asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what success his Department has had, as the principal customer of the building industry, in increasing the standardisation of building components.

:The first step towards standardisation of building components is a generally accepted system of dimensional co-ordination. We are making good progress with this, and the results will be applied to my Ministry's building programmes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman insisting that contracts stating preferred dimensions should be used in major Government building contracts?

:Yes, that will be the position. We shall use our own preferred dimensions.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress his Department has made in assessing the cost of repairs and maintenance as a percentage of the total building costs for different methods of construction used in Government contracts.

:Figures of maintenance expenditure are available for traditional office buildings and a start has been made with the collection of figures for industrialised buildings.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when this work began, and what type of special building materials it covers? Secondly, can he say whether he will publish the results of this investigation?

The collection of this material has been going on for many years. I do not think that it would be possible to publish it, because each case has to be judged separately on its own merits. What the architects do in designing new buildings is to take into account the experience that has been gained.

But does not the hon. Gentleman recollect that the United Nations, which did a European study of the question, said that, generally speaking, these kinds of statistics were not accurate, and that not enough attention was paid to the subject? If this is not published in a White Paper, or in a similar document, how is the industry to take note of it?

I repeat that each case must be judged on its individual merits. What we are doing in respect of industrialised building is to collect figures which will be used in designing new buildings of this kind.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he proposes that work shall start on the new Government buildings in Whitehall to rehouse the Foreign Office and other Departments; and what is the estimated cost.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the approximate estimated cost of the proposed rebuilding of the Foreign Office block; and if he will secure an estimate related to advanced methods of work study and in consultation with leading industrial designers and decorative artists, of the cost of modernising the interior of the existing building, including in such modernisation the roofing and adaptation of the smaller interior courtyards and the provision of proper air conditioning and heating.

:There is a great deal of preparatory work to be done and it will necessarily be some years before work can start. It is too early to give an estimate of cost.

It is obvious from the Minister's reply that his mind seems to be fairly made up about the external structure of the building. Will he bear in mind that the Foreign Office, from the point of view of staff accommodation, is a tawdry slum, which would hardly be tolerated outside? How does he propose to set about this? There will be changes of Government, and such things. Does he propose to set up a Standing Committee of interested Members to plan this modernisation of Whitehall, which may extend through two or three Parliaments?

I certainly share the hon. Member's views about the working conditions in the Foreign Office. They are very bad indeed. It must also be borne in mind that many of the staff of the Foreign Office are now scattered in about nine separate buildings in the Central London area, where accommodation is perhaps even worse. I did not have in mind the setting up of a Committee of this House, and it would not be for me to do so. I appreciate the need to have regard to the area as a whole when we are making these plans for putting up new buildings.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that although for many of the staff the working conditions are admittedly appalling, some of those conditions could be improved without total demolition and rebuilding? For instance, the windows of which he spoke, under the name "fenestration", could easily be adapted. Has he also con- sidered that the building itself is an extremely interesting example of its period?

I agree that the building is an extremely interesting example of its period. The Illustrated London News at the time described it as being "essentially Palmerstonian," which is perhaps an adequate description. But it is not of such outstanding architectural importance as to warrant, the expenditure of the very large sums of money which would be necessary to modernise it. Further, having carried out the modernisation, we should be left with a building which was in many ways still unsatisfactory, and we should not be making the best use of this important site.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of using some of the new Bridge Street block for the Foreign Office?

Certainly some part of the Bridge Street block will be Government offices, in fact the larger proportion of it.

:Are not we in danger of making an extremely big mess of Whitehall unless we get the Institution of Chartered Surveyors' building, the new Bridge Street block, the Foreign Office and eventually, probably, the Home Office, in one overall architectural plan? Will my right hon. Friend consider the overall picture, including the premises of the Institution of Chartered Surveyors?

I will certainly do that. It arises in the Answer which I hope to give to Question No. 12.

:Will my right hon. Friend realise that, though one recognises the difficulties and inconvenience of working conditions in the present Foreign Office, this is an argument which can be pushed too far? What, for example, may happen to the Horse Guards—what may happen to the Houses of Parliament—if one talks about inconvenience? Will he realise that those of us who are reluctant to see this building demolished are not necessarily old-fashioned fuddy-duddies?

:I can assure my hon. Friend that I have no present plans to demolish the Houses of Parliament. We did consider how we could carry out a scheme which would be satisfactory. There was a proposal for an additional 40,000 square feet, mainly of attic space, but it was not good enough.

