asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will introduce a uniform civil marriage ordinance for Hong Kong and withdraw legal recognition from marriages celebrated under Chinese marriage customs.

I am not convinced that the measures proposed by the hon. Member would be appropriate in the circumstances in Hong Kong, but I fully recognise the need for some revision of the marriage laws of Hong Kong and I am in communication with the Governor on the subject.

While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask her if it is correct that these marriages by Chinese marriage custom are recognised in Hong Kong only and not in China and other nearby territories? Is it not time that something was done about it?

There are very many considerations involved, not only of marriage but of inheritance. As the hon. Gentleman may know, a Government White Paper was issued in 1961. Various representations have been received, and we hope to be able to consider the matter further.

In view of the Marriage Convention of the United Nations and also the fact that the Singapore Government have very good marriage laws on similar lines, may I ask the hon. Lady if she will look into the matter and see what can be done about Hong Kong?

I am quite sure that the authorities in Hong Kong are aware of the United Nations recommendations, and that the whole matter is still subject to discussion there.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much the Colony of Hong Kong pays towards the United Kingdom defence budget.

The annual defence contribution is £1½ million. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have recently accepted, with appreciation, an offer by the Colony to contribute up to £6 million over the next six years to help finance the building programme of the Army and Royal Air Force in Hong Kong.

Could the hon. Lady inform the House if any other Colonial Territory makes a larger defence contribution to our budget here in the United Kingdom? Will she also give an assurance that her right hon. Friend will resist any efforts by any of his colleagues to cut down the size of the garrison in Hong Kong in view of the large contribution that this Colonial Territory makes to our defence budget?

I could not answer the first part of the supplementary question without notice. As to the second part, I think I have made it clear that we have accepted this contribution because of the agreed programme of building work for defence purposes in Hong Kong.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Hong Kong differs from our other Colonies in that they are poor and Hong Kong is enormously rich, and that this contribution is a small and quite inadequate contribution compared with the expense to which we are put on its behalf?

I am of course aware that it was suggested by the Select Committee on Estimates not long ago that a contribution from Hong Kong on a larger scale was desirable, but the amount of £6 million had not then been offered by the Government of Hong Kong. It has since been offered and we have accepted it gratefully. It is quite true, as my hon. and learned Friend says, that Hong Kong is in a better position to make a contribution than some other Colonies.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his plans for the future economic and political development of Hong Kong.

In the special circumstances of Hong Kong, there are obvious limitations on political development. My hon. Friend will be aware that additions to the membership of the Legislative Council were made in July of this year. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for further change, but we shall, of course, consider any ways within the present framework in which the people may be more closely associated with the government of the Territory.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that very helpful Answer, may I ask whether she remembers that we used to regard Hong Kong as the shop window of democracy in the Far East? Is she aware that it was only four months ago that the right to form political parties was conceded to the people of Hong Kong? In view of that fact, and in view also of the increasing prosperity, there is now a growing desire for a greater share in running the Colony by the people of Hong Kong. Will my hon. Friend say whether or not —[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it right that we should have Second Reading speeches during Question Time?

I must point out again to the House that supplementary questions and answers are getting too long. Mr. Rankin.

In view of that fact, will my hon. Friend look with some favour on this growing tendency?

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks but he will realise that changes were made as recently as last July and I think we had better wait a little longer before any further changes are made.

As regards economic development, is the hon. Lady aware that Hong Kong has been particularly hard hit by the 15 per cent. Import surcharge?

We are aware that this has caused some difficulties in Hong Kong. We considered whether any special measures should be taken to protect Hong Kong, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that there would be very great difficulties there, and I think Hong Kong will not be as seriously affected as he seems to think.

On a point of order. While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, I beg to give notice — —

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give notice, will he do so in the traditional way.

