asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made in the discussions with other Commonwealth Governments on the problem of immigration into this country; and whether he will make a statement.

I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 24th November that I had nothing to add to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) on 17th November. This is still the position.

I am not too well acquainted with the contents of that Answer. Can my right hon. Friend say whether negotiations are still continuing with the Commonwealth Governments and whether at this stage he can say what the response has been, particularly from the Indian, Pakistan and West Indian Governments, to my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Discussions are still continuing, and at this stage I have nothing further to add.

Does the right hon. Gentleman now appreciate the advantages of the Commonwealth Immigration Act which is protecting the country from an undue flood of immigration while the right hon. Gentleman pursues his negotiations?

As I have said, the negotiations are still continuing and until they are finalised there is nothing further to add.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what proposals he has for the alteration and improvement of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.

Precise proposals were put to Commonwealth Governments several months ago, but we have not yet received the comments of all the Governments. This is, of course, an extremely complex matter. Meanwhile, I should prefer to treat as confidential the various proposals which we are in process of discussing with the Commonwealth.

Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that when I taxed my own side on the subject some 18 months ago the then Opposition indicated that if they were in power they would treat this with the utmost urgency and would amend the Act? Does he think that this should now go ahead despite the confidential nature of the discussions, and would he get in touch with the Commonwealth Governments concerned so that we can have a Bill before us in this Session?

We are anxious to complete a review of the Act as soon as possible, and other Commonwealth Governments have been urged to let us have their views at an early date. I hope that it will prove possible for us and the rest of the Commonwealth Governments to move forward in step with each other. I think that that would be the view of hon. and right hon. Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) what decline in imports from Commonwealth countries he expects as a result of the imposition of import surcharges; and

The purpose of the charge is, of course, to reduce imports, but it leaves consumer choice free. Its effect on any particular category of imports and particular supplying countries will depend on the decisions of importers and consumers. The Government will keep a careful watch on the effect.

Is not the Minister rather ashamed of having to give that reply when very little consideration has been given to the effect on the Commonwealth'? Have any talks been carried on between the Minister and the Minister for Overseas Development about special aid to offset this severe blow to Commonwealth trade?

Other Commonwealth Governments have already in some cases indicated their confidential views on how import charges will affect them. They will probably give more detailed accounts when they have had time to consider the matter more carefully. I cannot go further than that at the moment.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it was that these confidential communications were not asked for from these Governments before the charge was put on when it appears from paragraph 11 of the White Paper that the United States Government were fully consulted?

No Government was consulted before the announcement was made about the surcharges. All Governments were informed more or less about the same time.

Could my hon. Friend tell us for how much longer exporters in the Commonwealth countries would be prepared to export to us if we were not in a position to pay for their exports?

Is it not very surprising that, despite agreements always to consult with the Commonwealth, they were not consulted?

The hon. Member should know that this was an extraordinary situation brought about by the actions of his Government.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that during the 13 years of Conservative rule there was a steady decline in Commonwealth trade?

the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what advance notification of the decision to impose a 15 per cent. surcharge on imports was given to the Commonwealth.

I have nothing to add to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on 17th November.

Can the hon. Gentleman now clarify once and for all that no advance notification whatever was given to the Commonwealth, but was given to the United States of America? Can we have a straight answer to that, as it is a question which we have found it difficult to get answered?

All Governments were notified. There was no consultation. I can assure the House that any difference in timing of the messages to Commonwealth and other Governments was not significant.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) on the honour which he has just had bestowed upon him for political services? At the same time, will he reject the patronising attitude which we are now witnessing day by day from hon. Members opposite and in plain language reject it? If he does not have a sufficient supply of plain language, let him come to me and I will lend it to him.

I have a sufficient supply of plain language in both English and Welsh, but as this is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box, my right hon. Friend will excuse if I do not use it today.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what has been the total financial assistance granted by Her Majesty's Government for education in Rhodesia since self government.

I am replying to the two Questions put down by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) as they were put down before the division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth Relations Office and Ministry of Overseas Development was settled. It may be helpful to the House if I mention that in future such questions, relating essentially to British economic aid, will be answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development.

Have the Government in mind any further assistance for education in Rhodesia, particularly for secondary education, and, if they have, will there be any political conditions attached to such help?

Future assistance is a matter for consideration between the two Governments. Of the sum I mentioned towards the teaching hospital, £280,000 has been paid and the balance will be paid as instalments fall due over the next two years. As to political considerations, aid to Southern Rhodesia will continue provided no unconstitutional action is taken.