:The Minister will be aware of the very great interest of all hon. Members in this matter. Will he consider two things? One is whether we might have a debate some time after the Christmas Recess and go into the whole question of Government building, the new Bridge Street site and possibly—I am not going to use the word "demolition"—the Foreign Office, and all the proposals concerning Whitehall? In the meantime, will the Minister consider afresh—bearing in mind that his tenure of office may not be long—whether it might be a good idea to set up a long-term Committee of hon. Members of this House so as to have a continuing view of the sort of thing which we have in mind?

:Whether or not there is a debate is not a matter for me. It is a matter which must be dealt with through the usual channels, or by Questions to the Leader of the House. As I have said, I do not think that it is for me to express a view about what Committees the House should establish.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will consult the Historic Buildings Council for their views on whether the Foreign Office building, Whitehall, is of outstanding historic or architectural interest.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what discussions he had with the Royal Fine Art Commission before announcing his intention to demolish the Foreign Office building.

I do not consider it would be appropriate to consult the Historic Buildings Council on this matter but I will, in due course, be seeking the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission on the design.

:Why does my right hon. Friend decline to take the advice of the Historic Buildings Council when he realises that this is the body to give advice about buildings which it thinks should be preserved? Why does not that apply to him and his acitivities?

:It is not quite correct to say that I decline to accept its advice. The position is that the Historic Buildings Council is set up primarily to advise me on the exercise of my powers under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, particularly about the making of grants. That does not arise here.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question asked whether he had discussions with the Royal Fine Art Commission before announcing his decision? Would not it have been better to have had discussions before making this drastic decision? Is he aware that the manner in which he announced it has given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he is not interested in the architectural value of the buildings under his care?

:I do not agree with the last observation of my hon. Friend. The Royal Fine Art Commission's main function is to inquire into matters referred to it by Government Departments. The proper time to consult the Commission is when there is a design to put before it.

:Is not my right hon. Friend running into very heavy weather quite unnecessarily? He referred just now to Palmerston. Is not he imitating Palmerston in his methods? Is he aware that an increasing number of those people who love London and its architectural beauty feel that it is likely to be severely damaged by the hastily pronounced ipsi dixit of Government Departments and that there will be increasing resentment? Is my right hon. Friend aware—he referred to fenestration—that there is such a thing as defenestration and that he should be careful?

:I would rather be compared with Palmerston than some other people who were defenestrated. This will not be done hastily, as I have tried to explain. We have indicated that we think it is necessary to demolish the Foreign Office. There will have to be the appointment of an architect and the preparation of a design. There will come the moment when there will be a design to compare with the existing buildings. It may well be that then the Royal Fine Art Commission will express its view.

:Is the Minister seized of the point that it may be that he will not be Minister at that time? Is he laying an obligation upon any Minister of Works to be the arbiter?

:The responsibility has to lie somewhere and it should be with the appropriate Minister of the Crown. He must consult as widely as he thinks fit. There will come a moment when whoever is Minister of Public Building and Works will have to come forward with a design. At that moment the Royal Fine Art Commission should—I think almost certainly will—express its view on the design.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works by what criteria he intends to select an architect for the redevelopment of the Foreign Office and Home Office site.

The architect selected must be capable of designing a building which is an original work of art as well as being functionally adequate and in harmony with the surrounding scene. I intend to satisfy myself of his capabilities by discussion and consultation and from the evidence of his previous work.

Is the Minister aware that on this occasion I agree with him that there is no satisfactory alternative to the demolition and reconstruction on this site, and that at any rate some hon. Members feel that there are contemporary architects who could be trusted to design a building which would at least be as worthy of this important site as the existing Foreign Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman please consider this as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the western half of Whitehall?

I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I think that the second part will be answered in the Answer which I give to Question No. 12 and I do not wish to anticipate.

:When the Minister selects the architect will he bear in mind the work which the man already has in the pipeline, for surely we do not want someone who probably has £100 million worth of work in the pipeline, a university professorship and the rest, doing this on a sort of part-time basis? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in appointing this architect he is probably appointing a man for a life's work?

:I do not think that a university professorship in this sphere is necessarily a disqualification, but I do think that one of the factors which I must bear in mind is the kind of work an architect is at present carrying out, as well, of course, as the work he has done in the past.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made towards establishing a fully integrated organisation for works and supplies services following the amalgation of the works organisations of the Service Departments and of his Department.