I beg to give notice that I shall pursue this matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the legal advice he was obtaining in connection with the trial for murder of Paul Gobine and Philibert Loizeau of the Seychelles and their subsequent conviction for manslaughter has now been received: and whether he will now establish an independent inquiry into the conduct of the police, counsel, and judiciary of the Seychelles in relation to the two trials of these men.

It has been decided that this case should be referred to the new Court of Appeal to be set up in London to deal with appeals in criminal cases against judgments of the Supreme Court of Seychelles. Provision for the establishment of this court was made by Order in Council on 20th November last. At present there is no provision in the Seychelles laws, as there is here, enabling the Government to refer criminal cases to the Court of Appeal, but the necessary amendment will be made.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which, I do not doubt, will give comfort to many in the Seychelles and give greater confidence in the administration of justice there. Can my hon. Friend say whether there will be any local difficulties, administrative difficulties, which I gather are a prerequisite before this appellate tribunal can be established, and can she give me an undertaking that immediately on the establishment of that appellate jurisdiction this case will be referred to it?

We do not anticipate any difficulties. We have had consultations with the authorities, and I think that my hon. Friend can be satisfied that what he desires will be done.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will convene a conference to consider the federation of the islands in the Eastern Caribbean.

I hope that a conference on federation may not be long delayed. For the present I am waiting for the revised draft federal scheme.

When the conference takes place, will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that the new Federal Government, if as we hope it develops from the conference, will have sufficient powers at the centre and sufficient sources of federal revenue to ensure that there is not another failure of federation in the West Indies? If as a result of the conference we can get a viable federation, will the Government support it generously with development funds in the critical early period of its existence?

I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's points in mind, but I think it would be much better if I waited and saw the federal scheme before anticipating any conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a harbour is to be built at Tristan da Cunha.

Mr. J. H. P. Hawtrey, Chief Civil Engineer of the Crown Agents, is at present visiting the island to report on the feasibility of constructing a harbour and to make detailed plans. A decision will be taken as soon as possible after his report has been received.

In view of the rather special relationship between the Tristan islanders and this country because of their stay here, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that at any rate cash —I think that it is only about £100,000 —will not be a factor to prevent the building of this harbour, which would do a great deal to help the islanders and their fishing industry, on which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, they so greatly depend? Will the fish factory which was destroyed by the volcano be rebuilt?

I know and appreciate the interest which the hon. Gentleman takes in the island. A sum of money has already been earmarked out of C.D. & W. funds, but we cannot absolutely commit ourselves until we know what Mr. Hawtrey's recommendations are and what sum is involved. Once the harbour facilities and adequate landing facilities are available, I understand that the South Atlantic Islands Development Corporation intends to develop the freezing plant which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from the Government of Gilbraltar about the inconvenience caused to Gibraltarians and Spanish citizens working in Gibraltar by delays at the Spanish frontier at La Linea.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the restrictions which have recently been imposed by the Spanish authorities at the Gibraltar-Spanish border; what is the effect of them on the economy of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

For the past three weeks travellers entering or leaving the Spanish customs post at La Linea have been subject to considerable delays and to exceptional searches of baggage and vehicles and other formalities. Some travellers have been asked to pay what are apparently new duties on goods taken across the frontier in either direction. Since 23rd November the Spanish frontier gates have without prior consultation been closed for the night at 11.30 p.m. instead of 12.45 a.m.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great loyalty of Gibraltarians and the sympathy which is felt for them in this country? Will he do what he can to improve good will on the frontier?

Yes, certainly. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman knows of the talks to which I referred earlier with the Chief Minister, who expressed himself afterwards as being fully satisfied with the consultation we have had.

May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will have the fullest support of this side of the House in any necessary measures they may take to get these wholly unjustified restrictions lifted? At the same time, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in our view, the maintenance of friendly relations with Spain is very much to the advantage of Gibraltar and that these very great difficulties have arisen largely as a result of the gratuitously provocative attitude of his party over both the naval contract and the withdrawal of British units from the naval manoeuvres?