While being grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of the Answer clarifying the procedure in answering Questions, may I ask whether he could say to what extent the prime responsibility for deciding whether or not to give aid to a country will rest with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations or whether that responsibility has been completely passed to the Ministry for Overseas Development?

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the very full statement made on this by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.

Because that was not very clear, I was asking a supplementary question having regard to the way Questions have been transferred. Such Questions, and this one which was not transferred, were all put down since the statement was made, and it seemed to be not very clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what has been the total financial assistance granted by Her Majesty's Government for African housing in Rhodesia since self-government.

In 1956, a Colonial Development Corporation loan of £1 million, and, in 1962, a Colonial Development and Welfare loan of £3·5 million for general development, of which over half was devoted to African housing.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the work which is being done for African housing, particularly for home ownership, and will he take an early opportunity of going there to see it for himself?

We are aware of the work which is being done and we appreciate its importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made in solving the constitutional questions of Rhodesia.

We are still seeking, as the first step, to arrange for constructive talks with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.

Will my right hon. Friend proceed in this matter a little more speedily because of the growing apprehension in Rhodesia about the uncertain future, and will he see to it that the spokesmen for Rhodesians in general, in spite of restrictions imposed upon them, will be allowed fully to ventilate their attitude towards the problem?

At the moment, we are hopeful that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia will accept the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to come to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what conversations he has had with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety in this country that some sort of accommodation should be reached with the Government of Southern Rhodesia, or Rhodesia as it is now called, and is he further aware that, he having been so outspoken in his statements to the Rhodesian Government, many people in this country feel that he should now be equally outspoken to the African nationalist politicians in that country? Will he point out to them the necessity to fight constitutionally if they wish to be taken as responsible politicians rather than rely on intimidation and violence? [HON. MEMBERS: "What Constitution?"] The 1961 Constitution.

It is precisely for that reason that we should like talks to get going as soon as possible, so that we can bring about a situation in Rhodesia where peace and security will prevail.

It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he wishes to speak to the Prime Minister, but this will not do on its own. He has had some pretty rough things to say to the Europeans. Will he now be equally outspoken to the African nationalists, making clear that there is a Constitution on which they could fight and that it would be much more effective if they were to do this instead of relying on intimidation and violence?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading the speech I made in Zambia in which I paid tribute to the part which Rhodesians of European descent had played in helping to build up the country and trying to provide a constitution. Since then, there has been a change in the Government, which threatened unilateral action. Until that is out of the way, it will be very difficult to get the Africans to co-operate as we hope they will.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what arrangement has now been made for the Prime Minister of Rhodesia to visit London for talks with the British Government, or for the Secretary of State to visit Salisbury for talks there.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey).

As I understand from the Prime Minister that correspondence is proceeding between the two Governments, may I take it that a statement will be made as soon as possible?

As the right hon. Gentleman has said, correspondence is taking place between both parties and as soon as we are able to make a statement, it will be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) what representations he has made to the Government of Ceylon about the imposition of a special export tax of 10 cents per pound on all teas shipped from Ceylon for sale in the London auctions, on a special wealth tax of 10 per cent, on the profits of all sterling companies, and the acreage tax of Rs.300 per acre for high grown estates in lieu of the ad valorem duty;

I have made representations to the Ceylon Finance Minister about all those measures in the Ceylon Budget which have an adverse effect on British interests and individuals, including those mentioned by the hon. Member.

I am grateful for the representations mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but is he aware of the considerable hardship being caused to individuals in this country particularly by the operation of the exchange control regulations mentioned in Question No. 6? Would he feel it proper to represent not only this hardship but also the very discouraging effect of these budgetary measures upon further investment in Ceylon?

The Ceylon Government have undertaken to consider these hardship cases. As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that we ought to wait and see what happens as a result of the return of the Ceylon Finance Minister.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing public unwillingness to provide aid to these Governments which seem bent on destroying existing productive industry, and will he bring this to the attention of the Ceylon Government?

I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will withhold the grant of further Government economic aid to the Ceylon Government as long as that Government maintain their policy of squeezing out British-owned businesses of all kinds in Ceylon.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement regarding British aid to Ceylon, following his discussions with Ceylon's Minister of Finance during his recent visit to London.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has explained, Questions essentially dealing with our economic aid are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development.

