asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he plans to take to create opportunities in Scotland for the employment of skilled Scottish manpower.

I am glad to say that the demand for skilled manpower of many kinds in Scotland is at a high level at present; but more science-based and other industry requiring a high content of skill is needed. In our efforts to encourage firms to set up in the development districts in Scotland, we shall continue to have this need in mind.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that we have lost 73,000 men in the last five years from Scotland, many of whom were highly skilled? Will he take some crash action, because the difficulties now arising from the past failures of the previous Administration will make it increasingly difficult in the next few years?

I am aware of that, but I think that the solution is first to bring more industries to Scotland, and secondly to extend training facilities. Both of those actions are being taken.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration is being given to extending credit facilities to British shipowners to finance the building of ships in British shipyards; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave on 3rd December to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the heavy burdens borne by British shipbuilding and shipping, often in excess of the costs borne by competitors abroad, is the provision and the cost of credit? When my hon. Friend is examining the shipbuilding industry will he also look into the costs of credit provided by foreign Governments to their shipping lines in competition with ours, and will he do something to help ours to meet that form of competition?

Yes, Sir. That is already under consideration.

Is the Minister of State aware that the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee made it clear in its last Report that credit was urgently required by the British yards to put them in an equal trading position with competitor nations? Is he also aware that, following his announcement last week, there has been a wave of depression in the shipbuilding industry, and that many yards have been taking on jobs at unremunerative prices in anticipation of continued sympathetic treatment from the Government?

I am aware of the Report which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. What was suggested in the second part of the supplementary question is not strictly true, and if the hon. Gentleman had observed the comments of the shipbuilders following my statement last week he would have seen that the more enlightened of them reacted favourably to that statement and said that at this stage this was reasonable while the general appraisal was being carried out.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that, following recent pit closures, the community of Kelty in Fife is now without any form of employment, he will announce the building of an advance factory there, in addition to ensuring that alternative industry is speedily provided.

A programme of nine advance factories for Scotland was announced on 18th November. It is too soon to add to that programme: but we shall certainly encourage firms to develop in this area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we were greatly disappointed that there was not one advance factory for this area? One can appreciate that all areas cannot have advance factories, but is he aware that this is a community of 89,000 people, that there were at one time eight or nine collieries, but that not one will be left there by the early part of next year? Can my right hon. Friend say what has happened to the hundreds of firms which the previous Administration said were falling over themselves to get into Scotland, and cannot we have one or two of those in Kelty?

I am glad to say that two advance factories from the previous programme are just about to start, and other developments are going on.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that there is no change in Government policy towards the firms which are establishing themselves at Bideford and Appledore with the help of the Local Employment Act.

Assistance under the Local Employment Acts will continue to be available to firms establishing themselves at Bideford and Appledore as long as these remain in a development district.

I thank the President of the Board of Trade for that assurance, which will bring great satisfaction to the people of North Devon. Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that without adequate rail and road services these industries in North Devon may be starved? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to keep open the line from Bideford to Exeter, so that industries may be encouraged to go there? Will he also take into account the fact that if we subsidise a local employment area it is as well to subsidise the railways also?

That is a point that the party opposite might have thought of before, but my right hon. Friend is well aware of it.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, thanks to the activities of the local authority in the Bideford employment exchange area and the assistance given by the Government, unemployment in this district has fallen recently by no less than two-thirds, and does the right hon. Gentleman expect this progress to be maintained in a situation in which the Government have deliberately created disinflation?

I think that this is an area which has always had an unemployment problem. That problem is not serious at the moment, but it is certainly one we must watch carefully.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the United Nations Trade and Development Board which his predecessor proposed should be set up at the United Nations conference at Geneva in June.

The recommendation of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development that a Trade and Development Board should be established is expected to be adopted at the 19th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which has just begun.

Will Her Majesty's Government do all they can to ensure that the initiative shown by the United Kingdom delegation, which contributed a great deal to such success as the conference had, is not allowed to peter out?

The hon. Member can be assured that the present Government will follow up the initiatives that have been taken, and which have been welcomed, and that we shall do so vigorously.