As the House will appreciate, my primary concern is with the interests of the people of Gibraltar. As I have already said, we are in touch with the Spanish authorities on this whole matter and I think that it would he a pity if any hon. Member on either side of the House said anything this afternoon which might make it more difficult to reach agreement on this extremely important issue. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to table a Question to me as to consultation with the Governor. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's second specific question, I would only emphasise that my primary concern is to protect the interests of the people of Gibraltar. External relations in general are a matter beyond my Department.

However some old friends of General Franco may feel on this matter, is it not a fact that the people of Gibraltar themselves have shown no marked enthusiasm for political domination by Spain?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals he has for the expansion of educational facilities for those territories which come within his jurisdiction; and if he will consult representatives of these Territories towards this end.

I recognise the need for continued improvement of educational facilities, especially at the secondary and higher levels. But it must be for the Government of each territory to consider the weight which this should carry in its overall development plans, having regard to other priorities and to available resources. Her Majesty's Government provide a major part of those resources through the C.D. & W. Act. Aid for education is also provided through the Overseas Service Aid Scheme and the Commonwealth Teachers Acts. The Colonial Office and Ministry of Overseas Development, working in co-operation, maintain close consultation with the territorial Governments about their plans.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern at the number of young children at the early age of nine who cease to have any further schooling in order to become domestic drudges for many white masters? Will she not agree, as we have some responsibility for these Colonies, that the very success of self-government depends to a great extent on a sound educational system, and will she lend her good offices by consultation with the representatives referred to in my Question to bring that about?

I am indeed aware of the importance of education to any Territory on its way to self-government. In many of these Territories there has been inadequate expenditure in the past under the former Government, but we will certainly do our best to see that some of the deficiencies of the past are made up in the next few years.

Would the hon. Lady inform the House how far the responsibility of her Department goes in educational facilities in the Colonies, how far the Ministry of Overseas Development comes into the picture, and exactly what the co-ordination will be between these two Departments?

In general terms, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is responsible for the overall development plans of the Territories, of course in consultation with the Ministry of Overseas Development. As to higher education, the Ministry of Overseas Development normally is in direct touch with universities and comparable institutions.

Since the hon. Lady has introduced a party note into her answers, would she not acknowledge that there is a limit —she will certainly find it very soon, if she has not done so already —to the amount of money available for these smaller Territories and that there are other claims, such as economic development, which are in the future revenue-producing to the Territory? Although I do not decry the importance of education, it must be taken in relation to other demands.

If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to study my original Answer in HANSARD, he will see that the point he made has been covered in it. I would point out that the contentious matter was raised by one of his hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that medical practitioners and others concerned with the treatment of leprosy are proscribing the use of the word "leper" in view of the fact that the odium associated with this word has done much to prevent the co-operation of communities concerned and hence the eradication of the disease; and whether he will give an assurance that this consideration is borne in mind by the staff of his Department, and of the Colonial Medical Service.

I know that some people have suggested that lepers and leprosy should be known by other names. Changes in the English words, however, are not likely to have much significance among those communities where the disease is commonest. I believe that my Department's efforts, and those of the Medical Service in the Colonies, should continue to be devoted to direct attack on the disease and on the misconceptions which surround it, rather than to trying to cloak it in another name.

In view of all the facts in this case, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the remarks made recently by his right hon. Friend —

Order. The hon. and gallant must relate his supplementary question to the Answer.

In view of the use of the word "leper", would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the remarks made recently by his right hon. Friend —[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot take it.

Order. I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot get his supplementary question into order.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what date has been fixed for constitutional talks upon the future date of independence for Mauritius.

In discussions last February with the noble Marquess, the former Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, Mauritius party leaders agreed that the next conference to discuss future constitutional developments should be held at a convenient time after October, 1965. A definite date has not yet been fixed.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the keen desire for early independence in the island, which has a long history of a good educational system and mature politicians? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider advancing the date or giving a target, say, at the beginning of 1966 and advancing the talks to early in the summer of 1965?

