asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now announce the date of an independence conference for British Guiana.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to make further progress towards independence for British Guiana.

It is the intention of the British Government to hold a conference as early as practicable to discuss, among other things, a programme for independence. Meanwhile we shall be waiting anxiously for the result of the investigation into racial imbalance which the Premier of British Guiana is taking steps to mount.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that British Guiana is now enjoying fair and firm government and racial peace for the first time for many years? Will he convene a conference this autumn to fix a date for independence early next year?

British Guiana is certainly making very satisfactory progress at present. That is something about which all of us must be very glad indeed, but I would prefer not to commit myself to a precise date for a conference at the moment. There is a good deal of ground to be cleared and we had better see how things develop.

Is not there a danger in an early conference on independence that it might break down again on the issue of an electoral system? Would not such a breakdown be worse than not having a conference at all? Therefore, would not we be well advised to go slowly and firmly forward, trying to clear the ground on this aspect before we have any conference?

I want to do everything possible in the meantime to ensure that the conference is a success, and I hope that it will not be unduly delayed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent his Department is utilising the services of the Trades Union Congress in the development of trade unions in Colonial Territories.

The Colonial Office maintains close contact with the Trades Union Congress on trade union development in the Colonial Territories, and the T.U.C. plays an important part in the courses of training for trade unionists from overseas which are held in this country, under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Overseas Development.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will take steps to lift the ban on the entry of publications from the People's Republic of China into British Colonial Territories.

There is no such general ban. Particular publications from the People's Republic of China may be banned in individual Colonial Territories, but I could not say which publications in which territories without inquiring of all Colonial Governments.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to make those inquiries, as she must know in her own mind that it is an unsatisfactory situation? Will not she agree that it is a basically unsound principle and anti-democratic to institute and maintain such bans and that the whole influence of the Government should be used to try to remove them?

If my hon. Friend has any particular instance in mind, perhaps he will be good enough to let us know about it. In general terms, if we are asked for advice in this matter, we draw attention to Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights which emphasises that freedom to receive and to impart information is desirable but also points out that certain safeguards may be necessary.

Will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to pass on to the Chinese Government the views so clearly expressed by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson)?

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chinese People's Republic is not responsible for the administration of British Colonial Territories and that the answer which she gave to my supplementary question remains unsatisfactory? If there is such a ban applying in certain territories, is it not the responsibility of the Government here to inquire into the facts and to take action to stop such anti-democratic practices?

It is not necessarily my right hon. Friend's responsibility because a number of territories have control over their internal affairs to a greater or lesser degree. I do not consider that it is our overriding responsibility in all instances to take any action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total number of staff employed by the Colonial Office at any convenient date five years ago and today.

On 1st April, 1960, there were 1,748 staff employed by this office. Today there are 591.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied that this is about right in relation to the responsibilities that the Department is now exercising?

The Department has the staff it requires. It will, of course, be understood by the House that when the Department for Technical Co-operation was established in 1961 a number of members of the Colonial Office staff were transferred to that Department.

Do not the steep decline in the numbers employed in the Colonial Office and the undoubted anxiety which exists among the officials about their future emphasise the importance of fixing as soon as possible the date when the Colonial Office will be amalgamated with the Commonwealth Relations Office?

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on 23rd February, that the ultimate intention is to merge these two Departments. In the meantime, the Colonial Office staff are aware that they have opportunities to transfer to the Diplomatic Service, which covers all the overseas Departments, and we have no reason to think that it would be to the advantage of the Colonial Territories at this moment of time to merge the two Departments.

As the hon. Lady's right hon. Friend is evidently of the opinion that there is not enough talent in the Colonial Office to give advice about the British Colonial Empire, are foreign nationals to take part in the work of the Colonial Office?

I do not consider that that is required.

Would my hon. Friend agree that her answer shows that at least under a Labour Government Parkinson's Law does not apply?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the result of the negotiations he has had about the building of new bases in the Indian Ocean for the use of British and South East Asia Treaty Organisation forces.

I have had no such negotiations. What has been under consideration in conjunction with the Americans is the possibility of establishing certain limited facilities in the Indian Ocean. The problems are still being studied and no decisions have yet been reached.

Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware that the Prime Minister told the House two days ago that an extensive review was being undertaken of our defence commitments in South-East Asia, including the problem of bases? Is the right hon. Gentleman in close touch with those who are involved in this review?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The question to which I have referred is the possibility of increasing communications facilities for joint use in the area.

Should not bases in places like Gan, for example, be N.A.T.O. or United Nations bases to avoid this taint of colonialism?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will put any helpful suggestions he has to my right hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied about the adequacy of the present bases in relation to the operation of the independent British nuclear deterrent east of Suez?

That is not a matter for my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the disorders which occurred in Mauritius on 1st May; and what reply he has sent to the request of the Social Democrat Party that a commission of inquiry be set up.

I am glad to say there have been no further incidents since those referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 18th May. I am satisfied that no case has been made out for a commission of inquiry into these incidents, and I am asking the Governor to advise the Secretary-General of the party concerned accordingly.

But since there is a considerable danger that allegations and counter-allegations between the parties on the origin of this trouble will be a very unhappy background to the constitutional discussions in September, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the idea of an inquiry, on the strict understanding that it should work and produce its findings well in advance of those September discussions?

It would be undesirable at the present stage of constitutional development in Mauritius for there to be a period of recrimination between the parties as to the responsibility for incidents of this kind, and I must, therefore, decline the suggestion that an inquiry should be held.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we naturally regret the disturbances which are troubling the island at the moment, we welcome the prompt and, as it proved, effective action which the Government took to restore calm in the Island?

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there is no such party as the Social Democrat Party in Mauritius, that Mr. Duval, the self-styled leader, only masquerades as leader and is, in fact, the vice-leader or deputy-chairman of the Parti Mauricien, which corresponds to a badly behaved Conservative Party in the United Kingdom?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement about the present situation in and the future constitutional position of the island of Mauritius.

I described the present position in the island in my reply to an earlier Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman).

As regards the future constitutional position, I am not yet able to add to what I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 15th April.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the racial composition of the population in the island and the tensions to which it is liable to give rise make this potentially a dangerous problem, and will he agree that it is essential for racial peace to do everything in our power to retain the coalition Government and to get agreement among the main political parties about the constitutional future?

Yes, Sir; I regard two things as very desirable. One is that the period of uncertainty about the future of the island should be ended as quickly as possible. When I was in Mauritius earlier, I said that I hoped that it would be possible to hold a conference in September. Second, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman in considering that it is in the interests of the whole Mauritian people that a Government who are widely representative of all sections of the community should remain in office between now and the holding of the conference.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the current situation concerning Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in recent weeks in the settling of the Gibraltar question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement on the situation in Gibraltar.

There has been no change of any significance in the situation at the frontier from that set out in the White Paper presented to Parliament last month, and I am sorry to say that, so far, no progress has been made in achieving a settlement of the question. No new restrictions have been imposed since early in March.

When can we expect to have a report on economic development on the Rock, which seems to most people to be most important for the well-being of the Gibraltarians?

As I have already told the House, consideration of the report of the economic adviser to my right hon. Friend is being undertaken by the Gibraltar Government. We are not yet in a position to inform that Government of their allocation under the new Overseas Development Bill, as it has taken rather a long time in Committee. When we are able to do so, we shall let them know how much assistance under that Measure will be available.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the interests of the Gibraltarians are being adequately safeguarded by Her Majesty's Government, and can she say when the Government will take retaliatory action instead of just sitting idly by allowing the Spanish to impose and continue to impose these irritating restrictions?

We have made perfectly clear that it is our intention to safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar. If my hon. Friend will consider carefully the possibilities of retaliatory action, he will realise that most of them also have disadvantages. We have not ruled out the possibility of retaliatory action, but I do not think that, in the present circumstances, it is desirable.

First, will the hon. Lady consider publishing the Selwyn report, as I think it was called, on the ways by which Gibraltar might be made less dependent on Spain economically? Second, what representations have been made to the Spanish Government since we last discussed this matter in the House on the Adjournment for the Easter Recess?

