which it was inter alia accepted that a sub-committee should come to London on 22nd April to represent the Committee's views to Her Majesty's Government.

Whilst not wishing to anticipate the statement which I understand the right hon. Gentleman will be making later in view of this very grave situation in Southern Rhodesia, more grave, probably, than anything which has happened in our sphere in Africa since the war, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not consider that the good offices of the United Nations might make a contribution to its solution?

We do not recognise that the United Nations has powers of intervention in the affairs of Southern Rhodesia. All I can say is that we are meeting the Committee when it comes here.

That is what was worrying me. I thought I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that we were to meet the Committee. That is what I just cannot really understand—

The hon. Member so far has made a statement. This is the time for Questions. Does the hon. Member wish to ask a Question?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought a question was implicit in what I was saying.

May I ask the First Secretary whether he will make it clear that all facilities will be given by the Government to this Committee when it comes?

We met the previous Committee which came over and several of Her Majesty's Ministers put themselves at the disposal of the Committee, and on this occasion we shall meet this Committee and do our best to answer its questions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us suspect that the United Nations have not got a tremendous amount of experience of administration in Africa, and while there is no particular reason why we should not try to open their eyes to the truth, responsibility does rest with the Government and no one else in this matter?

The primary responsibility rests with the Government of Southern Rhodesia, because we ourselves have limited powers of intervention under the constitution as it is now.

asked the First Secretary of State what answer has been given to the request of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia for independence.

asked the First Secretary of State whether he will now give an assurance that independence will not be granted to either Southern or Northern Rhodesia until new and more representative constitutions are in operation in these territories.

As regards Northern Rhodesia, I have nothing to add to what I said on 1st April about my discussions with Elected Ministers on the subject of further constitutional advance. The territory has not yet reached the stage of internal self-government.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to give Mr. Field a clear answer, as he gave to Mr. Kaunda? Is he worried about the coming visit of the United Nations Committee? Is he aware that he will not get the conversations unless he makes up his mind to say either "Yes" or "No" to Mr. Field? When can we expect a positive answer on this vitally important matter?

It would be advisable if my hon. Friend would read the letter in toto. It not only sets out the difficulties which I think are legally sound, about the processes prior to the granting of full independence, but also raises with the Government of Southern Rhodesia the question of partial independence within the Federation, which they themselves have raised, and offers to discuss this with the Government of Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, I do not think my hon. Friend need jump to the conclusion that there will not be further discussions between our two Governments on this very intricate matter.

Mr. Strachey.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am somewhat concerned about this. Just now my right hon. Friend said that if an hon. Friend of mine would read the letter he would then be able to form a judgment. But I think we were under the impression that my right hon. Friend was going to make a statement today at the end of Questions. I do not know whether this is still so, but if not, it puts us in an awfully difficult position if he is simply going to say that we should refer to a letter which we have not had a chance of reading.

As far as I can discover, that does not raise any point of order. Mr. Strachey.

Is the First Secretary aware that it is already clear that his statement will satisfy no one on either side of the House, and it certainly does not satisfy us, though for reasons opposite to those of the hon. Member who has just asked a question? Is he aware that in his first paragraph he gives no assurance whatever to Northern Rhodesia that it will proceed towards internal self-government—not independence, which is not proposed as the next step by anyone, but to real internal self-government—and that this is a most unfortunate omission for which we see no justification whatever? Is he further aware—this is the main point—that there is not a word in his statement of assurance that independence will not be granted to Southern Rhodesia until the constitution has been liberalised and until there is a franchise which enables the Africans to take part effectively in the Parliamentary life of that country? Indeed, there is a direct implication in his statement, is there not, that the only thing standing in the way of Southern Rhodesia's complete independence under its present white dictatorship is the temporary winding-up process of the Federation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the attitude revealed in his statement today will receive the unrelenting opposition of this side of the House?