I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman did not have any discussion on economic aid. In view of the Ceylon Government's attacks upon the freedom of the Press, upon foreign banks, and especially upon all forms of British interests in Ceylon, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been intolerable to ask the British taxpayer to assist the financing of policies of this kind, and would it not be better to suspend economic aid until these policies are reversed?

The Ceylon Finance Minister made no request for aid.

Could the right hon. Gentleman explain his Department's division of responsibility, as I have two Questions down, one on Zambia and one on Ceylon, and the one on Zambia was transferred whereas the one on Ceylon has been kept? Does not his reply mean that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept responsibility for aid to Ceylon?

As I have already said, where the question is essentially one on economic aid for a Commonwealth country, it is the responsibility of the Minister for Overseas Development.

It is not clear to the House, and it is not clear particularly to hon. Members who are putting Questions, why the right hon. Gentleman accepts a Question on aid to Ceylon but transfers to his right hon. Friend an almost identical Question on aid to Zambia. What precisely are the responsibilities of the two Departments of State?

I made it quite clear. I think that this will adjust itself as it goes along. For obvious reasons, many of these Questions were put down at an earlier date, and it was then clearly my responsibility. Where the responsibility has now been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, Questions will be answered accordingly.

They were put down on the same day.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in his talks with the Ceylon Government's Finance Minister, he discussed the future of the tea industry and the large British investment in Ceylon.

I made it clear to Dr. Perera that, if they were given the chance, British enterprise and investment could continue to make an important contribution to the economy of Ceylon, including the important export-earning tea industry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Government of Ceylon that the high taxation, particularly the new wealth tax which is retrospective, is having a bad effect on the maintenance of tea gardens and will be likely to affect the export of tea in future?

This matter was discussed in my talks with the Finance Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in his talks with the Ceylon Government's Finance Minister, he discussed the unfavourable balance of trade which Great Britain has with Ceylon.

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the balance of trade between this country and Ceylon is greatly in favour of Ceylon and that there are many widows of those who helped to build up the economy of Ceylon who are entirely dependent on dividends they receive from Ceylon?

The fact that Ceylon's trade with Britain is in her favour makes all the more regrettable the measures recently taken by the Ceylon Government to restrict invisible payments, so large a part of which normally come to Britain.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ceylon Government have put pressure on tea companies not to pay dividends out of funds which have accrued and are at present in London?

That again was a matter we discussed when I met the Finance Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made in recent weeks towards a solution of the Cyprus problem.

As I told the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 24th November, we await the report of the United Nations mediator.

The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about sovereign bases will receive general acceptance at least on this side of the House, and we are grateful for them, but can he tell us anything at this stage about what is likely to be the future of the British forces on the island? As I understand it, the mandate for the United Nations force expires on Boxing Day. Is it likely to be renewed, and what does the right hon. Gentleman say about the finance provided by Great Britain, as we have already spent 3½ million dollars on this fruitless attempt so far?

We hope that the United Nations mandate will be renewed. If it is, we shall accept our obligations as a result.

Is the Minister aware that his statement that the Government intend to retain British bases in Cyprus will be welcomed and that we are all very glad to know that this is one of the commitments which the Government do not intend to abandon?

I was told yesterday that the Cyprus base had cost this country £200 million under the previous Administration, £20 million a year. Are we to take it that the present Government will carry on the policy of the previous Government?

At this moment, it is the intention of the Government to have a base in Cyprus.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether Her Majesty's Government will exempt Malta from the imposition of the 15 per cent, surcharge on imports into this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will augment the sum to be given to Malta in grant-aid by the amount of the cost to the Maltese economy of the surcharge on imports into the United Kingdom.

it is not possible to discriminate in favour of Malta either in the incidence of the temporary import charge or by making any additional financial payments.

Such an Answer will give no satisfaction either here or in Malta. As the last Government, with the support of the party opposite, did a great deal to start industry going in Malta, is it not the height of folly to cut the ground from under all that, and will the Minister give the House an assurance that Malta will not suffer deleteriously as a result of Government policies?

The Government much regret the necessity to impose the import surcharge on countries such as Malta with which we have a special relationship, but in the end their interests would have suffered much more if we had allowed our balance of payments to deteriorate further. The prime necessity at this time is to maintain the strength of sterling.