Will the Minister of State tell the House whether any consideration has been given to the establishment of the Trade and Development Board in London?

I am not able to say with certainty where the Trade and Development Board will be located, but it is expected that the first meeting will take place early in 1965.

Will the Minister bear in mind the desirability of the Trade and Development Board concentrating on matters of trade and aid, and avoiding, as far as possible, the political complications of international affairs; and therefore, the desirability of its being established, perhaps, in Geneva, near the other economic authorities, rather than in New York, which is politically dominated?

The right hon. Gentleman's observations will be duly noted.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of official negotiations with business firms interested in constructing the first British nuclear-powered merchant ship.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to co-operation with the shipping, shipbuilding and engineering industries on the design and construction of a prototype nuclear-powered merchant ship or naval auxiliary vessel for experimental purposes.

The Government are undertaking a review of the subject of nuclear ship propulsion. Discussions with the various interests concerned will be arranged as appropriate.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many groups of firms are interested in this project? Can he also assure the House, as it is likely that a prototype nuclear ship will not be economic, that the Government are prepared to make a reasonable contribution?

Apart from the interest of Her Majesty's Government, two consortia are interested. As to the future interest of Her Majesty's Government, I think that we shall have to wait until the review is complete, and then we can decide whether any public money should be spent on a research and development programme, or whether there is the possibility of an economic nuclear marine propulsion unit.

Will the Minister of State recall all the modernisation promises on this subject given by his party at the General Election? Does he appreciate that the Americans and Russians have had nuclear marine ships for years, that the Germans have launched one with an American reactor, but that we ourselves show not the slightest signs of following them—we, an island nation?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been wise to apply a little more pressure on his right hon. Friends who, in spite of 12 months questioning by him, never made a decision. We intend to examine this matter a little more thoroughly before making up our minds.

Will my hon. Friend also assure us that the Government will proceed with some speed in this matter, since probably within two years the shipbuilding industry may be facing a serious crisis?

We have that very much in mind.

Will the Minister state when this further review of reviews is to be completed?

I cannot see any reason why Her Majesty's Government should apologise for taking a little time over this very important matter. Public moneys may have to be spent on the project, and we want to review it very thoroughly before a decision is taken.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations with the United States Government took place prior to the imposition of the 15 per cent. surcharge on imports.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers given on 24th November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).

In view of that reply, can the hon. Gentleman explain the distinction that is drawn in paragraph 11 of the Government's White Paper on the economic situation, between the earnest consideration which the Government said they had given to the interests of E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth— [Interruption.]—countries and the continuous communication which they claimed to be engaged in with the United States Government? Can he further explain the reason for Sir Eric Roll's visit —[Interruption.]—to Washington over the weekend of 25th-26th October—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Can he assure us that on the next occasion on which the Government find it desirable to renege on their international agreements—[HON. MEMBERS: "Special."]—they will not give the appearance of preferential treatment for the United States—[Interruption.]—over countries with which we have special contractual obligations?

rose—

That supplementary question is too long altogether. Mr. Loughlin.

Answer.

No, I intervened. The Chair has no remedy to the matter of over-long supplementary questions unless on a flagrant instance, or a serious instance, it declines to allow the question to be answered. My action was taken, in my belief, in the interests of the House.

Would it not be possible, Mr. Speaker, to ask supplementary questions in a rather shorter time if hon. Members on this side of the Chamber could be heard? [Interruption.] It was quite impossible to hear what my hon. Friend was saying because of the interruptions and rowdy behaviour on that side. In any case, should we not have a reply from the Minister of State?

As to the latter part of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I have indicated my view already. With what he said before that I desire to express the most complete agreement. It is in the general interest of the House, if we are to make good progress with Questions, that there should not be so much noise as to interfere with proper hearing. I hope that we can all combine to get on with Questions. Mr. Loughlin.

On a point of order. Is it not the case that the Minister had risen and was preparing to reply to my hon. Friend?

Yes, but it is also true that I was rising to stop him doing so.