I indicated in my Answer that I had discussed the next stages towards self-government and eventual independence with the elected Ministers of Northern Rhodesia. That remains a matter about which I am in contact with them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain countries where we have granted independence we have seen the outcome of "one party" or "one man" rule? Would he agree with me that what is important in any country is that one can have a change of Government by peaceful means—by the ballot box? That is the situation in Southern Rhodesia. The franchise may not be as wide as some of us want, but at least we have had there a change of Government by peaceful means, and is not this sufficient for the granting of complete independence to Southern Rhodesia?

There are differences of opinion about the nature of the franchise. It is clear that if the property qualification is achieved a great deal could be done to liberalise the constitution, even under the present franchise under the present constitution. But these are precisely the sort of matters which may well be raised in further discussions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the White Paper, which I have not yet been able to read, the allegations of Sir Roy Welensky against Her Majesty's Government are answered?

In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the White Paper does not refer to Sir Roy Welensky. It deals with the letter of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.

As I have managed by the skin of my teeth to see the White Paper, I wonder whether I may ask some questions specifically on it. It would appear that there has been an attempt by Mr. Winston Field to tie independence to secession of any one of the territories, which my right hon. Friend declines to accept for reasons given in the White Paper, and which it would take too much time to quote. Also, there would seem to be an attempt to tie it up with the obtaining of independence by other territories. An answer to that point does not seem to be given in the White Paper. Does my right hon. Friend accept the principle that none of these territories should obtain independence one before the other but that there should be a general moving forward?

The territories are at very varying stages of advance. Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and South Rhodesia are all quite different. Southern Rhodesia has been virtually a self-governing Colony for forty years, Nyasaland had a self-governing constitution recently, and Northern Rhodesia has still to move into that position. Therefore, I could not guarantee that all the dates will be actually coincidental. I do not think I can say anything further in answer to my hon. Friend.

While we all understand the need for the right hon. Gentleman to be equivocal about his intentions because of the conflicting pressures on him from his hon. Friends, some of whom take one view and some take another, will he give the House a clear assurance that there will be no question of granting independence to Southern Rhodesia until the country has a constitution which enables the mass of the people there to govern themselves? Is he aware that there should be no question of granting independence under a constitution where 250,000 people have the right to rule 3 million people?

I can make no further statement on that subject today beyond my reference to the fact that we are asking for, and, indeed, insisting upon, an independence conference to take place before the final decision is made—a conference at which Her Majesty's Government are free to raise any matter which they think fit.

rose—

Order. We cannot have a miniature debate at the beginning of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why a Supplementary Estimate of half as much again in Class II, Vote 5, was not originally foreseen.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the full and detailed explanations in the Fourth Report from the Estimates Committee. There is nothing I can add to this.

But what steps has my hon. Friend taken to ensure that this year's Estimate contains the right sums for the Indus Basin Fund, and, in view of the likely doubling of the cost of this scheme, can he also say whether Her Majesty's Government's contribution will also have to be doubled, and, if so, where the money will be found for balance of payments purposes?

My hon. Friend will realise that we are very much in the hands of the Commonwealth Governments for estimates of their requirements from the various grant and loan moneys which have been agreed long beforehand. It is very difficult, therefore, at the early stage of the Estimates to know exactly what these sums will be.

Surely my hon. Friend should ascertain what sums are available from the surpluses on balance of payments before promising to invest these very large sums abroad? Is not that the right way round?

But my hon. Friend will realise that, for instance, we granted a loan of £4 million to the East African Common Services Organisation, which was announced to the House on 19th November, 1962, and of that amount only £1·372 million has so far been drawn. We are very much in the hands of Commonwealth Governments in this matter.

asked the Minister of Education when the old Army hut at Barnby Dun County Primary School will be replaced by a new building.

I understand that the authority does not expect to carry out this project in the current year's minor works programme unless other more urgent projects fall out.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this building was used as an Army billet in the First World War and condemned more than twenty years ago? It is an eyesore in this pleasant-looking village and an impediment to education progress. Will he see that it is removed as soon as possible?