As Malta receives grant aid, with the assent of hon. Members in all parts of the House, is it not quite inappropriate to take some of it away again in the form of surcharges?

We appreciate the problems of Malta, but I stress once again what my right hon. Friends have already said on several occasions, that these surcharges are temporary in their effect.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the financial arrangement with Malta was based as far as possible on an exact calculation of its essential needs? Will he, therefore, consider this matter further?

We are always prepared to consider any constructive suggestion, but I must point out that the great bulk of Malta's foreign earnings derives from invisible exports, that is, goods and services supplies to the British forces.

Has my hon. Friend made any calculation of what it would cost in the effort to reduce imports if consent were given to each and all of the recommendations from the other side of the House to make exceptions?

No, Sir; we have no such figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further information he has received as to the reasons for the recent revocation of leasehold rights of occupancy in the Arusha area of Tanganyika; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are proposing to take to ensure that, where appropriate, British nationals are adequately compensated for the deprivation of their properties.

No specific reasons have been given, but these rights of occupancy were revoked under longstanding legislation providing for the proper development of land in Tanganyika. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the Tanzanian Government have appointed a commission to inquire into individual cases. It is, therefore, premature to speak of deprivation of property.

Has the Secretary of State any information to suggest that the real reason for this action by the Government of Tanzania is that the British subjects involved declined to take out Tanzanian nationality? If he has no such information, will he make inquiries on the point?

I have no such information. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence to support it, I should be glad to have it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not accept what has gone on in Tanzania as a pattern for the Government's leasehold enfranchisement?

We have an assurance from the President of Tanzania that he wants to do all he can to help to keep British subjects there, and I think that we ought to rely upon that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the harassing of British missionaries in this area has been increased in recent days? Will he ask the High Commissioner to keep an eye on this and protest, if necessary?

I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to one case. In that instance, we called for inquiries, and we are satisfied about the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has now received as a result of his further investigations into the official allegations made against British subjects in Tanzania; and what further action he has taken.

The Tanzanian authorities have made no general allegations against British citizens. As regards individual British citizens who have recently been expelled from Tanzania, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 24th November.

Is it not a fact that very grave anxieties were aroused by the events which the right hon. Gentleman reported in his previous Answer? Is it not also a fact that very much assistance in many different ways has been given to Tanzania by British subjects who have gone to work there? Can the right hon. Gentleman ask for an early reply from the President of Tanzania and tell the House what advice he is giving meanwhile to the Minister of Overseas Development about conditions of service in Tanzania at present?

On the general question I have seen the Tanzanian High Commissioner. He assured me that British interests will be fully protected and British subjects, they hope, will remain to play a part in building up the country. In regard to the question about aid, my right hon. Friend and I are always in consultation about any matter where political influence might be concerned with economic aid.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he is aware of Dr. Banda's recent refusal to give Her Majesty's High Commissioner in Malawi any guarantee for the safety of Major Moxon, Mr. Cameron and Mr. McAdam, all British subjects; and what action he is taking to ensure their safety.

When the British High Commissioner learnt that Messrs. Cameron and McAdam had been threatened in their homes he immediately called upon Dr. Banda. Police protection had been provided; but in view of the strong feeling in the country following recent political events Dr. Banda felt unable to guarantee their future safety. Major Moxon was not involved at that time. All three men have now left Malawi.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this state of affairs in which the head of a Government cannot guarantee the safety of British subjects is a matter of great concern to this House? Will he make representations to Dr. Banda to ensure the future safety of British lives and property in his country? Will he also ensure that where people are forced—in spite of that—to leave the country in a hurry, they receive adequate compensation for the property which they leave behind?

Representations have been made by our High Commissioner to Dr. Banda. Dr. Banda has stated that British subjects are very welcome in Malawi provided they do not interfere in Malawi's internal affairs. The question of compensation goes rather far from the original Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what undertakings and guarantees were given by the Indian Government as to the use of armaments to the value of £13 million promised in the recent agreement; and whether he will make a statement.

We have not promised armaments to the value of £13 million in any recent agreement. I assume my hon. Friend is thinking of the figure of £13·66 million which has been quoted as the total foreign exchange which the Indian Government may require to complete the reconstruction of the Mazagon Dockyard in Bombay and the construction there of three Leander-class frigates. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the British Government have undertaken to make available a loan of £4·7 million over the next four years to help finance this project.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this agreement, the Press report on which is rather obscure, has caused considerable disquiet to India's neighbours, in particular to Pakistan? Will he give an undertaking that all questions of Commonwealth defence in future should require prior consultation with the neighbouring Commonwealth countries concerned?