On a point of order. While I am sure the House has the utmost sympathy with you, Mr. Speaker, and the difficulties you have mentioned, are those difficulties to deny the House opportunities for hearing—if the House wants to hear—answers to questions? I appreciate your difficulty, but would it not be better, whatever those difficulties—[Interruption.] I am speaking on a point of order to Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Time wasting."]

Order. The House must allow me to hear a point of order addressed to me.

On that point of order I was inquiring whether, while the House appreciates the difficulties you are in, those difficulties are to deny the House the opportunity of hearing an answer to a question. How can we as individual hon. Members pursue a matter if difficulties arising out of one hon. Member's supplementary question deny us answers from the Minister?

The question will not have been answered. I do not stop to consider the effect of that on seeking to ask it again. One way of getting answers is not to put such long supplementary questions.

On a point of order. Would progress be facilitated if you allowed my hon. Friend to ask his supplementary question again so that we might have the benefit of hearing the answer?

What will facilitate progress is if I decline to hear further points of order on this. Mr. Loughlin.

Question No. 16, Sir.

On a point of order. I thought I heard you say that you declined to allow the Minister to answer the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend. Did you therefore intend to rule that, if a supplementary question is put which is within the order of the House and the Minister decides to answer it, you might nevertheless decline to allow him to answer it as a rule of order?

Yes, because I thought it was too long.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the conditions under which industrial development certificates are granted by his Department so that firms operating in areas of high unemployment or pending high unemployment are not allowed to transfer production to another area.

Our arrangements are already designed to ensure that the needs of the areas of high unemployment are given first priority. But we must take into account the particular features of each case.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is something in the nature of a farce if in the issuing of industrial development certificates for areas of high unemployment factories are drawn from areas of pending high unemployment? Is he aware that in my constituency A.E.I. has closed a factory with 850 jobs and there are two pits—

On a point of order. Is not this a rather long supplementary question?

I am waiting to pounce again. In the general interest I hope we can make supplementary questions shorter.

On a point of order. I am very sorry, but I think my question will prove to be very short. May I complete it, Sir?

Yes.

In my area there have been two pit closures, with 720 unemployed. Does not my right hon. Friend think it better to impose conditions on the issuing of such industrial development certificates?

rose—

On a point of order. In view of your last Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the length of this supplementary question—which clearly was longer than the last—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—are you going to rule the Minister out of order if he attempts to answer it?

I do not propose to try to conduct Question Time with a stopwatch. I shall do my best. I quarrel with the noble Lord only on the use of the word "clearly". It is terribly difficult to estimate the length of a supplementary question when it is so much interrupted.

Following that point of order, may I submit to you very respectfully that we find ourselves in a somewhat difficult situation as a result of your Ruling? May I ask that, in order not to take up further time at Question Time, you might perhaps consider the Ruling you gave a few moments ago and inform the House whether you consider it an authoritative Ruling for the future or not. It would appear to some of us that to instruct a Minister not to reply because a supplementary question appears to be long is a new development in our procedure. We should like it to be given further consideration.

Of course, I shall reconsider it. In the last Parliament we got into the habit of having long supplementary questions. I do not know what remedy the Chair has, but I shall certainly consider it and I hope that by general good will we can make shorter supplementary questions and make better progress.

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) wants some questions to be answered.

I am very sympathetic to the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). I have studied these circumstances, but fortunately unemployment in that area which he represents is lower than in other areas.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to implement the recommendations of the Jenkins Report on Company Law.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation implementing the recommendations of the Jenkins Report; and if he will make a statement.

Proposals for new company legislation, in which the recommendations of the Jenkins Committee will be taken fully into account, are in preparation. The legislation will not be introduced during the current Session.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what is a rather limited encouragement, may I ask if he will agree that in view of the great increase over the last 16 years in small investments and in the light of the new corporation and capital gains taxes, an early reform of the 1948 Act is very necessary?

Certainly. But we must take time to get the right answer to these very complicated questions.

In view of the fact that the Queen's Speech contained reference to legislation on only one aspect of company law, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will be dealing with the whole broad field of company law and that he will press ahead as far as possible with it?