The date after October, 1965, was generally agreed in the discussion in February of this year. I have had representations from the Premier of Mauritius and also from a number of his colleagues on this point, but before we could agree to bringing the date forward we should have to be quite certain that this proposal was generally accepted by all the parties in Mauritius to the agreement reached in February.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are his plans for a further constitutional conference to agree a new relationship between Aden and the Federation of South Arabia.

I would refer the right hon. Member to my reply on 12th November and would only add that I am leaving for Aden this afternoon to study the problem on the spot.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we very much welcome his decision to go to Aden and the Federation to see things for himself before he reaches any conclusions? I would not want to embarass him at this stage with questions, but may I have an assurance that he will seek permission to make a statement to the House on his return?

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I gladly agree to his suggestion.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the present number of staff employed by the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

220.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that all the members of his staff will be fully conversant with the principles of Parkinson's Law?

Would it be fair to say that "big brother" will be watching them?

Could the Economic Secretary say whether this number includes the personal public relations officer appointed by the First Secretary? Could he say why it is necessary for the First Secretary to have a personal public relations officer in addition to the Press relations officer of a normal Government Department? Is it because the right hon. Gentleman feels that his image has become badly tarnished in the first 40 days?

The personal Press officer appointed by the First Secretary is not paid by the Government or by the Department. He is drawing no salary or income from Government funds at all. His own financial position is his own personal responsibility. The reason for this appointment is so that we may achieve the object, so frequently announced but not achieved by the previous Prime Minister, of bringing the country and the Government into closer consultation with each other.

asked thte First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is his policy regarding the various regional development studies set in motion by his predecessor.

My right hon. Friend has arranged for work on these studies to continue.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of eastern Scotland are looking forward keenly to the completion of the carefully prepared plan for these areas set in motion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)? Is he aware that they would be bitterly disappointed if the publication of this plan were delayed to enable the Government to complete their own plans for a central planning board for Scotland?

There will be no delay of any kind. The hon. Member will no doubt have seen the statement made yesterday in another place by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he said that we are pressing on with comprehensive plans for various regions of Scotland and that they should be available probably by the middle of 1965.

Will my hon. Friend abandon the geographical idea of his predecessor that the north-east of Scotland, and in particular Aberdeenshire, is not a region which needs development? Will my hon. Friend abandon that obnoxious idea and realise that the North-East of this island does not end on the River Tweed?

The Government have the interest of Aberdeenshire very closely at heart, and I have personally the interest of the fishing industry in Aberdeen very closely at heart.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress he is making with the setting up of small economic development committees in particular sectors of industry or in the regions.

Economic development committees have already been set up in nine industries and it is hoped to establish them in other industries as rapidly as possible. My right hon. Friend proposes to discuss a programme for future expansion of this work with the National Economic Development Council on 2nd December.

As it has been suggested that bankers will be represented on the N.E.D.C. itself, can the hon. Gentleman say whether they will be represented on the small economic development committees of industries? Can the hon. Gentleman also say why the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be a member of the N.E.D.C.? It seems to us on this side of the House highly important that the right hon. Gentleman should be on the Council in order to deal with the financial situation.

The second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question relates to the central National Economic Development Council whereas the Question relates to what are known as the "Little Neddies". There is a Question later on the Order Paper on the N.E.D.C. itself. The question whether bankers will be appointed or not to economic development committees for particular industries is a matter for consultation and discussion when any new committees are set up.

What will be the relationship between the "Little Neddies" and the Board of Trade? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the original arrangement was that the official representatives on the "Little Neddies" would come from the Board of Trade? Does that still remain the arrangement or will they come from the Department of Economic Affairs? If so, how will the Board of Trade be represented?

They will come from both the Department of Economic Affairs and the Board of Trade, or from the sponsoring Ministry if that happens to be one other than the Board of Trade.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the proposed price review body will review the prices of products and services of nationalised industries, such as coal, electricity, gas, railway season tickets, and postal rates, as well as those of private industry.