The report is one to the Government of Gibraltar and it is for them to decide. It was not, I think, intended for publication, and in any case it is not our direct responsibility. As regards further communications with the Spanish Government, two Notes have been addressed to them, on passports and on passes for workers, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I understand that replies to both are still awaited.

When the Secretary of State entertained the members of the United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism here last week, was the question of Gibraltar discussed? Is the hon. Lady aware that there is great resentment in the country that these people, most of whom are bitter enemies of Britain and advocate the immediate handing over of Gibraltar to Spain, should have been entertained by the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Brockway at the taxpayers' expense?

The remark to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not made to us on that occasion. It was made, we understand, purely personally, to some Press representatives afterwards. [Interruption.] Had it been made to me, I should have known what reply to give. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about a reply now?"] If hon. Members want to ask questions, I should be obliged if they would rise in their places because I am finding it very difficult to hear these informal supplementaries. We understand that the remark in question was made purely privately by a gentleman from Venezuela.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the present economic position of Antigua and the request for assistance he has received.

The general economic position of Antigua has improved in recent years largely owing to the growth of the tourist industry. As a result, the territory has been out of grant in aid since 1963. Its economy is, however, still largely dependent upon the sugar industry, which this year is in difficulties because of the drought. The British Government have agreed to provide $1·5 million from C.D. & W. funds for water conservation works and are consulting the Antigua Government about other measures to strengthen the economy.

Are there any plans for alternative industry there in view of the uncertainty of the main industry, the sugar crop?

We are well aware of the importance of diversifying the economy of Antigua, which is a matter constantly engaging the attention both of the Antigua Government and of Her Majesty's Government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the additional assistance which is being given to Antigua will help to make the island more prepared to co-operate in the formation of a federation?

I could not answer that, I am afraid, but it will help the Antigua Government to put the economy of the country on a more viable basis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in rehousing those British subjects who earlier this year were forced to leave the Campo area in Spain.

With two exceptions all families with children have now been moved into cubicle accommodation. Only single men and married people without children remain in dormitories.

Has my hon. Friend taken note of the two letters I forwarded to her from Gibraltarians? Can she assure us that those persons resident in the Campo area who have been dispossessed will not be required to live indefinitely in squalor as a result of their loyalty to Britain?

I have received the letters. I am much concerned about the conditions of the families to which my hon. Friend refers. However, one must, on the other hand, remind oneself that there are people in Gibraltar who also need housing accommodation and that one must bear their interests in mind as well as those who have had to come across the frontier.

May I take this opportunity to assure the hon. Lady that when my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and I went to Gibraltar together we were deeply impressed by the work that the Gibraltar Government were doing on housing problems, especially for the refugees?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks will be much appreciated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the further constitutional progress he expects in Aden in the near future.

As I announced on 11th May in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), I have decided to appoint a Constitutional Commission for South Arabia. I hope that the recommendations of this Commission, when received, will suggest what is the most appropriate and most generally acceptable course of future constitutional development for the area, so that we can make progress towards the establishing of an independent Arab State in South Arabia not later than 1968.

Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the meantime we might have some interim constitutional advance, particularly in Aden?

I would not rule out interim advances in various parts of the territory, but the important thing really is to concentrate as far as possible upon the more wide-ranging and more long-term constitutional changes that are required.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the more we have looked at his proposal the less we like it? Is he aware that we regard this as an abdication of the Government's responsibility to reach a settlement by direct negotiation with the Federal Government after, of course, taking into account the views of the Government of Aden and of other interested parties?

I hoped that I had answered that on Monday, when the same question was put by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). It is a problem with very special complications and far from this being an abdication of responsibility it is an attempt on our part to assert our responsibility after taking into consideration the advice of those best qualified to advise us on an issue of this kind.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether or not the future of the base is to be excluded from consideration by the Commission? What response has he had from the United Nations to his suggestion that it should be associated with the Commission?

I dealt with both those questions in my reply on Monday.

Is it not becoming clear to the right hon. Gentleman that no one really wants this Commission of his? Would he not be well advised to pursue agreement by direct discussion with the parties concerned?