Since the amalgamation took place on 1st April last, I have prepared a Plan for a fully integrated organisation for works and supplies services and this is now being put into effect as part of a major reorganisation of the new Ministry. I am today publishing a White Paper giving details of this reorganisation. Copies are now available in the Vote Office. In this reorganisation I have had three main objectives. First, to secure a large measure of delegated responsibility to the new integrated regional organisations which I an establishing at home and overseas. Secondly, to maintain a close partnership between administrative and professional staff. Thirdly, to forge close links between works and research and development organisations at all levels.

:The Minister indicated earlier that this was going to happen. We look forward to seeing the White Paper and we reserve our position. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect all this to start?

I expect the main essentials of the new organisation to be in operation by April, 1964.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will commence a programme of cleaning of the outsides of Government buildings in and around the Whitehall area of London.

I have had this matter reviewed and I propose that we should clean the stonework of the Banqueting House as a first step.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that I should certainly not suggest that he should undertake to wash down the buildings which he intends to pull down? Is he aware that the initial step which he has announced will be well received in the country and in London? Can he go a little further as soon as possible because there are a great many buildings—for instance, the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square—standing beside buildings which belong to other Governments and which have been cleaned? Is he aware that the progressive cleaning of Government buildings will help to make London a much more beautiful place?

:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing his view. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 16th July, the stonework of the National Gallery was last cleaned in 1951 and I do not feel able to give that a very high priority. If we are successful in the case of the Banqueting House I hope that we may be able to consider other buildings. But the problem in London is not so easy as, for example, in Paris.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make arrangements for the full-time employment of a state registered nurse in the Palace of Westminster.

I am bringing this suggestion to the attention of the authorities of the two Houses.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that in this building and in the other place there are nearly 2,750 people, including hon. Members, workmen and others who are employed here? Is he aware that if anyone is taken ill we depend on the doctors who are Members of this House—and we are grateful to them for the excellent work they do—or the policemen, some of whom are very good? [Hon. Members: "Some?"] They are very good. We have an excellent staff of policemen in this House. [Hon. Members: "All of them."] Yes, all of them. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we make laws which apply to factories and offices but that someone who is taken ill or has an accident here must be sent to hospital without being given treatment, that is, apart from the treatment given by hon. Members who are doctors and the policemen? Is he not aware that Parliament, which makes the laws of this country, would not tolerate this situation in premises outside? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to see that this whole business is hurried up?

With respect to the hon. Lady's statement, the appointment of a resident qualified nurse could not take the place of the medical practitioners who are hon. Members of this House and whose services we all appreciate. We must get the matter in perspective. During the last five years the average number of issues per annum from the first-aid box in the room off the Lower Waiting Hall has been 54. Of these, 48 were for Elastoplast and aspirins.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he last reviewed the arrangements for accidents and sudden illness suffered by his staff in the Palace of Westminster; and what was the date on which the last improvements were made.

A thorough examination was made in July of this year; I cannot give a precise date on which improvements were last made, but the arrangements are under constant review and have been up to standard for many years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer is totally inadequate and that no major changes in the health arrangements in this House have been made since the beginning of the century, except for the slight alteration made at the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross)? Will he please consult with the other authorities in the House so that we may have an official statement on the state of health arrangements, perhaps with the co-operation of the Minister of Labour and the Factories Industrial Medical Officer? Is he aware that the conditions of health care in this House are inferior to those which prevailed in slum factories in the East End of London in the last century, and what does he propose to do about it?

The hon. Member's Question relates to the first-aid facilities which are available for the staff of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. Those facilities have been inspected by the Ministry of Labour and are said to be satisfactory. However, I agree that the room which is used for those facilities could be improved and I am looking into the matter to see what can be done.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to encourage Government Departments to locate staff and buildings in Swindon.

I have ensured that the Departments principally concerned with the dispersal of Government staffs are aware of the local Authority's desire to be considered as a dispersal location.

What steps have been taken to bring to the attention of private industry, and particularly people who might be able to move their office staff to my constituency, details of the facilities that are available there?

:As the hon. Gentleman knows, there exists the Location of Offices Bureau, and I think that that is helping, along with the hon. Member's own endeavours in bringing to the notice of a wide circle of people the potentialities of his constituency.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will take steps to ensure that in the new Parliamentary block to be provided in Bridge Street provision shall be made for a television and broadcasting studio.

This is one of the matters on which we shall wish to have the views of the House.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the present system of either taking hon. Members through the traffic at risk to their lives or being interviewed outside the House in the street, as happened during the Profumo debate, is both unsatisfactory and invidious? Should we not take note of this as a simple means of modern communications that should be made available to hon. Members?