My right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a statement on the scope of the references to the price review body which the Government are intending to establish. He is discussing these and other matters relating to prices and incomes policy with representatives of employers and trade unions.

When his right hon. Friend is considering it, will the hon. Gentleman tell him that it is most important that the commanding heights of the economy be brought under control, apart from any question of the products and services of private industry? It is quite obvious that the Government cannot control the nationalised industries and they should be subject to the price review body.

We propose to continue with the process of bringing under control the commanding heights of the economy by nationalising the steel industry. The Government are certainly fully aware of the importance of prices in the nationalised industries and I think that we would take the view, like most hon. Members, that it would be wrong in principle to exclude any set of prices from the operations of the price review body.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if, when the regions are defined for the purpose of establishing the regional planning boards, Merseyside will be a region in itself or a subdivision of the north-west region.

I must ask the hon. Member to await the statement which my right hon. Friend expects to make soon on the functions of the planning boards and councils and the areas they will cover.

Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that Merseyside has special problems separate from the North-West as a whole? Is he also aware of the statements or reports issued by the planning officer of the Liverpool City Council, which can be of great assistance in relation to the study of the particular problems of Merseyside?

Yes, Sir. The Government are fully aware of the special problems of Merseyside and in particular the exceptionally high level of unemployment which has persisted there for a large number of years. On the question of the exact boundaries of regions I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which will be made quite shortly by my right hon. Friend.

Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether his right hon. Friend intends to make the statement to the Press or to the House?

The statement will, of course, be made to the House.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make an estimate of the implications of the increased duty on petrol and diesel fuels on regional economic development.

No, Sir. It is not possible to make a generalised estimate of this sort.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this tax is bound to increase disproportionately the freight costs of firms such as those in eastern Scotland situated a considerable distance from their markets? Is not this, therefore, bound to accentuate the problems of depopulation and unemployment in those areas?

No, Sir. We do not think that this measure will have this disproportionate effect which the hon. Member suggests. It will have disagreeable effects in certain regions, particularly in connection with bus fares, but that is a point on which discussion is proceeding between the Ministry of Transport and the various bus interests affected.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that increased transport costs place the heaviest burden on the areas which are most remote from their own markets?

Increased transport costs place a burden on everyone. It is a very disagreeable thing to do this, but we inherited a very disagreeable situation.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs who are the members of the National Economic Development Council.

A list of the members of the N.E.D.C. will be circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not among the list of members of the National Economic Development Council? If that is so, is not it wrong that the chief economic figure of the country should not be on the Council? Does this mean that there will be no financial control of this very important Council?

I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be a member. The reason is that the Council will be concerned mainly with questions of physical rather than financial policy, but of course co-operation between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, who will be Chairman of the Council, is a matter of continuous and perfect harmony.

Mr. William Clark.

rose—

Order. Some hon. Members seem to be anticipating that they will be called. I called Mr. William Clark.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather unusual to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer excluded from such an important body as the N.E.D.C.? How can one have integration and consultation if the Chancellor is excluded from the deliberations of the Council? Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consider this matter again? Is he aware that not only do we on this side of the House think it is disastrous but that people throughout the country are absolutely astounded that the Chancellor is being relegated to the rôle of being merely a bookkeeper?

No, Sir. I cannot accept what was stated in that supplementary question. It is not true. We considered this very carefully and we decided that as this was a body mainly concerned with the physical side of planning and with the efficiency of particular industries the right chairman of the body was my right hon. Friend the First Secretary and that there was no especial need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be on this body itself. I must make it clear that if what is worrying the hon. Member is the question of the relation existing inside the Government between the First Secretary and the Chancellor —which is very important —this should not be established primarily in the forum of an outside body. This is primarily a matter of internal government.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his understanding that N.E.D.C. in future will have no discussions of any kind about matters of incomes policy, for example? Is not he really saying that, as a result of taking the creative organisational part out of N.E.D.C. and putting it into his right hon. Friend's own Department, N.E.D.C. now becomes just another advisory body, in this case an advisory body to the First Secretary of State?