I am aware of the need for a replacement at this school, but it is for the local education authority to compile its minor works programme within the limit of the sums allocated year by year by my right hon. Friend. It has not felt free, within the limit this year, to include this project.

asked the Minister of Education what was his reply to the letter from Mr. James Roberts, Salford Director of Civic Welfare, proposing that, in this and other cities, the use of school meals centres be permitted as luncheon clubs for elderly people after 1 p.m., when no longer required for school purposes, so that hot meals may be made available for old-age pensioners, particularly those living alone.

My right hon. Friend has sent to the hon. Member a copy of his reply to Mr. Roberts.

While thanking the Minister for his long and sympathetic letter, I ask whether he will now consult other Ministers concerned about sending to all local authorities a circular encouraging such luncheon clubs wherever practicable by co-operation among various council departments, especially as £45 million a year is, quite rightly, provided for children's meals but practically nothing for old people. Will the Minister consider grant aid for such meals?

While I am sure that my right hon. Friend is willing to consider the hon. Getleman's suggestion, there are, as the hon. Gentleman knows from the letter my right hon. Friend sent him, a number of difficulties to iron out. Probably the proper way to proceed would be for the local education authority to have discussions with the bodies concerned to see whether these difficulties can be removed.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the excellent work of the "meals-on-wheels" service. Will he give serious consideration to my hon. Friend's splendid suggestion that this service might have facilities in school kitchens and dining rooms, where they are available without interference with the education service?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Education if he will increase the number of exchanges of teachers with the United States of America.

No, Sir. This is a valuable scheme, but the conditions have only recently been revised to take account of the growing financial difficulties experienced in the past few years by British teachers in the United States. My right hon. Friend has told the British Interchange Committee that he is ready to have a look at numbers again later on. In the meantime he has been informed that the English-speaking Union of the U.S.A. have generously offered £4,000 for the coming year which will enable another eight exchanges to be made, bringing the total for 1963–64 to over 80.

I appreciate what has been done to make the financial conditions better for our teachers under this scheme. But is the hon. Gentleman aware that this year there were more than 100 suitable applicants, in the view of the Selection Committee, but that over one-quarter will have to be rejected? Since it is enormously valuable to our teachers to see American education, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to take another look at this to see whether it might not be possible to step up this year the number he is prepared to back financially?

I think that there is little possibility of further increasing the number this year, but I know that my right hon. Friend is willing to talk to the hon. Gentleman about it, as, indeed, he has stated that he is willing to talk about this again with the British Interchange Committee.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that under this new regulation the finances of our exchange teachers will be on a par with those of exchange teachers from other countries visiting the United States? Is he further aware that when I was in the United States last time a number of our teachers complained to me that they were worse off vis-à-vis than other foreign teachers? Has that been rectified?

We accepted that the grant of £375 was inadequate, so the rate has been increased to £470 for teachers now in the United States, and it will be £475 next year. I understand that this will put them on a much more equal footing with other visiting teachers.

asked the Minister of Education how many grammar schools in East Suffolk have been closed in the last 12 years; how many have had major alterations; and how many it is proposed to close.

One boys' school has been closed and replaced by a mixed school; one school has moved into new buildings and five have had major alterations; one school will be closed as soon as the pupils can be accommodated elsewhere.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the East Suffolk County Council has a very fine record in the provision of new places and in the reconditioning of primary and secondary schools, but that there is a feeling abroad in the county that it is not so concerned about places in grammar schools? I am glad, therefore, to have had his reply. Will he ask the Minister to bear in mind that in any future building programme grammar school places should have a higher priority in this county?

Yes, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend will have noticed that five grammar schools during this period have been given major alterations.

asked the Minister of Education what were the reductions made by his Department in the school-building programme submitted by the city of Bradford Education Authority for the year 1963–64; what further reductions were made for the year 1964–65; and what representations he has received about these reductions from the local education authority.