I agree with the hon. Member. The B.B.C. made representations about this and a requirement of this kind was put in Sir William Holford's original brief for Bridge Street as a whole Whether or not the facilities should be included in the new Parliamentary building is a matter for the whole House.

:It is hoped to set up an Accommodation Committee as soon as possible after the Christmas Recess. Will the Minister consider referring this matter to that Committee, which will be considering the arrangements for the new Bridge Street site?

I think that this would be a very appropriate matter for this Committee to consider when you set it up, Mr. Speaker.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if, before proceeding with the demolition of the Foreign Office building, he will set up an inquiry into the present and future requirements of all the Government departments whose offices are situated in or near Whitehall, so that accommodation maybe re-allocated, those departments whose immediate proximity to Parliament and Downing Street is less essential may be rehoused elsewhere, and such of the existing buildings as are of considerable architectural merit may be preserved.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will set up an inquiry into the present and future accommodation of Government departments in the immediate Whitehall area, bearing in mind both the requirements of efficiency and the architectural importance of the group of buildings in this area.

I do not think that a special inquiry is called for, but I certainly accept that plans for all new building in this area should be related to each other and have regard to the general architectural character of the area. The policy is to house properly in the Whitehall area those staffs who have to be at the centre while dispersing those who can be moved without loss of efficiency.

:While accepting most of what the right hon. Gentleman says in his reply, may I ask him—since it is rather difficult to go into the detailed arguments on this by way of Question and Answer—whether he himself would welcome the debate that was suggested a little earlier by my hon. Friend and, if so, whether he would make representations to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to securing that debate? Is he also aware that such a debate would be largely meaningless if the right hon. Gentleman has finally made up his mind about the demolition of the Foreign Office, and will not he wait until after that debate has taken place, to hear the opinions of all hon. Members on all sides?

The Government have made a firm decision about the future of the Foreign Office, but, of course, it is always open to the House to debate anything which the Government propose and the problem as a whole.

:Does not my right hon. Friend understand that in the opinion of many people this is too big an issue for one man, even himself, to decide and that this affects many of the most historic buildings in this country, buildings which admittedly may be a little out of fashion but which are representative of our greatest period? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better if a high level inquiry were to look into the whole question and help him to make the right decision?

I do not think that a high level inquiry would be appropriate. What I believe is necessary is that we should look at this area as a whole. Certainly the proposals should be brought forward not just piecemeal but in relation to the rebuilding of Whitehall as a whole. That we will do at the appropriate stage.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if, in view of the difficulties experienced by firms in Coat bridge and Airdrie in obtaining schedules for public work, he will make a statement on the conditions under which his Department put such work out to tender.

The Ministry operates a system of selective tendering. We maintain a list of approved contractors and some firms on the list are invited to submit tenders for each job. Thus, over a period of time and so far as the size, nature and location of the required work permits, equal opportunity is given to all firms on the approved list.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of his approved contractors in my constituency are experiencing unnecessary difficulty in obtaining schedules from the Department? Will he inform his officers that this is a development and growth area and that it has a consistently high rate of unemployment, so that they might consider minimising the difficulties for reputable firms whose ambition it is to tender for public works in my part of the country?

If the hon. Member has any evidence of any difficulty having been experienced in obtaining schedules I should be grateful if he would let me have the details.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will state the proportion of the national product spent on housing today and in 1951.

The percentages of the gross national product of the United Kingdom spent on housing in 1951 and 1962 were 2·9 and 3·5 respectively.

Does not this proportion contrast very unfavourably with comparable countries abroad where the proportion is from 6 per cent. to 8 per cent.? Will the Government raise their sights and aim at a target of something like 500,000 houses a year?

:What really matters, as the hon. Member has suggested in his last sentence, is the total number of houses built and that has risen from 202,000 in 1951 to 313,000 in 1962. I find it difficult to make valid comparisons with figures of the "European league". There is no real basis of comparison. In any case, expenditure expressed as a percentage of gross national product is not a very good indication of the amount of accommodation provided.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that his figures do not tally with those prepared by the Observer and that I am rather puzzled by his reply because I believe that the figures are actually lower than they were 12 years ago?

I have no responsibility for figures in the Observer.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will state the amount of the highest tender submitted for the major contract to build houses for the armed services at Little Aden.

No, Sir. It is not customary to disclose details of tenders received.

:Is the Parliamentary Secretary sure that these tenders are being looked at with sufficient care to make certain that public money is not being seriously wasted on this project? Should it not be possible to build many more than 314 houses and flats for £2 million, which I think was the lowest tender? Since this comes on top of the scandal revealed by the Estimates Committee in July last in connection with another piece of building in Aden, is there not a case for looking at the whole building and contracting industry in Aden to make sure that public money is not being wasted?