On the question of incomes policy, all the discussions now being conducted on that subject, both with the trade unions and with the employers, are being conducted by a Government team consisting of the First Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour, so that the Chancellor is fully involved in the discussions about prices and incomes policy.

In order to remove the doubts from the minds of hon. Members opposite, will my hon. Friend tell the House that on this and allied questions we intend to carry out our policy and plans, and not those of the Tory Party?

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has yet met representatives of the motor industry in accordance with the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the effect of the rise in Bank Rate on the ability of the industry to finance stockpiling production during the winter months.

The meeting of the N.E.D.C. on Wednesday next will provide an opportunity to discuss these and other problems.

Will the Minister's right hon. Friend bear in mind that in this industry it is most important to maintain a large volume of production because that is the way to get low marginal costs and to make possible effective entry into the export market?

Yes, Sir; we are very much aware of that.

asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions are pending under the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927.

Police inquiries are in progress in one case.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to draw the attention of industrialists to the trading site at Macmerry, East Lothian, where there is scope for considerable development.

Although this area is not a development district, Haddington has an overspill agreement with Glasgow. In suitable cases, Board of Trade officials draw the attention of industrialists to the site at Macmerry.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the local authorities have done all they can to make the site attractive and to advertise it, and that considerable Government help is required if it is to make the progress we should like to see?

Yes, Sir. I understand that this is an attractive site, for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given. Although it is not in a development district, the fact that there is a working arrangement for overspill is the reason why we are giving it special consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated value of arms on order from South Africa which have recently been cancelled by Her Majesty's Government, and which have not yet been cancelled, respectively; and what estimate he has made of the value of follow-up orders which are likely to be lost.

As indicated in statements by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 17th and 25th November, shipments under current contracts, other than those for sporting weapons and ammunition, are being permitted. It is not the practice to disclose figures of overseas arms business.

That may be so, but I am asking about arms which are not being exported. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there was an order pending for Bloodhound II for South Africa, as reported in the Press, and whether the value of it was about £50 million? Second, why is it morally right to export 16 Buccaneers but morally wrong to export 14?

The reasons for this decision have been made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend, and I do not propose to embark on arguments about what is morally right or wrong in that context. In replying to the hon. Gentleman's question about the figures which he quoted, I can only repeat that it is not our practice to disclose figures of overseas arms business.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how much foreign currency was involved by British tourists going abroad in the last convenient period of 12 months; how much British currency was purchased by foreign or Commonwealth tourists visiting this country in the same period; and what action he will take to make this country more attractive to tourists.

In the 12 months ending 30th June, 1964. United Kingdom visitors spent £255 million in overseas countries, and overseas visitors spent £210 million in the United Kingdom. In addition, there was a net gain of the order of £70 million in fares to and from this country.

Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the British Travel Association that visitors should be informed that we have hunt point-to-point meetings from February to May which give a very good idea of British country life? No charge is made to visitors, entrance is free, one sees a real bit of country life, everyone is friendly, all classes mix together, and they are excellent institutions. If they were publicised, it would do an awful lot of good.

I am sure that the British Travel Association is aware of that. If it is not, I shall draw it to its attention.

asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the delivery of the Buccaneer aircraft now on order by the South African Government, and on the acceptance of further orders from South Africa for naval, military and air force equipment for the external defence of that country.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made yesterday.

As Buccaneer aircraft, which might conceivably be used for internal security, are now to be sent to South Africa but neither Oberon submarines nor frigates could possibly be used for that purpose but only for external security, will the Prime Minister consider anew supplying to South Africa weapons which can be used only for the external defence of that country, particularly in the light of his statement yesterday that he hoped that normal commercial relations with South Africa would continue?