No, it is far from clear to me that there is such a state of affairs. I believe that the Commission will be welcomed by important sections of opinion in South Arabia, and I intend to pursue this policy patiently and with understanding of all the difficulties facing the people of South Arabia as well as Her Majesty's Government.

Who have welcomed this suggestion so far? [HON. MEMBERS: "We have."]

The Federal Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now state the membership of the South Arabia Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement on the composition of the Aden Constitutional Commission.

I have nothing at present to add to the statement I made to the House on 24th May.

If the right hon. Gentleman intends to persist in sheltering behind a Commission, will he at least give us an assurance that he will not look outside the Commonwealth for members of it? Is this not a deplorable and weak and unprecedented proposal? Can it not have very dangerous results in other parts of the Commonwealth?

No, Sir. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's xenophobia. I think that the proposal we have made will have the beneficial effect of showing our readiness to seek the co-operation of the United Nations in matters of this kind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of inviting persons from outside the Commonwealth to serve? It is really impossible to separate the eventual political settlement of South Arabia from the future of the base at Aden, and it is quite wrong, where something of such importance to the Commonwealth is concerned, to invite persons from outside to recommend what the settlement should be.

No, Sir. I made it clear that members of the Commission will be appointed by me. They will report to me and it will be for Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary decisions in the light of the advice we receive.

Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that the purpose of the Commission is to make constitutional recommendations and that this is not inconsistent with future negotiations with those who speak for the people in the Federation's territories?

I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has in his Department all the necessary information about the situation in Aden and that if there is any he has not got he can get it easily by discussion with the Aden Government and the Federal Government? What is the need to import people who do not understand the problem and have no experience of it into this affair?

All that information and advice was available to me at the beginning of March when, unfortunately, it was not possible to get the people of South Arabia and their representatives to sit together at the conference table. I believe that the work of the Commission will make it possible to build bridges between the differing elements in the territory, and I believe this to be one of the most valuable rôles that the Commission will fulfil.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made with plans for improvement of the Nadi-Suva road in Fiji.

Progress on the improvement of the Nadi-Suva road is dependent on the Colony being able to raise the necessary loan finance on reasonable terms. This loan finance must be additional to that at present required for other important development projects and the Fiji Government are currently giving urgent consideration to the raising of such a loan.

In view of the importance of the road to the economic life of the territory, will the hon. Lady have another look at the matter and see whether there is any help or assistance she can give?

We shall do all we can, but we have to consider priorities in this.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what communications he has received from trading organisations stating that they were reducing retail prices because of the reduction in the import surcharge on 27th April.

rose—

Where is the First Secretary?

Order. The inquiry may be most indiscreet.

We have no precise information about individual price changes from trading organisations or from other sources. But it follows clearly from the recent White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy Cmnd. 2639 that where non-labour costs are reduced and there is no off-setting an unavoidable increase in labour or capital costs per unit of output, prices ought to be reduced.

On a point of order. I apologise for interrupting, but as the Minister of State did not say "I have been asked to reply" and as this is the third occasion on which the First Secretary has absented himself on an occasion when his Questions are to be reached and when he must have known it, is not the House owed some explanation of this apparent discourtesy?

Intriguing as it may be, it does not give rise to any matter for the Chair, for it is in no position to dictate a course of action.

Further to that point of order. With great respect, I think that it does concern the Chair, because you yourself, Mr. Speaker, said that the question on the subject might be indiscreet. Could you elaborate whether you meant that it would be indiscreet to question or answer?

You little twerps.

Withdraw.

Order. I have nothing to add to what I said seriously just now. The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) to myself, although described as a point of order, is that it is not my intention to pursue that a step further.

On a point of order. This is a different subject. I distinctly heard the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) say "You little twerps", thus addressing it to the Chair—[Interruption.]

We have considered in the course of this Session the precise meaning of that term in another context. In the circumstances, I have to say that it appeared to be directed to a multiple object. Let us get on.

If we can get back to Question No.20; I thank my hon. Friend for his Answer. Would he consider submitting this matter to the Prices and Incomes Board, because when this import surcharge was first introduced it led to certain trading organisations saying that this was a reason why they would increase prices?