I have no evidence that public money is being wasted on this. Building costs are high in a remote place like Aden, and the highest tender received for this work was 25 per cent. higher than the lowest, which was accepted.

:How can the Parliamentary Secretary say that he has no evidence of high costs in this part of the world? The Estimates Committee looked into the building for the Admiralty and it took the view that costs were high and that there was probably a good deal of exploitation of the public purse. Did not the Parliamentary Secretary ever read or anybody in his Department ever read the Estimates Committee's Report on the building of Admiralty House in Aden, and was the same firm of contractors tied up in this work?

I said that the cost of building in Aden is high because of the physical difficulties of building there, but I have no evidence at all that there is anything in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram).

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what is his estimate to the number of radio sets in the world; what proportion of them he estimates to be capable of receiving the British Broadcasting Corporation transmissions; by how much he expects these figures to rise in the next five years; and what action he is taking meanwhile to increase the scale of British Broadcasting Corporation transmissions.

The most recent estimate by the B.B.C. is that there were some 409 million radio receivers in the world in 1962, an increase of roughly 73 per cent. over the previous seven years.

Does not the suggestion that there are about 20 million new sets a year coming into operation show that the importance and value of overseas broadcasting is growing all the time? Welcome as is the Minister's statement, may I ask whether he is aware that it does not match the opportunity here? Will the right hon. Gentleman take an imaginative look at the problem and increase the amount of broadcasting and the strength of the signals so as to make up some of the ground which we have lost to other countries in recent years?

:The first priority, as I said to the hon. Member in the summer, is to make our broadcasts more audible. I have just come back from Asia and I am certain that this is the most important job to get on with. We have increased considerably expenditure on overseas broadcasting in the past few years, and I agree about its importance.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what was the expenditure on the low-priced book scheme in 1962–63; and what is the estimated expenditure for 1963–64.

The expenditure in 1962–63 was £107,000. The estimated expenditure for 1963–64 is £86,000.

Is not the Minister ashamed of those figures? Was not the expenditure last year much lower than that originally estimated? Is it not very bad that the figures should be going down? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the scheme lives up to the kind of target set when it originally gained the consent of the House?

I am not ashamed of the figures. Since the scheme was instituted in 1960, over a million books have been sold to 34 countries. It is proving less expensive than we expected. Expansion of the scheme is also sometimes delayed by the time taken to select the books, and the time taken to get the approval of other countries of the titles selected, but the extension of the scheme to other countries is under consideration.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what contributions will be made by this country during 1964 to the United Nations Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and to the Special Fund; how these contributions compare with those for 1963; and if he will make a statement on the pledging conference at the United Nations which determined the 1964 figures.

Subject to Parliamentary approval, Her Majesty's Government have pledged contributions for 1964 to these programmes of 6·25 million dollars to the Special Fund and 3·75 million dollars to the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance. These are the same as the pledges made for 1963.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very disappointing decision, in that the 1963 totals are already behind the programmes set out in accordance with the United Nations Development Decade? If 1964 does not show an expansion, shall we not get further behind? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that one of his first actions when he took office was to accept on behalf of the Government a resolution on the programme of the United Nations Development Decade? Cannot the Government take the initiative now to secure a bigger expansion next year?

:We took the initiative last year in increasing our contribution by 25 per cent. We are still the second largest contributor to this fund. If our contribution is calculated as a percentage of the gross national product there are only three countries that give a bigger proportion, and not one of those has a bilateral technical assistance programme comparable with ours. One must look at the whole programme of technical assistance.

Is there not an obligation on the Government to set standards in this matter? Are the Government now abandoning the targets they accepted for the United Nations Development Decade?

We are setting standards. We are the leaders. There are only three countries making a contribution which is a bigger proportion of the gross national product and, as I have said, not one of those countries has a technical assistance programme of its own which is comparable with ours.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he is aware that Ghana has passed a statute imposing a tax of 7s. in the £sterling upon remittances of those who receive pensions but are not resident in Ghana; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this new departure will not adversely affect ex-colonial pensioners who are resident here.

:Yes, Sir. I am aware of the action of the Ghana Government With regard to the second part of the Question, as my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies told the House last week, representations have been made to the Ghana Government and we still await their reply.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the tax of 7s. in certain cases may be more than is paid in this country by these pensioners? While the financial probity of Ghana is open to the gravest questions, may I ask that something should be done to press this matter hard and that it should not be left to lie where it is?