I thought that we had been very fully over this now in two successive weeks, and the statement I made was that we were stopping arms shipments. As regards the Buccaneers, as I said yesterday, we are allowing that contract to run out but no further contracts to be renewed.

There will be general satisfaction at what the Prime Minister said yesterday about allowing the first part of the Buccaneers to go to South Africa, but is it not illogical not to entertain the possibility of sending a second squadron if the South Africans want to honour their side of the Simonstown Agreement?

The question of the Simonstown Agreement does not come into this. As regards the Buccaneres, if we decide, as we have, to stop arms, we must stop them at the earliest possible opportunity. After consideration —I mentioned yesterday some of the factors entering in that consideration —we decided that the existing contract should be honoured.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will give an assurance that no final decision on the British nuclear deterrent will be taken in his talks with the President of the United States of America;

I have nothing to add to what I said in the House on 23rd November.

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will try to realise that he is no longer the Leader of the Opposition, that he is, in fact, the Prime Minister, however long we may have to suffer him, and that as such, when he goes to America, he bears a tremendous responsibility for any decisions he might make affecting the future defence of these islands. May I further—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question.

With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that he is no longer Leader of the Opposition but is, in fact, the Prime Minister. After all, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, two of my Questions are being taken together, and I was about to ask a short further supplementary question.

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman thought that he was either funny or clever, but that view may not be shared generally. In reply to that part of his speech which I was able to disentangle as being interrogatory, 1 am aware that I am no longer Leader of the Opposition, and I think that it is fairly generally understood. I am aware, also, that no Prime Minister of any party entering into important negotiations of this kind would feel free in advance to say everything he may wish to say in the negotiations.

Order. I would point out to the House that long supplementary questions and answers deprive other hon. Members of Oral Answers to Questions which they have had on the Order Paper for a long time.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state his policy on the supply of arms to the Portuguese-controlled territories in Africa.

Her Majesty's Government do not propose to permit the supply of arms to Portugal for use in her overseas territories.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether arms have been supplied to Portuguese African territories in the past, and what was the extent of such supplies, and can he also say whether there are existing contracts which he is now ending as a result of the Answer that he has just given?

In 1961 the then Prime Minister said:

"In deciding whether to negotiate a sale or to grant a licence for the export of military equipment to Portugal, we have to consider her reasonable military requirements as a N.A.T.O. ally. But supplies of equipment to Portuguese overseas territories are in a different category and applications in these cases are for the time being in suspense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 19.]

"We do not supply arms to Portugal for use in its overseas territories, and we shall not do so."

In order to eliminate the present uncertainty among exporters and, above all, to avoid double standards, would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a code of conduct to which foreign Governments must conform if they wish Her Majesty's Government to consider them fit and proper persons for the export of British arms?

I think that the double standard code of conduct applied in respect of a Government who refused arms to Portugal in respect of her overseas territories but allowed arms to South Africa. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am giving my answer in my own way, if hon. Gentlemen will listen. Since there was that double standard code of conduct, the decisions of Her Majesty's present Government remove that standard of dual approach.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that there cannot be general world disarmament without Communist China's participation; what assurances he has received from the Chinese Government of their willingness to participate in such a conference, and on what conditions; and if he will make a statement.

I do not consider that the disarmament process could go far without Chinese participation, although it might perhaps be possible to make a start on it.

Should a favourable opportunity occur when the right hon. Gentleman is in Washington, will he put it to the American Government that if the Chinese Government would drop their theory of the inevitability of war between the capitalist and Communist worlds there could be a recognition by the Americans of the Chinese Government and so we could have world disarmament?

It is not usual to say in advance what will be discussed or what will be on the agenda, but I cannot imagine any fruitful discussion of world affairs in the Washington talks which did not bring in the questions of China and disarmament.

How soon can we expect a reply to the Chinese initiative?

I think the House would agree that it would be desirable that these things should be left over for discussion in Washington.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an official historian to write the history of the Suez operation.