Certainly we are doing that, but I cannot promise legislation in the present Session.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the next Queen's Speech mention will be made of the Jenkins Report? This is an urgent matter in view of the introduction of corporation tax. Will he look at this question again?

I cannot anticipate future Queen's Speeches.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much preparatory work was done by the previous Administration for the reform of company law?

Not as much as we propose to do in the next few months.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the rebuilding of East Croydon Station will be permitted to proceed in the light of the resrtictions announced on office building in south-east England.

As explained in the Government statement of 4th November, no office development permits will be granted in the Greater London Council area except in very special circumstances. I cannot yet say whether any particular project, requiring a permit, will be allowed to proceed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman regard this as a very special circumstance? Does he realise that up to a few weeks ago thousands of my constituents daily using one of the busiest stations in the country believed that they would soon have a new station? While the uncertainty continues they feel sure that this will not be so. Will he look at this matter again favourably?

If and when we get a detailed application in this case we shall, of course, consider it very carefully.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the statement made by the chairman of the Location of Offices Bureau is Government policy in relation to the building of offices in the greater London area?

I should have to look into the content of that statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the strength of local feeling that this very important development should go forward as soon as possible?

Certainly I shall not ignore that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the need for light industry in small towns in the South-West; and what steps he is taking to encourage firms to move there.

I must concentrate first on getting new industry to the develop- ment districts, where the need is greatest. Other places, in Dorset and elsewhere, are, however, suggested to industrialists seeking sites in the South-West for projects which cannot go to a development district.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's 15 per cent. surcharge has weighed particularly heavily on some of the industries we already have and it is therefore all the more necessary that he should pay attention? May I thank him for a comparatively sympathetic Answer?

Without applying the full development district treatment, it is possible to grant I.D.C.s in these areas more readily than one would in a really congested area.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that ordinarily no I.D.C. would be refused in the sort of cases to which he has referred?

I should like to see a rather clearer definiton of "the sort of cases" before giving that assurance.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what account he proposes to take of the future development of Dounreay scientific station for industrial development in the north-east of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

I should be glad to consider any ways in which the future use of Dounreay, when this is determined, might help the industrial development of northeast Scotland and the development districts in particular.

Does the Minister realise that the essence of my Question is directed to relating the scientific work at Dounreay to the industrial development of north-east Scotland, which is very badly needed? Will he take steps to ensure that the scientific efforts or potentialities of Dounreay are directed towards assisting north-east Scotland in this way?

Yes. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that this is extremely important, and I will consult my colleagues who are more immediately concerned with the future of Dounreay.

Is the Minister aware that the greatest service to industrial development he could make would be to persuade his right hon. Friends to make up their minds about whether they intend to go ahead with the prototype fast breeder reactor and where they are going to place it? Would he try to persuade them to place it at Dounreay where the skills are assembled to make it work well?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important that this decision should be taken reasonably soon.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what special conditions imposed by the Japanese Government on importers impose disadvantages on United Kingdom exporters.

The Japanese Government impose non-discriminatory import restrictions on certain products. Import licences are granted freely for other products, but a percentage of the value of the goods has to be deposited by the importer as collateral when applying for the licence. The length of credit which may be accepted on imports is restricted to conform with credit conditions in Japan.

First, are collaterals in conformity with international law and agreements? Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that this bears most heavily on those nations which would export to Japan manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials?

I know of no offence against any international agreement in this respect. The restrictions apply to imports from all countries, and we have no evidence that they bear more heavily on British exporters than on others. Nevertheless, we shall continue to keep a close watch on these restrictions and take them up with the Japanese Government when opportunity occurs.

Is the Minister of State aware that there are certain practices on the part of Japanese manufacturers which still regrettably give rise to great concern in the British textile industry? Would he very kindly give these his personal attention with a view to renewing representations on the subject to the Japanese Government?

I shall be glad to take into consideration any representations of this kind we receive.

If my hon. Friend's Answer means that he is not aware of the distinction between the import of manufactured goods into Japan and the import of raw materials, would he please have another look at this?

asked the President of the Board of Trade by what method trade commissioners, commercial ministers and equivalent appointments analyse and report to his department on all cases of failure on the part of British industry either to quote for, or to secure orders for, substantial capital plant and machinery requirements notified by overseas Governments or private businesses.