I can assure the House that I am deeply concerned about the effect which this measure could have on the pensions of British people who served both Ghana and this country very well. I can assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that our representations to the Ghana Government are being taken up in that spirit.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that in the application of this tax no account is taken of allowances which would apply to a tax at the rate of 7s. in the £ in this country, and that therefore this is a straight tax of 7s. on a pension income, however small the pension may be, which is very unfair? Are we not under an obligation to colonial servants to ensure that they do not suffer in this way?

I assure the hon. Member that the point he has made is very much in our mind as one of the potential causes of hardship. I should prefer not to comment on any other matter until we have completed our consultations and representations to the Ghana Government.

Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to draw the attention of the Ghana Government also to the fact that this kind of action is a considerable disincentive to those whom they might seek to recruit for future service in that country?

Yes, Sir.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government will have strong support from this side of the House in making these representations?

I am very glad to hear that.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what help his Department gives in the provision of expert personnel to assist Commonwealth countries in the preparation of their development plans.

We have met requests to send experts to the Ghana Planning Commission and the Tanganyika Planning Authority. And many officers supplied under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme contribute to the preparation of of development plans. We are prepared to consider further requests in this field as they arise. We also recommend British experts to the United Nations for supply to Commonwealth Governments under their programmes.

asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science whether a directive will be issued on the terms on which the Atomic Energy Authority should undertake work for the Central Electricity Generating Board.

:This is a matter for negotiation between the parties. Should differences arise, it will be for the Government to make decisions.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that although I cannot regard this as an entirely satisfactory Answer—[Interruption.]—as 90 per cent. of the work done by the Authority is for the Board, those of us who served with him in the House before are delighted to welcome him back again, and so are many others?

I should like to thank my hon. Friend for his extremely satisfactory supplementary question.

May I add our verbal congratulations to the Minister on his return, and also on his following the example set by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in getting back here in the right way? Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the relations between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board are quite all they should be?

I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman in particular for his courteous supplementary question and welcome. I would only say that nothing is ever quite all that it should be.

asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science what sum is provided annually from public funds for cancer research; and how this compares with the 1 per cent. of defence expenditure suggested as a contribution to an international institute under the proposal endorsed by General de Gaulle.

asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science how much money has been made available by Her Majesty's Government, during the financial year 1962–63, for cancer research.

:The French scheme referred to in the first of the two Questions envisaged ½ per cent. and not 1 per cent. of defence expenditure.

:But is not that figure one of the things that is just not what it ought to be. Does it not reveal that far too little money is at present being provided? Secondly, is it not shown that an international institute is very urgently needed, and can we be assured that the Government will play a vigorous part in getting such an institution going?

As regards the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, two very distinguished official scientists are at present discussing the matter, I think in Paris. As regards the first part of his question, the amount of activity on research must depend upon the availability of suitable manpower and promising leads. I have asked the question again and again of those who advise me, but these things are not simply determined by the amount of money devoted to them.

:Is the Lord President of the Council aware that the Government, and he himself, should be completely ashamed of themselves for giving such a meagre amount? We all congratulate the voluntary bodies on the wonderful assistance given to scientific research into cancer, but does he not think that the Government should provide much more than £¾ million?

No, Sir.

:Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that real research into cancer is in no way hampered by lack of funds?

As regards the Medical Research Council, certainly.

Is the Lord President of the Council aware that flag days are being held to raise money for cancer research? Does he not think that there is something wrong if we have to raise our funds for research in that way?

I certainly see nothing wrong in people paying for the relief of human pain and suffering out of their own pockets; on the contrary, I think it highly praiseworthy. As to general policy, I regard the multiplicity of resources for research as of the greatest value to scientific integrity.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the setting up of a committee, similar to the Haldane Committee of 1918, to examine the modern problems of the machinery of Government.

:I have no grounds for thinking that a committee of this nature is required at the present time. The organisation of Government business is the continuing responsibility of Ministers.

:Does the Prime Minister recognise that there has been no comprehensive survey of the machinery of Government since the Haldane Committee reported in 1918? Does he not, therefore, think the time very opportune to set up another committee to investigate this matter, particularly as, in discussions and debates, differences of opinion are being expressed on such matters as education, town and country planning, the location of industry, science and the rest? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would now be opportune to set up another committee to follow on with the extremely good work that the Haldane Committee did?

No, Sir. We have just made a great reorganisation in defence which takes place on 1st April, and we are contemplating the reorganisation of education and science. I think that this is enough to go on with.