First, I should like to thank hon. Members opposite for the free publicity which they always give me when I appear at the Box. In reply to my hon. Friend's question; of course, if there were any general signs that the import surcharge were being used for raising prices above their appropriate level, we would consider his suggestion.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider removing this surcharge completely from the raw materials being brought into Northern Ireland for man-made fibres, as this industry is being adversely affected by the surcharge?

I do not think that arises out of the Question.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he intends to refer the recent wage agreement relating to the plumbing industry in Scotland to the Prices and Incomes Board.

My right hon. Friend—

On a point of order. Although not a matter of order, is it not customary for a Minister in these circumstances to say, "I have been asked to reply"?

I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken; not when the Minister concerned is a junior Minister of the Department as opposed to a Minister from another Department.

I take it that hon. Members opposite want answers to their Questions. My right hon. Friend is considering, in the light of further information which the Scottish plumbing employers have now supplied at his request, whether any investigation by the Board is desirable.

Can the hon. Gentleman get his right hon. Friend to hurry up about this? This award involves a 20 per cent. increase over 12 months. Is it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman, who cannot come here to answer Questions, to spend all this time working out whether this award is inflationary and should be referred to the Board?

My right hon. Friend recently met the Scottish plumbing employers and asked for further information about the earnings and hours of work of Scottish plumbers and the implications of the recent agreement on prices. The federation undertook a special inquiry into the earnings of its members and the results were sent to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary only last week.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there could be very widespread repercussions in this matter, as on a previous occasion, and will he urge his right hon Friend to come to a speedy agreement?

We are certainly very concerned with the implications of this agreement on prices, but I must not say any more at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many Scottish plumbers are considering forming themselves into limited liability companies in order to avoid the Capital Gains Tax?

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what percentage of wage agreements, measured by the number of workers involved, reached since 1st January, 1965, and what percentage of wage claims currently awaiting settlement, respectively, fall within the limits of the 3 to 3½ per cent. norm for wages and incomes.

The majority of the wage settlements since 1st January, 1965, have been in excess of the 3–3½ per cent. norm. It is not possible to give precise figures because some of the agreements are complex and are, for example, designed to give the greater benefit to lower paid workers. Nor can a useful figure be arrived at in respect of outstanding claims, since many do not specify precise amounts but are expressed in general terms.

Is it not rather unsatisfactory that the Department of Economic Affairs should appear to be the only body which is unaware of what is happening to its incomes policy? In view of what is happening to its incomes policy, would the hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend that he might try what an injection of a little competition into the economy would do?

We are fully agreed about the necessity to inject a little competition and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we are strengthening the Monopolies Commission. We are fully aware of what has been taking place with prices and incomes, and we are very concerned about it, but we have only just started such a policy and we have never said that it would be easy to achieve. So far as I know, no previous Government succeeded in carrying out such a policy.

Could the hon. Gentleman give details of any claims which have come within the 3 to 3½ per cent. range?

There are some, but I do not have the details with me at the moment.

Would my right hon. Friend consider republishing the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy in the simplest language possible so that Members of the Opposition can understand the provisions of paragraph 15 dealing with the need to raise the levels of certain industries which are far too low as it is?

On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Litchfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) to address a question to a ghost? He addressed it to the right hon. Gentleman, who is not here.

In this instance, the ghost can be personified by a junior Minister.

In reply to my hon. Friend, may I say that there is an extremely good pamphlet produced by the T.U.C. Perhaps hon. Members opposite would like to read it.

Why is the First Secretary having difficulty in working out a wages policy? Does he work overtime at Question Time in order to work out an incomes policy?

I am absolutely amazed and horrified at the utter frivolity of hon. Members opposite.

Oh.

Order. The noise delays progress with Questions. For that reason it is inappropriate.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what help has been offered to his Department by trade associations in his campaign to hold down prices.

Any help required has been readily given both by individual trade associations and by the national organisations.

Would my hon. Friend note the difference between the attitude of industrialists and the stupid attitude of some hon. Members opposite?

This is very clear indeed. I doubt whether hon. Members opposite are doing themselves any good with the trade associations, which are giving us great assistance in this matter.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that he has received far more help from the trade associations than he has from the Postmaster-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

That only displays the hon. Gentleman's complete ignorance of the policy and of how it is being carried out.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a further statement about information to the Press on the subject of the first references to be made to the Prices Board.