The Pakistan Government are aware of the reasons why this loan was made.

Is the right hon Gentleman aware that it is a rather strange position in which the Government are now prepared to give arms to a country in the Commonwealth which is not prepared to stand by any Commonwealth defence agreement and yet deny arms to South Africa which is prepared to stand by its agreements? Is lie not also aware that the concern expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) is felt very strongly in Pakistan, especially in view of the fact that India is one of the countries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—I am asking a question—India is a country which has used force for the settlement of international disputes? This is a matter of considerable moment to its neighbours?

Unlike the party opposite, we shall always put Commonwealth interests first.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what safeguards Her Majesty's Government have sought to obtain to ensure that the defence aid to India stipulated in the Indo-British communiqué of 20th November is not deployed for purposes of internal repression or conflict with her sub-continental neighbours.

If the hon. Member will refer to the communiqué of 20th November, he will see that no new commitments for the supply of arms and military equipment have been undertaken.

In regard to the general supply of arms to India at present, under that communiqué and otherwise, and recalling his and his friends' many statements in the past that it is impossible to distinguish to what use weapons are to be put in any particular country, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his undertakings for the supply of arms to India he bears in mind all the feelings of Pakistanis in this matter?

In supplying arms to Commonwealth countries we do not subject them to any limitation as to their use.

Is not the defence aid very properly extended by the United Kingdom to India partially vitiated by the absence of that common defence system for the sub-continent which was offered by Field-Marshal Ayub Khan to the late Sri Nehru and, to achieve that, is not the problem of self-determination in Kashmir very relevant? Will Her Majesty's Government, in common with other Commonwealth Governments, do their best in this difficult problem to see whether India and Pakistan can be brought closer together in the interests of the Commonwealth?

This is a matter where all Commonwealth Governments are willing to help if their services are required. Of course we would all like to see the differences between India and Pakistan over Kashmir ended as soon as possible.

In considering these matters, will my right hon. Friend give weight to the view that building up arms in that area will not reduce tension between India and Pakistan?

This is a matter we have very much in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he is aware that Dr. V. Allen, a British subject, was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour in Western Nigeria, that the previous charge against Dr. Allen was withdrawn, that he was then re-arrested on a new charge, and that a statement from Dr. Allen was disallowed on the grounds that it had been taken from him by the police by unlawful means; and what action he proposes to take in this regard.

With permission, I will state the facts briefly. Dr. Allen was first arrested in Lagos on 16th June and charged under the Federal Nigerian Criminal Code with the offence of managing an unlawful society. On 1st July this charge was withdrawn, and Dr. Allen, then on bail, was formally discharged. He was then charged under the Western Nigerian Criminal Code, with three others on three separate counts involving sedition. The hearing, in a Western Nigerian court, lasted until 10th October, and on 10th November all four were found guilty and sentenced to four months imprisonment on each charge, to run consecutively. Dr. Allen has been given light work in the prison printing shop. During the trial the magistrate heard evidence on the admissibility of a statement alleged to have been made by Dr. Allen and ruled that this statement could not be admitted.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has made to the Government of Jamaica in regard to the Foreign Nationals and Commonwealth Citizens (Employment) Act.

The Government drew attention to several aspects of the Bill which adversely affected our citizens, and I am glad to say that the Jamaican authorities made a number of amendments to the Bill before it became law.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear to the Government of Jamaica that we entirely accept the right of any country to limit immigration if it so wishes? Will he also bear in mind that some firms employing British subjects in Jamaica feel that they may have difficulties now in recruiting the necessary technical staff?

I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said, but I draw his attention to one amendment to this Jamaican Act, namely, that Commonwealth citizens are exempt from the provisions of the Act if they have been employed in Jamaica for at least nine months in a year since 1954. That should be of some assistance.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has received from the British High Commissioner in Malaysia about recent acts of aggression against Malaya and Sarawak by Indonesian forces; and what requests he has received for further assistance from the Malaysian Government.

I understand that during the past two months there have been at least seventeen further Indonesian acts of armed aggression against Malaysia.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that the British Government continue to support Malaysia to the full will be widely welcomed? Is he aware that his assurance that the Government will continue to carry out the policy of maintaining support for Malaysia, taken together with his earlier statement that the British Government will retain their base in Cyprus, taken together with the other statements that the British Government will maintain their commitment to B.O.A.R. and their base in Aden, shows not very much change in their defence policy?