In so far as the information is obtainable, trade commissioners and commercial diplomatic officers report on these matters whenever they consider it necessary or are requested to do so.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that such an analysis should be a routine matter? If we are to find out why we are not exporting to countries, surely we ought to have the information to see whether British industrialists are doing all they can to earn exports?

In some cases the reasons why British industry could not get a particular order are obvious, but, wherever it appears on representation that inquiries are requisite, they are made and reports are considered.

If statistics of this nature are provided, could we also have statistics about the delays on the docks, which are frustrating very vital exports from this country?

I cannot see that that supplementary question arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Prime Minister which Ministers will be responsible for water resources and river authorities both in England and in Wales.

I have been asked to reply.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the detailed statement promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Would the First Secretary of State inform the House whether the Secretary of State for Wales is to take over the functions of the Minister of Housing and Local Government with regard to water resources in Wales?

I should be very surprised if he did, but I still think that the hon. Gentleman should await the detailed statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent economic developments, it is still the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry out the policy contained in the White Paper, "The Economic Situation".

I have been asked to reply.

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's economic policy has been shot to pieces? Does he really believe that the Government have consulted the interests of our partners in the European Free Trade Association? Do the Government still maintain that they have rejected any solution of our problems based on stop-go policies after what they have done in the past seven weeks?

It was because the hon. Gentleman made exactly that type of speech when he was recently on the Continent that our difficulties have been greater than they should have been.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the policies to be carried out in the next 50 days are anything like as damaging as those already carried out in the first 50, our economic position cannot hope to recover?

The hon. Gentleman should cheer up. We shall be out of this trouble very soon as a result of the Government's policy.

Can the acting Prime Minister say whether the lecture delivered yesterday to the American Chamber of Commerce by the First Secretary really represents Government policy? What on earth did he mean by saying, as he was reported as saying, that the letter sent round by the Governor of the Bank of England was the same as that which is always sent round at this time of the year? This was not a Christmas card or a New Year greeting sent round by the Government. Has not the First Secretary looked back and seen that this was exactly the same letter as was sent round in 1961 and 1957, with exactly the same request, phrased in almost exactly the same terms, and that whether he knows it or not he is in fact enforcing the credit squeeze?

A lot of midnight oil went into that one, but, unhappily, one premise is wrong. What the right hon. Gentleman hopes I said yesterday I did not say.

Is the First Secretary aware that I have made no speeches on the Continent on economic subjects since the election? Therefore, will he withdraw the statement he made about me earlier?

Withdraw.

The phrase "It is not British but it is good business" is now being rewritten the other way round.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the letter which he was discussing yesterday in his speech to the American Chamber of Commerce is the same as was sent round in 1961 and 1957 and is, therefore, the imposition of the credit squeeze? Why, when he is doing something to strengthen confidence in sterling, does he have to deny it?

If the right hon. Gentleman had wanted to ask me what I said yesterday, I would, of course, have informed him. Before he asked this question he might have done me the courtesy of having a look at what I said. I repeat that he has got it all wrong.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will extend an official invitation to President Tshombe to visit London.

I have been asked to reply.

We have no such intention at the moment, Sir.

Will Her Majesty's Government not be too hesitant about doing the right thing? Do not British lives and the chances of keeping the cold war out of Africa depend upon the making of peace in the Congo? Is it not therefore a British interest to seek to give all the help, whether technical or of other character, which it is possible to give to President Tshombe's efforts?

I take account of all that, but my answer to the Question on the Order Paper remains as I gave it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is in consultation with the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister and the Government are in consultation with our allies on how best we might help Europeans in the Congo should the occasion arise again? That might easily happen.

The right hon. Gentleman can not only take it, he knows it.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to do nothing to facilitate a meeting of the new African Fascist Internationale in London?

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question? In view of the fact that British lives and the lives of other nationals depend now, since the Belgians left, entirely upon Congolese troops under President Tshombe, did the Government do anything to try to see President Tshombe when he was in Paris recently?