Proposals submitted by the Bradford Education Authority for 1963–64 totalled £1,158,000 and approvals about £340,000. Corresponding figures for 1964–65 were £1,100,000 and £333,000. My right hon. Friend has received and replied to a letter from the authority about its 1964–65 programme.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a serious reduction for 1964–65 and that on the art side there has bean no allocation by the Ministry since 1961–62? Is he further aware that although the great importance of this industrial city in the North requires the best possible education facilities, these are being seriously interfered with by the lack of school accommodation?

My right hon. Friend is aware of the needs of Bradford Education Authority, and I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says about art. However, the approved major building programmes during the five-year period for Bradford totals about £2¼ million. That is a very fair share of the available resources.

asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the growing concern regarding the loss of life each year of a number of schoolchildren due to drowning; and if he will take steps to ensure, as soon as possible, that every school child, upon reaching a suitable age, shall have the opportunity to be taught swimming and life-saving.

My right hon. Friend is in sympathy with what the hon. Member seeks to achieve and he knows that schools and local education authorities are well aware of the importance of teaching children to swim. Both teaching and facilities are increasing, but he must leave to local discretion the extent to which these are provided for every child.

Does not the hon. Gentleman reaiise that shortage of money is holding back many local authorities from building baths attached to the schools? Most children losing their lives in inland rivers and ponds could not swim. Will not he do something more to encourage local authorities to provide these facilities? Even a small swimming pool would be very advantageous. Will he also consider the effect of teaching lifesaving to children?

The number of school swimming pools is increasing, but covered swimming pools are expensive to build and school swimming often has to take place in public baths. That will have to continue to be the case for some time.

asked the Minister of Education when he proposes to announce his acceptance or rejection of the recommendations of the Burnham Technical Committee, which were drawn up in January and submitted to him on 20th March.

asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a further statement on the salaries of teachers in establishments of further education.

I wrote yesterday to the Chairman of the Burnham Committee to ask that the Burnham Technical Committee should reconsider the proposals they had put to inc. I sent the Committee, in confidence, some alternative proposals for their consideration.

Is the Minister aware that technical education is becoming of increasing importance and, that being so, it is vital that nothing should be done to perpetuate the idea that there is something inferior in the status of technical education? That being so, as he knew what he was to do to the Technical Committee, namely, that he was to do exactly the same as to the main Committee, would it not have been courteous to have informed it more quickly?

I entirely agree with what the hon. Member says on the importance of technical education. The point is that some modification of the Technical Committee's proposals will be needed in accordance with Burnham's own principles to keep them in line with the general principles which I outlined to the Burnham main Committee for primary and secondary teachers. Consistent with the principles which I have announced earlier, I have proposed increases beyond those recommended by the Technical Committee at almost every point in the scales for lecturers and above. There is no question of treating technical teachers unfairly.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not take the steps in this case which he took in respect of the main Committee?

We can discuss all this when we have the debate after Christmas—I apologise, I should have said after Easter. It would be entirely in accordance with the principles of the Burnham Committee which has always recommended a common basic scale for teachers in schools and in further education establishments.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the interests of the profession and education generally it would be bettor to defer this until after Christmas?

I certainly regard the steps I have taken here as entirely in the interests of technical education as a whole. and I think that when hon. Members see the scales proposed they will come to that conclusion.

asked the Minister of Education if he will give an assurance that, in future, after engaging in discussion with the Burnham Committee on salary scales for the teaching profession, he will not exercise a veto on what he regards as an unsatisfactory decision by that Committee.

It would not be right for me to anticipate the outcome of the discussions I have already proposed to have with all the appropriate bodies concerned about revised machinery and procedure for negotiating teachers' salaries. I am willing to see every issue, including the Minister of Education's statutory powers in these matters, fully and frankly examined.

What is the point of having the Burnham Committee for negotiations if the right hon. Gentleman is to intervene and vary its decisions? While he may have a legal right to accept or reject a decision of the Burnham Committee, where is his legal right to vary a decision? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman understood that he has plenty on his plate without interfering in matters which are not his business?