The right hon. Gentleman ought to know better. The last supplementary question should be addressed to the Minister of Defence. All I can say about that part of the question which concerns me is that when I was on the other side of the House I expressed the same opinions about Malaysia as I have today.

Is the United Nations Security Council aware of this threat to international peace and security? If so, has it anything to say or do about it?

That is a matter for the Foreign Office.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree with me that there is a case for the £200 million spent in Cyprus during the last 10 years having been better invested in Scotland? Will he convey to the Government that in Scotland we want the £20 million a year, which the Government are to persist on spending in Cyprus, where it will give better service to the country?

I have great difficulty in working Scotland into a Question about Malaya and Sarawak.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that the possibility of coast erosion at Dungeness affecting the nuclear power station is causing considerable apprehension to local residents; and if he will give an assurance that the nuclear reactor will not be activated until it has been proved that coast erosion will not affect the safety measures which have been built into the nuclear reactor.

I am aware of Press reports which were subsequently denied by the Central Electricity Generating Board. Erosion and accretion on the beach at Dungeness were assessed before the decision to build the station was made, and I am satisfied that it presents no threat to the safe working of the reactors.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will give much satisfaction?

Thank you.

asked the Minister of Power what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the public ownership of those areas of the North Sea bed now being prospected for oil and natural gas.

asked the Minister of Power what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the terms and conditions of the licences so far issued in relation to the Continental Shelf.

asked the Minister of Power what decision he has reached on the future of the licences granted on 17th September for prospecting for oil and gas in the North Sea.

As these licences have already been issued the Government have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to disturb them.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is one more example of the Labour Party saying one thing during the election campaign and doing another? Will he give the House and these international companies engaged in prospecting for oil in the North Sea an assurance that the threat of nationalising their operations no longer exists?

The statement made during the election by my right hon. Friend was provoked by the action of the then Government, an action which I thought to be quite unseemly and untimely, in that they did not leave such an important decision to the incoming Government. So far as the future is concerned, we must wait and see.

I welcome the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made and which clears up the uncertainty. Is not the knowledge which he now has available sufficient to convince him that his predecessor was absolutely right in going straight ahead and not wasting valuable time in this important matter?

No. I think that I have already replied to that. I do not think so. It would have been far better had the incoming Government had the right to issue these licences.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect—

On a point of order. Is it customary to call three hon. Members on the same side of the House in succession to ask supplementary questions?

I think that it will accord with the right hon. Gentleman's not too short recollection that it is usual to offer an opportunity to ask a supplementary question to those hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs said in reference to these licences that it was a case of the last Government giving licences to their private enterprise friends? Will the right hon. Gentleman now ask his right hon. Friend to withdraw that statement?

I have already said that I thought that the statements made by both my right hon. Friends at that time were entirely justified. It would have been far better had the incoming Government had the right to distribute these licences themselves.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that this operation was possible only because the previous Government nationalised nearly half the bed of the North Sea?

Does that policy include steps to protect the fertility and breeding of fish in these fishing grounds, which may otherwise be seriously damaged, with great loss to the North Sea fishing industry and to fish consumers?

I do not think that that question should be directed to me.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the reactions caused by the present volume of immigration, he will appoint a committee to report upon the present situation, having special regard to the problems of assimilation, housing, education and employment.

No, Sir. We already have the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council, which advises on the integration of Commonwealth immigrants into the community; and the issues involved are, of course, kept in regular review by the responsible Ministers.

Is it not a fact that a great deal of prejudice surrounds this subject? Would not much of it be dissipated advantageously if a large and objective review of all these considerations were made? Would it not serve the purpose of dispelling much of the prejudice?

I think that, whatever differences there are on this matter in the parties and in the country, everyone will agree on the importance of positive action in the areas where this problem is greatest. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Council which I have mentioned has already submitted three reports in the time of the previous Government on housing, education and employment for immigrant school leavers.

Has the Prime Minister had any representation from the Home Secretary, or the Law Officers, concerning a proposal put forward by a group of lawyers to set up a citizens council for a rather different purpose—to investigate any alleged cases of discrimination on grounds of race or religion?

I have seen reports of this suggestion, but I have not had a report on it from the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General.

