asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in the light of the increase in overseas economic aid from £77 million in 1954–55 to £191 million in 1964, what savings she will make in order to curtail the total of Government spending overseas.

We shall not deliberately curtail the aid programme, but will seek to provide our aid in forms least detrimental to our balance of payments.

While recognising that economic aid is important, may I ask the right hon. Lady to bear in mind that her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly tells us that we cannot afford to invest so much overseas, that it is up to the Government to set an example in this case and that she needs to bear in mind the return of this investment in economic terms?

The hon. Member has got his order wrong. Private investment abroad goes overwhelmingly to the developed and not to the developing countries. In any event, the aid which we give is essential to provide the infrastructure without which investment would not take place.

Does my right hon. Friend's original Answer mean that there will be a reduction in multilateral aid as compared with bilateral aid?

No. There was no such inference in my Answer.

Did the right hon. Lady's use of the word "deliberate" in her Answer indicate that she was expecting a decrease although not, perhaps, as a result of deliberate action?

I am not expecting any decrease. On the contrary, I am hoping for an increase.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that a considerable amount of private investment is still going to overseas developing countries, and will she urge her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to differentiate between the developing and the developed countries?

Unfortunately, the rate of private investment in Commonwealth developing countries has been decreasing.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total financial aid being provided for health services to Colonial Territories; and to what extent this sum will be increased in the next financial year.

In the calendar year 1964 financial aid to Colonial Territories which can be identified within the field of medicine and health was about £750,000.

Can my hon. Friend say to what extent this aid reflects on the increase in the provision of maternity and tuberculosis services which are totally inadequate in many of the territories? Can he also say to what extent our decision to grant aid influences the policies of the units in these parts of the Commonwealth territories?

Those units are included in the services under this financial aid, but if my hon. Friend wants details of those particular services, I should be obliged if he would put down a further Question.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid her Department is now giving in the fields of agriculture, education and technology.

We are giving considerable aid in all these fields. I am with permission circulating some details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this form of aid is what is needed, but can he say what has happened to the much publicised plan to give away to overseas countries surplus food grown on our farms? This was put about quite a bit in the West Country by various Labour candidates, and I shall be interested to know what has happened to the plan.

There have been discussions in Rome about the World Food Programme, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement arising out of those discussions.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps have been taken by her Department to verify the cost of living and housing, education and hospital arrangements for United Kingdom engineers and other technical experts who accept temporary secondment from their normal employment for work in newly independent countries with which Great Britain has technical agreements.

The terms of service for which I am responsible of people working overseas are kept under constant review by procedures appropriate to each form of employment and where necessary in agreement with the overseas Governments concerned.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that failure to attend to these matters is resulting in certain cases in staff associations and trade unions advising their members not to take up these appointments, which is unfortunate?

Where difficulties arise, these staff associations can, through the appropriate channels, make representations to our Ministry, and these representations are taken into account in the reviews which I mentioned.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make further representations to the Tanzanian Government that they should honour pension and other commitments to retired engineers and other officers of the former pre-independence Zanzibar administration.

The Tanzanian Government have accepted responsibility for pensions and certain other commitments to retired Zanzibar officers, including those resident in India and Pakistan, who are covered by the Public Officers Agreement. Discussions are proceeding with Tanzania about certain officers not covered by the Agreement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in one case to which I have drawn his attention no payment has been made at all?

I am aware of the particular case which my hon. Friend has in mind and I am glad to say that we have recently learned that the Tanzanian Government have authorised the payment of Mr. Kased's pension, arrears of pension, and commuted pension gratuity.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many pensioners there are of the old Colonial or Overseas Civil Service living in Great Britain whose pensions do not attract United Kingdom Income Tax but now attract Ghana Income Tax.

I regret this information is not available.

Does not this show that the Minister is out of touch with servants and past servants of the Crown, and is not this very reprehensible?

It does not show anything of the kind. The fact is that the tax position of each pensioner depends on his total income, and not simply on his pension. The Ministry does not know, and has no right to inquire into, the total income of each pensioner.

Will the hon. Gentleman take action if facts are given to him by the Overseas Pensioners' Organisation?

We have had representations from that organisation, and we are always willing to listen to what it has to say.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what has been the outcome of the discussions which have taken place between her Department and the International Co-operative Alliance on stimulating co-operative enterprises in overseas territories.