:Whilst there is, perhaps, no case for setting up a committee at the moment, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is interest in the improvement of the machinery of Government on this side of the House as well as on the other? Would he consider now whether the promotion of civil servants, from the lowest grade to the top, is really adequate in the age in which we live?

:I am very interested in the reorganisation of Government and in the question that my hon. Friend has raised, but my general feeling is that there are enough committees about for the Government to do this work.

:Does not the Prime Minister agree that the very number of committees and Royal Commissions now necessary are themselves some evidence of our need to consider the machinery of Government? To quote just two examples, would he not agree that the need to associate local people with regional development, and the need to find some methods of checking faults in security, should be reconsidered in the machinery of Government as well?

I do not think that I can reconsider the setting up of a committee, but the Government are certainly looking into the reorganisation of the machinery of Government.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make it a condition of accepting Ministerial office in future that the of ice holder undertakes not to apply for nor accept direct Government subsidies other than those paid arising out of welfare services.

:So far as I understand the Question, the Answer is "No, Sir". But perhaps the hon. Member would like to let me know what he has in mind.

:Is the Prime Minister aware of the very invidious position in which Ministers are now placed? Does he know that Ministers of the Crown can, and do, receive large sums of public money—for instance, if they are farmers—as a direct result of policies for which they are responsible? Has it not been a long-established principle of British public life that persons should not receive a pecuniary gain from their public activities, and will he do something about it?

:I think that whatever practices are going on they have been going on for a long time—since the 1947 Act, the 1957 Act, and the rest—but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a specific Question, I will try to answer it.

:If the right hon. Gentleman wants a specific question, I will ask one of him. Will he make clear that a Minister of the Crown who is responsible for initiating policy is in a similar position to that of a member of a local authority who may be a council-house tenant and is not allowed to vote on a matter from which he gets pecuniary advantage?

:I should like to see that question on the Order Paper.

asked the Prime Minister, if, in his forthcoming talks with the President of the United States of America, he will raise the question of flag discrimination, particularly in relation to the recent grain transaction with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

asked the Prime Minister, if, during his visit to the United States of America, he will discuss with President Johnson the problems created by the granting of independence to British Guiana, in so far as they affect United States interests.

asked the Prime Minister, what proposals on the mixed- manned surface vessels force he intends to place before the House in preparation for his discussions with President Johnson when he visits the United States of America.

:My talks with President Johnson will be confidential.

Does that mean that in his visit to the United States the Prime Minister is not prepared to raise this grave issue concerning British shipping? Is he not aware that since I put this Question down the United States Maritime Board has demanded that British ships should give up to it certain confidential documents? Will he make clear that Her Majesty's Government will back our ship owners in refusing to do this, and will he ask the President how it is that the United States Government allow American ships to trade freely with Communist Russia, Hungary and other Communist countries but blacklist British ships which carry freight to Cuba? Will he ask the President how he can justify it? Furthermore, will he tell him that it is nonsense to continue to co-operate militarily if they are trying to crucify us economically?

:The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the Minister of Transport has already advised ship owners not to take notice of these documents. That has already been done. I hope that there will be no need, therefore, for me to raise this particular question, as the Minister of Transport has already made our attitude clear.

:Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the situation at present in British Guiana is causing a good deal of consternation in America, as I discovered in the late autumn, and does he think that he could talk with President Johnson without having something to say on his method, or the method of his Government, in settling the problem which now presents itself to us in British Guiana? Does he realise that if he would concentrate more on seeking to heal the breach between Dr. Jagan and Mr. Burnham he might solve the problem of independence a little more easily and, at the same time, bring some confidence into the mind of President Johnson?

Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman of what the late President Kennedy said about this:

"Quite obviously the United States Government is concerned about what happens in this hemisphere and observes matters in this hemisphere closely but I think it is very important that we point out that this is primarily a British matter and we should leave the judgment to them."

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be deliberately evading Question No. Q10 on the Order Paper. I am well aware, as all hon. Members are aware, that his discussions with President Johnson have to be confidential. I am not asking about that. I am asking whether, on the subject of the mixed-manned force, which concerns both sides of the House and the country, as well in the matter of defence, he will ascertain the views of the House before he enters into discussion with representatives of the United States? Is he aware that there is now a proposal for a pilot scheme, accepted by the United States, and it looks as though we are committed to it? If we are committed to it, is that not in defiance of the statement which he has made to the House?