As my right hon. Friend informed the House in the debate on 11th May, reports in the Press about the likely subjects of the first references to the National Board for Prices and Incomes appear to have been based on intelligent speculation rather than on any leakage of information. Although the subject was raised with him during the previous week by some of the industrial correspondents with whom he was discussing recent developments in the prices and incomes policy, neither he nor the Department gave them any new information on this subject.

Perhaps I could preface my supplementary question by acknowledging that the First Secretary suggested that I raised the matter again so that he could clarify what he said on a previous occasion. He apologised to me for the fact that he could not be here today; it is only fair to say that. May I ask the Minister who is replying precisely what he meant by his last response, because the First Secretary was very categorical in what he said in the debate. He said.

"Not only can I answer for my own Department, but I can answer for others: there was no leak … There was no informed talk to correspondents …—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 310.]

This does not seem to tie in with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In fact, it seems from what he has told us that guidance was given. Therefore, should not the First Secretary apologise to those people in the industries concerned who are embarrassed by this leak?

No. My right hon. Friend stands by what he originally said in the debate. He did not give the correspondents any new information about our intentions. There was an informed briefing, and there was a good deal of speculation, but the interesting thing about that speculation is that newspapers published forecasts of our intentions which were not exactly accurate. In fact, many of them published completely different forecasts, which only shows that they were picking and choosing among a large number of possible candidates.

Surely it is clear when one studies those reports that they did come very near to the truth and, in fact, that two of them were precisely accurate. It is clear that some fairly plain indication was given. Surely the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I should table a Question about the matter again was that it should be revealed to the House. It would be better if the right hon. Gentleman came clean and apologised fully.

It is clear that my right hon. Friend did not give any direct information of the sort which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. No doubt he was asked a number of questions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is very difficult when one is asked questions and there is a lot of speculation, for correspondents not to pick up these things and make what they can out of them.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what response he has now received from those firms to whom he addressed letters asking them to refrain from increasing prices.

No letters have gone out recently. But the considerations of the national interest set out in the White Paper (Cmnd. 2639) published last month are addressed to all concerned with determining prices.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider asking the First Secretary to send out another letter to those in industry asking them whether they consider the Finance Bill to be very helpful to industry?

I do not know why hon. Members opposite want my right hon. Friend to be here if they propose to ask supplementary questions like that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average annual value of sales of goods covered by the Resale Prices Act; how many applications for exemptions have been registered under the Act; what is the annual retail value of goods covered by these applications; how many of these applications have now been voluntarily withdrawn; and what is the annual retail value of applications so abandoned.

Precise information about the value of goods sold subject to resale price maintenance is not available. Some time before the enactment of the Resale Prices Act it was estimated that about 40 per cent. of consumers' expenditure on goods was on price maintained goods, which would imply an annual value of, broadly, £5,000 million. Under the Resale Prices Act, resale price maintenance is now unlawful, except in respect of goods which have been registered.

I understand from the Registrar that 654 applications have been accepted for registration, but no estimate is available of the retail value of the goods to which the applications relate, nor of the extent to which suppliers of registered goods are continuing to practise resale price maintenance. The Act contains no provision for the withdrawal of applications, once they have been entered on the register.

asked the Prime Minister if, following his talks with President Johnson, he will make a statement on the present state of Anglo-American relations.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 25th May to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short).

Mr. Speaker, I apologise for pursuing this matter because the Question was in part answered last Tuesday. Does the Prime Minister realise that I have put down a number of Questions to him and that a group of his hon. Friends put down the same Question a few days before for oral answer? This is why the Questions are still on the Order Paper. Would the right hon. Gentleman please direct his criticisms to his hon. Friends and not to me? On the Question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government are preparing a draft non-dissemination treaty for nuclear weapons? If so, is he doing it in co-operation with the Americans?