In its programme for assisting co-operative enterprises overseas, my Department receives very valuable help from our Advisory Committee on Cooperatives under the chairmanship of Lord Peddie, through which we maintain wide and close contact with the British Co-operative movement. This movement in turn is closely associated with the International Co-operative Alliance and it is by this chain of contacts that co-operation is assured. We have had no specific discussions on the subject in question directly with the Alliance.

Would my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of encouragement should be given to the development of co-operative organisations in the under-developed areas, not only because this would play a great part in raising standards, because profits are returned to them, but also because, by administering their own affairs, they would realise the importance of democracy?

We arc very much aware of both those aspects of the benefits to be derived from co-operative development, which is why we give pride of place to co-operative development, as I have indicated.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will now announce the recommendations of the Stamp Mission on the future of the Land Settlement scheme in Kenya.

I have received the interim report of the Stamp Mission and I have invited Kenya Ministers to London in the week beginning 26th July for a preliminary exchange of views on it. I hope that these discussions will form a basis for substantive talks later on when I have had the opportunity fully to consider the Mission's final report, which I expect to receive in July. As I indicated in my reply of 23rd February to a supplementary question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), the Mission's report will not be published.

In considering the recommendations of the Stamp Mission, will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that there are many leaders of opinion, Euro- pean as well as African, in Kenya now who feel that the future land settlement scheme should be phased out for a somewhat longer period of between eight and ten years and that part of the money we provide should be made available for more productive development of the African areas?

This is a matter which falls within the scope of the Stamp Report, and I shall therefore be considering it.

Although the right hon. Lady cannot publish the Report, will she make a statement of policy at an early date after she has considered it?

I think that that would be quite the wrong way of proceeding. Clearly my first step must he to discuss the Report with the Kenya Ministers.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development why she officially requested British Railways to delay the departure of the 10 p.m. night ferry train from Victoria Station on 11th May.

I had arranged to fly to Paris on 12th May for discussions with Ministers in the French Government concerned with aid to developing countries as part of the closer collaboration between our two countries agreed between the Prime Minister and President de Gaulle at their recent talks. But a few days before, I was told by my medical advisers that in view of the treatment for a nasal infection which I was receiving it would be inadvisable for me to travel by air. I therefore asked British Railways whether, in order to avoid my cancelling the visit at short notice, they would be willing to delay the departure of the night ferry on the 11th May for a few minutes so as to enable me to catch it after voting in the 10 o'clock Division that night, and they very kindly arranged to do so.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that this practice is becoming altogether too prevalent? It happened before, in 1962, when the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was very critical of one of my right hon. Friends for doing the same thing. On the occasion to which the Question relates, a Southern Region spokesman is reported to have said, "We would not do this for just anybody, but we feel justified in doing it for a member of the Government." Is that really a proper attitude for the right hon. Lady and a publicly-owned undertaking to adopt?

I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's attitude. I doubt whether he is being very serious about this. To begin with, one cannot say that the practice is becoming prevalent when, as the hon. Gentleman said, the last occasion was June, 1962, when the Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, as he then was, asked for a train to be held up for half an hour when he was returning to London from his holiday.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly complaining about snooping by Government officials and others into the affairs of individuals? Is it not carrying it a little too far when a Member makes an attack of this kind?

Order. The Minister is responsible for Overseas Development, not for expressing an opinion about Questions asked from the other side.

On a point of order. I understood that the Question concerned British Railways being officially requested to delay the departure of the 10 p.m. ferry from Victoria Station on 11th May. It was arising from that Question that I put my supplementary question.

The supplementary question was out of order for the reason that I have given. The Minister's stopping of the train was done in her official capacity. That was the difference.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development, as a considerable part of Great Britain's current invest- ment in developing countries is private investment, what further action she will take to create conditions favourable to the increase of such investment; and what progress has been made in reaching agreement with developing countries on bilateral or multilateral codes for the insurance of overseas investment against political risks.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government since October, 1964, to facilitate the adoption of proposals initiated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for a multilateral investment insurance scheme; and on how many occasions since October, 1964, this matter has been discussed with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Her Majesty's Government are taking a full part in the discussions in the O.E.C.D. on a multilateral scheme for the insurance of overseas investment which we shall also be able to discuss with developing countries in the United Nations Trade and Development Board later this year. As I hope the whole House will recognise, the United Kingdom's balance of payments position limits the scope at present for measures to increase private investment overseas.