That is precisely the kind of question that I find offensive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because if hon. and right hon. Members opposite really believe that they are the only people who care—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—then hon. Members must listen. If they really believe that they are the only people who care for our fellow-citizens in trouble, I find it very arrogant. We, of course, take every step, and I repeat that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) knows what we did.

On a point of order. It will be in your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that the question I asked was certainly not an arrogant one. Is there no protection against the sort of twisting that is going on from the Deputy Prime Minister?

This is not a matter for me. Do let us make progress. Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

On a point of order. Is it possible, or within your province, Mr. Speaker, to explain how any of these supplementary questions arise out of the Question on the Order Paper which has been answered and which asks whether the Prime Minister will extend an official invitation to President Tshombe to visit London?

Following precedent, in the circumstances the questions are within the range of what arises.

The right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister is unnecessarily touchy and noisy today. Is he aware that all I wanted to do was to allow him on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government to assure the House that they were in touch with our allies about the situation which could be extremely dangerous to British citizens? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do that.

I respond entirely in that case. I misunderstood the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman put his question. As surely the House must assume, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have of course been in touch all the way through and have been influencing what happened all the way through to help our fellow-citizens in this difficult situation.

asked the Prime Minister how many reviews have been started or promised on matters for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible; on what subjects these reviews are taking place; who is the chairman in each case; and when the report will be presented.

I have been asked to reply.

As many as are necessary to overcome the problems we inherited.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I hardly know whether to thank him and whether or not he is going to give me information? Is he aware that every day we hear about one or two reviews until it seems apparent to me and most of the country that Government policy is going to be one whole big review?

For once I was completely right. I thought that would be the supplementary question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say something about the review of social security? Is he aware that there is a very widespread feeling that an internal Departmental review is inadequate and that what is needed is a wide-ranging review by outside persons to whom outside bodies can submit evidence?

This does not arise from the Question, but I will take it into account and think about it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees.

On a point of order. I quite honestly do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means. Is he going to print the answer to my question in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

I accept the hon. Lady's honesty in every way, but I doubt my ability to help her in this matter.

asked the Prime Minister when a statement will be issued on the current talks in Washington.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss with President Johnson Western defence problems outside the North Atlantic Treaty area.

I have been asked to reply.

I would ask hon. Members to await my right hon. Friends return.

Arising from these talks, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgent need to review our defence commitments in the light of the needs of the 1960s and not the 1940s, and the urgent need to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons?

The answer to my hon. Friend is that surely he will await my right hon. Friend's return.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister to make a statement as early as possible in the week in which the proposed debate will take place?

I understand that discussions are going on about this between the usual channels, and of course I will make representations.

asked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will arrange that general directions are given by the appropriate Ministers to ensure that when the 15 per cent. import surcharge and/or the increased fuel tax increase the costs of nationalised industries, the increases are absorbed by them and are not passed on to the public in the form of extra charges.

I have been asked to reply.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the whole of the debate in Committee on the Finance Bill Ministers opposite stated that these increases should be absorbed by private firms? Would it not be setting a really good example if the Government were to issue a directive to nationalised corporations telling them to do precisely what the Government are saying private organisations should do?

The hon. Member no doubt noticed that in answer to a Question on Tuesday, I said that I did not think that in principle one could exempt one area or one operation from another, and of course this we will have in mind when we come to discuss the setting up of any price review body we might agree upon.

But what exactly does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman's Answer was that the Government would not issue any such directive. Why cannot they issue such a directive if it is their intention to keep down prices, as they said it was during the election campaign?

I gave a clear Answer to the first Question and I gave what I hoped was a sensible, interesting and encouraging answer to the second question.

asked the Prime Minister why there were 20 corporals, two sergeants and a staff sergeant of the Royal Military Police at Chequers during the week ending 22nd November.

I have been asked to reply.

To keep the hon. and gallant Gentleman, among others, out.

Is that what the right hon. Gentleman really thinks—my view was that it was done to keep the Labour Left wing away from Chequers—or was it just a bit of "Wiggery-pokery"?