I did not criticise the hon. Gentleman, but, in response to his invitation, I would say that the fact that these Questions were put down by the hon. Gentleman so long in advance is one of the reasons, I think, for the Report which we have had from the Select Committee on Procedure on this particular matter. The answer to the latter part of his Question is "Yes, Sir".

asked the Prime Minister what further consideration he has given to the problem of Great Britain's rôle east of Suez; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 25th May to a Question by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale).

For the last seven years our balance of trade has been running against us. Last October we had a £800 million deficit. We are now carrying a heavy burden throughout the world when our major competitors are carrying nothing like this burden. Will my right hon. Friend see what he can do to reduce our heavy international commitments all over the world?

I can tell my hon. Friend that in the first quarter of the year the balance of trade, taking into account invisible trade, was favourable. With regard to his question about the heavy cost of military expenditure overseas, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that this must be brought down. We are looking into part of it in connection with the wider defence review, but I think that the whole House will agree that a start must be made in relation to our very heavy costs in Germany.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the British forces will have the weapons which they need to carry out this rôle? If he is satisfied in the light of recent cancellations, will he tell the House the decision he has taken, because he must be satisfied about the replacement of the cancellations?

I am sorry to say that I am not satisfied. It has been made clear by my right hon. Friend that a number of our troops in overseas theatres have been singularly ill-provided for in weapons, not least in the large number of helicopters which broke down in the last few months. But that situation is improving very well. I am glad to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is going better now.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will reconsider using the United Nations to try to end the Indonesian aggression against Malaysia? Does he recognise that, apart from the great economic burden which we are carrying with 50,000 troops there, the prolonging of this war month after month must have a most demoralising effect on the binding force of the Charter in Asia and elsewhere?

The 50,000 troops who are there are not there, in the main, in relation to the confrontation of Indonesia. As I have said many times, we should certainly welcome any steps which can be taken, whether by the United Nations or by the direct mediation of an Asian Power, to end this quite senseless confrontation. One of the difficulties, as my right hon. Friend knows, is that the Indonesians are so obsessive about the question of Malaysia that they withdrew from the United Nations because Malaysia was there.

Is not the Prime Minister aware that to draw a distinction between policy east of Suez and the rôle east of Suez is becoming very thin? The whole House is most worried by the situation in South-East Asia, and again and again the right hon. Gentleman has avoided making any statement on it. Surely, the time to make a statement has come when this very day the American Fleet is bombarding the coast and when this very day the New Zealanders have said that they will support America. Will not the Prime Minister make a statement, and soon, on this whole question?

The Question on the Order Paper refers to Great Britain's rôle east of Suez. It does not say anything about the American Fleet or about New Zealand. [Interruption.] I certainly have not been backward in answering questions on Vietnam. If the right hon. Gentleman has any Questions to put on Vietnam, let him put them on the Order Paper and they will be answered.

I am putting them now.

There is a great deal of concern and interest in this matter in the House. May I ask the Prime Minister—I realise that I could make this request following the announcement of business, but I prefer to put it now—whether we can have a foreign affairs debate fairly soon after Whitsun on this whole situation?

The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know that that is a question that is normally put to the Leader of the House, although we will consider it.

asked the Prime Minister what considerations led him to arrange for the Paymaster-General to answer Questions on a subject for which he has no administrative responsibility, namely, the co-ordination of home information services.

To help the House by having a Minister to whom hon. Members could table Questions on this subject, Sir.

Is not this arrangement unfair to the Minister concerned, the Paymaster-General? Because he is not responsible for the subject, he seems to have been in some difficulty in answering supplementary questions. Is it not also unfair to the information services and a most unsatisfactory arrangement for the House?

No, Sir. I made it plain last year—indeed, before the election—that a Labour Government would not employ a Minister paid with taxpayers' money to do the kind of job that was done at Tory Central Office by a whole-time Minister. Indeed, there were two such Tory Ministers, one on information and the other a full-time chairman of the organisation. I am against the appointment of a Minister paid with public money to do a party function. For that reason, no Minister is doing this job. When, however, hon. Members put Questions down they are entitled to an answer, so it was thought suitable, for the reason I have stated, that a non-Departmental Minister, even though he has no responsibility in that field, should answer Questions.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the present arrangement gives hon. Members opposite who wish to harry the Paymaster-General the opportunity to indulge in a blood sport for which they have more appetite than ability?