In order to lift the problems arising from immigration out of the party dog fight, will the Prime Minister consider setting up a standing committee on which Members on both sides of the House would be represented, working in conjunction with representatives of the Government Departments concerned, which would be a much more effective body than the well-meaning people who are serving on the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council?

The urgent thing is to try to take special action in the areas where the problem is greatest. Of course it is not the custom ever to say what committees of Ministers there are examining these subjects, but I said that this matter, with particular reference to the positive side which I have just mentioned, was under continuous review.

asked the Prime Minister whether the official television broadcast by the Minister of Transport on Wednesday, 18th November about drink and driving represents the policy. of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pronouncements of the Minister of Transport on his rule of three has caused widespread dismay and created the belief that it is quite all right and safe for motorists to drink, to partake of three small whiskies, or three half pints of beer, or one-third of a bottle of wine and then drive? Will he consider what steps can be taken to counteract this dangerous advice?

I have carefully read the statement of my right hon. Friend. He said:

"We think, of course, that throughout the festive season those people who have to drive motor cars would be better not to take alcohol when they are going to be in charge of their cars, but if there are people who must do … they really ought not to exceed the minimum quantities suggested by all research bodies as the level beyond which their driving is impaired."

Is the Prime Minister aware that the amount of alcohol suggested in that speech is above that suggested by the British Medical Association as being safe and that anybody found having had that amount of alcohol in many European countries and in many States of America would be liable to prosecution and severe penalties? Will the Prime Minister ask his right hon. Friend to consider this matter, because the impression given may be dangerous and cause drunken driving?

Obviously individuals react differently to given quantities of alcohol and I am informed—though I have not tested it for myself—that it depends even more on how long it was since one got any solid food inside one.

asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for the establishment of new industries by public enterprise or in partnership with private industry to produce new scientific discoveries.

The Government will be keeping this matter under continuous and urgent study, and will inform Parliament of specific proposals as occasion arises.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that those words are from his own party's election manifesto? Is this yet another tip of an iceberg, the iceberg of public ownership? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this kind of Measure will do anything to encourage confidence in either sterling or Her Majesty's Government?

I recognise the words; I wrote them myself. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman considers this, he will realise that whether these new industries or units are set up in partnership with private industry or in public enterprise, in so far as they will be new productive units which did not exist before, not transferred from private ownership, they will not only give employment to areas which need employment, but will also be good for making a much bigger contribution to our export drive.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an establishment in Glenrothes in Fife which is ready for public take-over, namely, a set of piggeries and factories and refrigerator plant?

I am not sure that that is an industry dependent on new scientific discoveries.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that, particularly in the machine tool industry and industries such as that, sections of public ownership would be exceedingly welcome? Is he aware that we are looking forward to his introducing such legislation in the near future?

This Question relates not to a take-over of existing firms, but to the creation of new industries, whether under public enterprise or in partnership with private industry, based on new scientific discoveries. As I indicated in my statement last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is taking a special interest in the machine tool industry in view of the anxieties, on both sides of the House, about the growing volume of imports of machine tools and the need to improve that industry's export record.

asked the Prime Minister how many civil servants and Government-employed atomic scientists have been moved from their posts in the last 14 years in the interests of national security because they were foreign-born, or because they had relatives living behind the Iron Curtain or because of a combination of both these circumstances.

Twelve, Sir.

Would the Prime Minister agree that some of these persons have suffered considerable hardship through being removed from their posts under this security rule? Would he further agree that the security rule has now been abandoned by the present Government, and in those circumstances will he. as an act of simple justice, consider how many of these unfortunate people may be restored to their positions in the present circumstances?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has been no change whatsoever either in the rule or in the application of the rule. Every case is followed on its merits by the responsible authorities, and anyone who, for any reason—even reasons he cannot himself help—cannot be trusted, is not given access to any form of classified information. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman will study the record over the past years he will find that in recent times some extremely distinguished civil servants of very high rank of foreign birth gave remarkably good service to the previous Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether the official broadcast to Israel on 23rd November by the Minister of Housing about the Middle East represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

My right hon Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government did not make an official broadcast to Israel on 23rd November. Nor did he propound policy.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very unfortunate indeed that Members of the Government should take part in broadcasts of this kind, and would he not really find it easier to control his colleagues if he had fewer of them?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite to me, or his predecessor, found it particularly easy to control some of their colleagues over the last two or three years, but so far as the broadcast is concerned, if the hon. Member is really interested in the broadcast and not the crack, the fact is that my right hon. Friend has been a regular contributor for 14 years on this particular B.B.C. service, which, I think, has been very satisfactory to the B.B.C. and to all concerned. This particular broadcast was in effect a signing-off broadcast, as it is obviously clear that he cannot continue in this series, and I would have thought it appropriate, after all that time, to say goodbye.