Official histories deal primarily with the strategy and tactics of military operations in major wars.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this is carrying humanity a little too far, that he is really too considerate to the Ministers responsible for Suez? Does he not realise that it is time a good many of the skeletons were brought out for careful inspection?

It really would be, of course, a rather costly and, I think, long drawn out operation to appoint a historian to do this job merely for the purpose of finding out what the then Foreign Secretary got up to at Villacoublay, because the then Foreign Secretary could end all uncertainty by making a short statement here and now.

Could not such an official historian at the same time write a history of "The 100 days"? Would not this be of assistance to future Chancellors of the Exchequer in how to avoid placing sterling in jeopardy for party political purposes?

The Question on the Order Paper related to the activities of military historians. I am not at all certain that anything that has happened in the past 40 days or so will be of any interest to military historians. As to the other question, I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend may be making a statement.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the confidence of Great Britain's European Free Trade Association partners has been lost; and what steps he is taking to restore it.

We are very conscious of the disappointment and anxiety of our European Free Trade Association partners over the measures we had to take to restore the balance of payments. There was a full discussion in the meeting of the European Free Trade Association Ministerial Council at Geneva last week. We told our European Free Trade Association partners that the charges were temporary and that they would be reduced as soon as the balance of payments situation permitted and abolished at the earliest opportunity. We also told them that, although no precise date could be fixed, we intended to begin this process in a matter of months.

Yes, but, while I welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has taken, may I ask whether he is aware that he gave the impression to our friends in Europe that he put Socialist domestic policies before the keeping of British international obligations, and that the best way to restore confidence is to reverse the order and give top priority to British interests and second to his own party interests?

I find some difficulty in following the right hon. Gentleman's argument, because the surcharges, to which we are referring—they were the subject of discussion—were introduced about eight days after the Government were formed, and we had the authority, I thought, of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that it was his diagnosis and his remedies. I was not aware that he was doing this with a view to the promotion of Socialism. He may have been, but he never told us.

In view of the events of the last week or so, does the Prime Minister intend to raise with our colleagues both in E.F.T.A. and outside the general provisions for meeting a situation of this kind? It appears that quotas, for instance, in these events, would have been quite legal, but not a surcharge. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the machinery exists to support sterling as an international currency, with all the strains that that entails, or does he not think it is time that he looked again at the various agreements that we are party to to see whether there is not some better way to meet that sort of eventuality?

I thought that there was widespread agreement in all parts of the House when we debated these economic matters on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech that there was something a little out of date about both E.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T. in that quotas were permitted virtually without question but tariff charges of this kind were not. I think that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said this clearly, as we did from this side of the House. Certainly, I am sure that when opportunity occurs there would be a general desire to reopen the question within the operation of both G.A.T.T. and the E.F.T.A. agreement. With regard to the question of world liquidity, I said on Monday that this was obviously one of the urgent questions which should be considered, both in the talks in the United States and more widely.

Can the Prime Minister now confirm that he and the President of the Board of Trade have had time to read the Treaty of Stockholm? Will he consider issuing a list of those treaties which he intends in future to honour and those which he regards as scraps of paper?

What I notice is the great helpfulness of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite at this and all other times, but again I remind hon. Members that, even after Suez, which was a very controversial issue, the then Opposition rallied round on the measures for the support of sterling without question. Any hon. Member who chooses to doubt that can look up HANSARD for 4th December, 1956, c. 1057.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone looking up column 1056 will find the statement of the Prime Minister, and that the only measure introduced at that time was the 1s. on the price of petrol? That was debated a week later when the then Opposition, with the final speech made by the present Prime Minister, voted against it.

I am well aware of what I said on that occasion and in relation to the increased cost of petrol. In the same sentence I said—I thought that it was column 1058, but I will accept the correction of the right hon. Gentleman—that, as the then Government were introducing fuel rationing, it hardly seemed necessary to introduce rationing by the purse at the same time. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would quote the reference which I made as well when I referred to all the measures being taken to mobilise international support for the £.