That may well be. But in so far as hon. Members consider, as I do, that the co-ordination of home information services is important, it would be a nice change if they started putting down Questions on the subject of the home information services, and then they will get a full answer.

Without in any way seeking to pursue a purely partisan point, would not the Prime Minister recognise that it is precisely because the co-ordination of home information services is important that it cannot, and should not, be treated by either side of the House as a purely party function? Is it not desirable, therefore, to have a Minister whose function is to do just that, as it was done by my right hon. Friend?

I know that the "shadow" Paymaster-General is always very careful about entering into controversial matters, but it is precisely because in the last Government we had this abuse, this public scandal, of a Minister carrying out Tory Party propaganda with the taxpayers' money.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the differences in the situation in the Middle East since 1950, he will seek to redefine the Tripartite Declaration of 1950.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 13th April to a Question by the hon. Gentleman.

Will the Prime Minister be more explicit because of the risk of making a statement which could be interpreted, like so much which the right hon. Gentleman says, in so many ways?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Member really wants me to add to my statement of 13th April, because that Answer was a simple endorsement of a statement by Mr. Macmillan on 14th May, 1963. I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of this subject, but he has hardly been very specific in his question. If he is not satisfied with the statement of Mr. Macmillan on 14th May, 1963—and he was not very satisfied at that time with his right hon. Friend—perhaps he will tell me exactly what he wants, and I will then deal with this important question.

The Prime Minister will surely agree that on the last occasion when this matter was raised his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that circumstances had changed considerably since 1953. As a result of that, will the Prime Minister please say how they definition stands today?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear. What I said in my previous Answer was not 1953, but 1963. If the hon. Gentleman would like to explain the particular anxieties which have arisen since 1963 in the form of a Question, I will answer it. In so far as the anxiety related to the Jordan waters, which was not very much involved in the Tripartite Declaration, I answered that in a supplementary answer on the hon. Member's Question on 13th April.

As there have been very great changes in the Middle East in recent years and as new and important dangers are looming there, is there not a case for a new initiative to be taken, preferably in consultation with the United States and our French allies in this matter?

That may well be so. We had discussion on this—the right hon. Gentleman will remember his own speech and mine—in the debate on foreign affairs at the beginning of last month. I think that both he and I and the Leader of the Opposition expressed anxieties about new and current dangers arising from the Jordan water question. Since the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, which the previous Government quietly allowed to drop and which died, I think, at about the time of Suez, was really related to a question of arms shipments, I am not sure that this question is relevant today in relation to arms shipments.

asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the modernisation and extension of the work of the Central Statistical Office.

The comprehensive review of statistical information available to the Government, of which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State told my hon. Friend on 8th December last, will, I hope, be completed in the near future. It will then be possible to take whatever steps are necessary to extend the work of the Central Statistical Office and of the Government Statistical Services generally.

Is my right hon. Friend himself taking a personal interest in this? Is he aware that the statistical output of the Central Statistical Office is grossly inadequate? Can he say whether it was this which explained the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition before the last General Election?

I think it is generally agreed that more information is needed, both on certain economic questions and, above all, on certain financial questions on which the Radcliffe Committee reported. I certainly would not accept any criticism of the Central Statistical Office, certainly not in respect of any deficiencies in the presentation of economic truths a year ago.

Has the Central Statistical Office any records to show how long it is since dealings were suspended in Government securities?

That is not a matter for the Central Statistical Office, but I have been looking at what it has been doing. I find that despite all the crabbing of right hon. Members opposite, the balance of trade figure in the first four months this year as published by the Central Statistical Office—[Interruption.]—since this was not supplied to the right hon. Gentleman's speech writer yesterday, it might be useful to him and I give it to him now—has fallen to nearly one-third of the gap in the first four months of last year.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this improvement has anything whatever to do with his policies?

In answer to the Shadow Foreign Secretary, I would point out that the shadow Chancellor, I think he is, sitting next to him, spent a little time at Question Time two weeks ago blaming the Government for the slightly adverse fall in the trade figures between one month and another. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can sort it out and brief his right hon. Friend.

rose—

Order. The debate must be business.