If that was not the official view of the Government, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the official Government policy towards Israel?

Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to put down any particular Question he can get an Answer, or in the next debate on foreign affairs he could raise this amongst other matters, and I am sure he would get an answer. To be going on with, I shall be very happy to send the right hon. Gentleman a number of statements which were made by the present Government when we were sitting on the other side of the House.

asked the Prime Minister which Minister has responsibility for the Central Office of Information.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for the total Vote, organisation and staffing of the Central Office of Information. Specific information activities carried out on behalf of a Department are the responsibility of the Departmental Minister concerned.

That is a pretty odd arrangement, is it not? How is the Paymaster-General going to answer Questions if he has not got any Departmental responsibilities? How is he to answer questions about this? How can he do a proper job? Will the Prime Minister come clean about the job the Paymaster-General has? Whom, really, is he watching?

If the hon. Member would study what I said on a previous occasion he would find that there is nothing odd about it at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for the Central Office of Information. If the hon. Member sees any difficulty in this arrangement, it all arises from the fact that we have decided not to have a Minister acting as a party P.R.O.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the United States Polaris base should remain in Holy Loch; and if he will make a statement.

With permission I will answer this Question and Question No. 10 together.

Order. I called Question No. 8.

The Answer is "Yes, Sir."

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the maintenance of this American base in Scotland is a very effective way of making the Alliance strong?

Well, it is a very big subject. We have debated it many times, but certainly the position is as I repeatedly stated when I sat on the other side of the House, that this would be kept in its present form unless and until, as a result of any possible changes in nuclear policy within the Alliance, there were a requirement for it as a N.A.T.O. base.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even if the necessity for a nuclear base in Britain is accepted—and I do not accept it—in Scotland we regard its situation as being extremely dangerous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in view of the fact that it is far too near the greatest industrial centre in Scotland?

When this was debated when the original agreement was signed, my right hon. Friend the then Leader of the Opposition advanced very substantial criticism on the actual siting in that particular part of Scotland. This was very strongly put by a number of us, but it is now in fact there, and I do not think anyone would suggest uprooting it and sending it to a different part of Scotland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies agree with the Prime Minister's endorsement of this Polaris base, and, if so, did he change his mind before or after entering the Cabinet?

My right hon. Friend always, I think, agrees with me. I should start to get worried if he ever agreed with the hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order. The order Paper says that Questions to the Prime Minister will begin at 3.15 p.m. Today they started at 3.19. Possibly the Prime Minister might have been able to complete answering the Questions to him if we had started punctually. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you yourself could help when there is a long string of supplementary questions to the Minister replying before the Prime Minister, so that the Prime Minister can start punctually?

No. I proposed to call the first of the Prime Minister's Questions at 3.15. It is a matter of misfortune, or not, according to the view taken, that the Question which last occurred before 3.15 was answered together with two other Questions, involving, of necessity, if we were to get a proper balance, a certain number of supplementaries. I regret this distortion, but cannot from the Chair help.

May I respectfully ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in view of the great anxiety and the great uncertainty caused by the ill-defined nature of some of the financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in view of certain statements to the Press, as to whether there is to be a statement now, or an Answer to Questions No. 50 and No. 56, which are related to following Questions to the Prime Minister? Is it possible for the Chancellor to make a statement, or to answer the Questions which are of supreme importance?

It is a curious fact that hon. Members whose Questions are not reached are from time to time tempted to raise them in this way. I would not wish to give encouragement to the practice.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard you call Question No. 7, and the Prime Minister said that he would answer Questions 7 and 10 together. If I had not heard him say that I would have postponed my Question No. 10 to him. May I please postpone that Question, because it is a jolly good one?

The proper method of postponing a Question is not by addressing the Chair in this fashion. The hon. and gallant Member, with respect, is not quite right in saying that I called the Prime Minister to answer No. 7. It was No. 8, and the Prime Minister proceeded, in error, to answer something else, and when I gave him the opportunity he got hack to the right one.