Whatever differences there may be in the House about the present situation, there is widespread recognition—and widespread recognition on both sides of the House—that the present arrangements for negotiating teachers' salaries are unsatisfactory. Views were expressed to that effect on both sides of the House in the debate which we had a week or two ago.

Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman discovered that there was a reason for revising the scheme relating to salary scales only after the Burnham Committee had made its decision? Had he no idea about the need for this beforehand? If he had, why did he not adopt the idea before the Burnham Committee came to its decision?

With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is asking questions which go considerably wider than the Question on the Order Paper, but I will answer that because I do not want to be discourteous in any way. I made it plain in my original letter to the chairman of the Burnham Committee that I intervened as soon as it become clear that the provisional agreement was to be ratified by a majority of both sides of the Committee. My predecessor, Lord Eccles, was blamed in 1961 for intervening too soon, and the right hon. Gentleman now blames me for intervening too late. All I can say is that I intervened at what I though was the appropriate point following my statutory responsibilities under Section 89.

asked the Minister of Education if it is his intention to accept the decisions of the Burnham Committee in the future; and if the trade union and local education authorities have been consulted about the changes proposed.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I have not yet proposed any changes. I shall certainly be consulting the parties he mentions in the discussions I intend to have before long.

Is the Minister aware that it is more than 40 years since the Burnham Committee was established, and that during that time it has worked very satisfactorily without interference from anyone, and that it has acted as a negotiating committee and not as an advisory committee? The Minister has now varied its decision. Will he tell it that in future it is to be only an advisory committee and not a negotiating committee, so that it will know exactly what its powers are?

It would not be right for me to anticipate either the course or the outcome of the discussions which I hope to have with all the parties concerned. However, it is a very big assumption to suppose that machinery which has existed for 40 years will necessarily, without any amendment, serve the circumstances of the 1960s, when education plays a much bigger part in the life of the nation than it did 40 years ago.

In view of the dictatorial way in which the right hon. Gentleman has behaved and his flagrant disregard for negotiating machinery, not only in this case but generally, and as one cannot behave like this in Britain, does he not know that it will be impossible to get proper discussions about the future of the Burnham Committee?

Before saying that again, the hon. Member should read my original letter to the chairman of the Burnham Committee, which was not dictatorial in tone. It made a number of suggestions in principle, none of which was agreed to by the Burnham Committee. It did not meet me at all, but that was its right. I therefore said that in order to get over the immediate salary difficulty I proposed to introduce legislation to end the deadlock, but that I wanted to have full discussions with everybody concerned about the future of the Burnham machinery. I repeat that in the recent debate in the House there was widespread recognition by hon. Members of the need for some change and some re-examination of these machineries and procedures.

asked the Minister of Education, in view of the fact that the salaries of teachers at colleges of advanced technology are now being paid out of the colleges' funds, granted directly by him, if they will continue to be governed by the Burnham scale as hitherto.

It is the Government's policy that the salaries of teachers in colleges of advanced technology should be related to those of university teachers. A full review of salaries in both universities and colleges of advanced technology is about to be carried out by the National Incomes Commission. In the meantime certain interim adjustments are being made to the colleges of advanced technology salaries as a consequence of the adjustments made recently in the university scales This means that as from the 1st April salaries in colleges of advanced technology will not be identical with those in colleges covered by the Burnham Report.

Is the Minister aware that there is some confusion among teachers of advanced technology about who is to negotiate for them in future? Will he tell us exactly what Committee will negotiate for them in future?

No, Sir. I cannot anticipate the future. The point is that the Burnham reports have not been binding on colleges of advanced technology ever since they achieved direct grant status in 1962, but Burnham salaries have been paid pending a full-scale review. We are in a new situation because of the transfer of status. The exact adjustments to be made to the salaries of teachers in colleges of advanced technology are still under consideration, but any increase will be dated from 1st April.

asked the Minister of Education what progress has been made regarding the methods of examining for the Certificate of Secondary Education.