:May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are committed to nothing as yet. The question of a mixed-manned force in general is being discussed both in Washington and in Paris, and there is a proposal that there might be an experiment on an American ship, not a nuclear ship, to try to find out the problems which arise from mixed manning. We have not decided whether to take part in it or not.

:On the mixed-manned force, would the right hon. Gentleman agree in the New Year, before his visit to Washington, to make a clear statement in the House on this question and allow the House a chance to debate it? On the other point about British Guiana, while welcoming the reiteration of what President Kennedy said about this being a matter for the British Government and this House, may I ask him to have another look at the whole question? In other words, will he have talks with the Secretary of State rather than with the White House on this, with the intention and purpose of trying to bring in a Commonwealth presence, whether from the West Indies or Canada, to guarantee human rights and the control of the police as a means of bringing about the very necessary reconciliation between Dr. Jagan and Mr. Burnham?

:I should like to consider a little further the last proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has made with my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary. So far as a debate on the mixed-manned force is concerned, there is really, I think, very little to debate as yet because we do not know what the findings of the Washington group or the Paris group will be. But, of course, this is a matter for the usual channels.

asked the Prime Minister whether, as a step towards reaching an agreement on chemical and bacteriological weapons, he will propose to President Johnson and Mr. Khrushchev an exchange of information on this sector of science, between Great Britain, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

:Both the American and the Soviet disarmament plans put forward at Geneva contain proposals for the elimination of chemical and biological weapons. I think the best way to proceed is to discuss these matters at Geneva in the context of these two plans.

Will the Prime Minister prepare the ground by taking suitable technical advisers?

Did the hon. Gentleman ask whether I would see that there was a technical adviser at Geneva?

In the light of the evidence which I sent to the right hon. Gentleman last week, would it not be an opportunity to take scientists in February who are competent to prepare the groundwork on this important question?

:We usually have them with us at Geneva. My right hon. Friend, if he goes, or any other Minister there, usually has expert evidence with him. Certainly I will see if this might be done.

Would the Prime Minister consider the possibility of making a proposal to abolish biological warfare preparations in advance of a general agreement and transforming the present research stations into establishments for combatting and abolishing diseases throughout the world?

I should like to discuss the very interesting question raised by the right hon. Gentleman with the Americans, our allies, and other allies to see whether we can make any progress before the actual stages of a disarmament agreement are put into practice. I am not very sure that this is possible. It raises all sorts of security issues for one thing.

asked the Prime Minister, if he will seek an early opportunity to meet members of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss problems of the Scottish economy.

:There is no lack of Ministerial contact with the Scottish Trades Union Congress. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland holds regular meetings with its Economic Committee. The last was on 15th November; and he is due to meet them again on 20th December, specifically to discuss the Government's recent White Paper on Central Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour also saw members of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 7th November.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is increasing recognition in Scotland that he himself is not too well aware of the economic problems of his own country? Is he aware that his predecessor as Prime Minister did see the Scottish T.U.C., and in view of the urgency of the situation and the fact that many trade union members in Scotland are not confident as to the efficacy of the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman has made vis-à-vis the Scottish economy, will he take the initiative himself to meet members of the T.U.C. to discuss these matters?

I think it a little arrogant of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I do not know about the Scottish economy. I have lived in Scotland all my life and have had a lot of experience of both the agricultural and industrial parts of the country. If the Scottish T.U.C. wishes to see me, as I have indicated in the last part of my Answer, I shall be happy to see it.

:If the right hon. Gentleman understands the Scottish economy, how does he explain the fact that he did not know that the Hydro-Electric Board had been stopped from any further advance for three years? He made this quite clear during his own by-election campaign.

:That is an entirely separate questions. The Hydro-Electric Board was not stopped by Government action, as the hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows; it was halted for the time being because certain objections had been made which had to be heard.

:Will my right hon. Friend or those of his colleagues who from time to time meet the Trades Union Congresses of both Scotland and England make clear to them that there is great advantage to be gained from the Congress in either country pressing upon the workpeople the need at the present time, in the interests of the economy of Scotland and of the nation as a whole, that we should keep to a certain amount of wage restraint and that there should be some regard paid to the guiding light of the N.E.D.C. by people engaged in industry on both sides?

What matters most to the wage earner and the salary earner in this country, I think, is that wage increases should be met by productivity.

:Yes, but when the Prime Minister says that, does he recognise that the only possible basis on which we can get a fair incomes policy, not just a wage policy, is by having an adequate climate of social justice and Government measures to see that it is carried through?

I think that I will accept that. It is the objective of the Government.