The Secondary School Examinations Council is making good progress with proposals for the recognition of regional examining boards for the Certificate of Secondary Education. It is also considering the question of standards, and I hope to receive its advice on both of these questions shortly.

Will the right lion. Gentleman keep a careful eye on the developments of this examination? Is he aware that there is a good deal of apprehension that if this examination develops as exclusive and entirely separate from the G.C.E. O-level it may have a bad effect on the schools? Will he bear that in mind and see that it is avoided when the new examination is introduced?

I am glad to be able to agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. This is an experiment and an examination of great importance, and I am keeping a very careful eye on it. There are likely to be 13 examining bodies covering England and Wales. The Certificate of Secondary Education Standing Committee has been considering each proposal on its merits, and I think that the geographical coverage will be satisfactory. The time may not be far ahead when there will be sixth-formers who have reached sixth forms through this examination rather than the G.C.E. O-level, but I will certainly watch the situation very carefully.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the fact that the revised valuation of bungalow properties in the Folkestone district has risen disproportionately compared with that of adajacent houses, if he will instruct his proposed Committee of inquiry to take this special feature into account.

The Committee's task will be to measure the impact of rates on different sections of the community, and they will certainly consider the effect on occupiers of small houses of high assessments.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that these bungalows are occupied by people who have come from industrial areas, releasing houses, and have moved into bungalows in this area in the belief that they would be able to five there within their means, and that cases have been brought to my notice in which assessments have risen fourfold? Why cannot the Committee take these factors into account?

I think I have made it clear that that is what the Committee will take into account.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the nature of his reply to the recent requests from 23 North-West local authorities for a minimum 100 per cent. increase in housing subsidies, for low interest loans to local authorities for housing and for his reception of a deputation on these matters.

My right hon. Friend has suggested to the authorities that they should arrange to discuss their problems with officers of the Department. But he has repeated that it would, in the Government's view, be wrong to make housing loans available at a specially low rate of interest, and he does not accept that the existing subsidies, if properly applied, are insufficient to allow authorities to continue building houses which can be let at rents their tenants can afford.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that interest rates are now so crippling that in many areas each new council house or flat means a deficit of £60 a year for 60 years, or £3,600 after taking into consideration the existing subsidy? Why should tenants and ratepayers be made to suffer in this way and councils be made the scapegoats for financial policies for which the Government are responsible?

The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend answered a Question put to him by the hon. Gentleman on 13th November last, and that since then if interest rates have changed at all they have gone down, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the deficit, whether it is £60 or anything else, is also controlled by the rent policies adopted by local authorities.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will publish details of the new rates for each local authority in Kent in the year 1963–64.

Yes, Sir. Rate pound-ages for all rating authorities are published each year for the Department by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in "Rates and Rateable Values".

As these figures are apparently so readily available, will the hon. Gentleman make sure that they are drawn to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has been inventing stories about rates in Kent to suit his own political purposes?

When the hon. Gentleman says that these figures are readily available, I remind him that they are only readily available when we have all the returns from the local authorities, and these are not yet complete.

Can my hon. Friend say whether these figures show the previous year's rates, so that the electors of orpington can calculate the increase that takes place when the Liberals take over?

I am not sure that the figures are shown in the same publication, but, it not, they will be available from the publication for the previous year.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that if he goes on giving the kind of answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) about housing, the rates will continue to rise and he will be responsible?

Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the fact that, in the rates which have been published, those in the local authorities represented by the Tories in the immediate vicinity of Orpington are all higher than those which obtain—

Order. There must be some limit to this exercise. It is not the duty of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give instructions or information to the Leader of the House.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for Board of Trade Advisory Committee assistance for firms endeavouring to set up industry in The Hartlepools are under consideration by his Department.

The Board of Trade Advisory Committee has one application under consideration and is awaiting information from the applicants on three more.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary do what he can to speed up these applications when they are received?

As I think I indicated in my reply, the Board of Trade is awaiting information, and any speeding up has to come from the firms rather than from B.O.T.A.C.