I welcome this statement, which is a reversal of the previous approach to insurance of this sort, but I hope that the Minister will press on with these arrangements, because American experience in this matter has been of considerable assistance to private investment from America in overseas territories.

I should point out that the O.E.C.D. Council has not yet approved this scheme, and is to be asked to pass it to the World Bank for further study. We have no objection in principle to the establishment of a scheme of this sort in O.E.C.D., but the question whether we would accede to it must necessarily depend upon its exact terms and our own economic position.

Does the right hon. Lady consider that her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing everything he can to assist her in achieving these very desirable aims?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are at one in desiring to help the developing countries in every way possible, within the limits of our own resources.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that private investment in developing countries was declining year by year under the previous Administration, and that nothing was done to reverse this trend? Is she further aware that in the last few years, taking into account the new money invested in under-developed countries, the total sum was negligible?

It is true that private investment in the developing countries has been declining in certain cases. It is further proof of the basic need of these countries for overseas aid in order to enable them to create the necessary economic conditions for development.

Is not the right hon. Lady aware that in saying what she has just said she is going right across the views of the Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D., in Paris, which lays great stress upon the need and value of private investment and the need to take steps to encourage it? Does not the very fact that it is declining prove that there is need to encourage it, and not to put further barriers in its way? [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but is it not a fact that when something is declining there is a case for taking measures to stimulate it rather than stop it?

The right hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I was conveying facts to the House when I stated that private investment in developing countries has been declining. That does not cut across anybody's view. The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is that if we have a balance of payments problem and limited resources and cannot extend aid and private investment as much as we would like, we must get our priorities right, and the priority must be aid which lays the foundations upon which all other economic development takes place.

Is the hon. Lady aware that this is a very important matter to the development of the economies of these countries and that the D.A.C. in Paris takes the view that private investment is, in its way, as important as public aid?

The right hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill. I have never denied that private investment has a part to play, but we must decide which is right within the context of our own balance of payment difficulties.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in view of the need of developing countries to increase agricultural productivity, what steps she is taking to help them in agricultural research, including research into the improvement of basic agricultural techniques of peasant farmers and research into the processing of their agricultural products and into alternative uses for those products, and to help in the training of agricultural extension workers in techniques of communication which have proved successful in agricultural communities at similar stages of development elsewhere in the world.

In the current year British aid expenditure directed towards these objectives is running at about £1,400,000 and supports not only extensive research in Britain on the processing and protection of tropical crops but also helps a diversity of overseas institutions engaged on the problems mentioned in the question.

I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. What steps is she taking to maintain a service of overseas agriculture officers, and what steps is she taking to encourage agricultural institutions in this country to keep two or three staff surplus to establishment for secondment to service with institutions overseas?

If we receive requests from the Governments of developing countries for assistance in agriculture along the lines suggested by the hon. Member we take every possible step to meet their requirements. We are considering the second point that the hon. Member raised.

Can the right hon. Lady say whether the question of the storage of agricultural products after growth and after crops has been appreciated within this programme, since many agricultural products obtained from tropical countries run to waste long before they are consumed?

This is a subject which will fall within the scope of the work of the research institutions that we are supporting.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that all these questions merely confirm her view that the basic need of these territories is public investment, underpinning their economies?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps she takes, when giving financial aid to overseas countries, to ascertain the ways in which the money will be spent.

Our financial aid is normally given only after full discussions with the recipient Government, and is related, wherever possible, to the fulfilment of their development plans.

Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the granting of this State aid influences the policies of these territories? Is she aware that many social services are totally inadequate in these countries? Can she state that in granting aid to these territories we have some influence as to how the aid will be spent, so that we can ensure that it is spent on essential services?

Our attitude is that the use of aid should be jointly decided and discussed between us and the receiving Governments. It must be a partnership. Clearly we seek to help these countries to have good development plans, in which the social services will have an important part, and then we fit our aid into those development plans.

Can the right hon. Lady say what action she takes to assess the way in which the Government receiving the aid use their resources which they levy from their own taxpayers? Is she aware that one of the main reasons for the regrettable decline in private investment overseas in recent years has been the extremely ill-conceived and ill-advised policies which have been adopted by the developing countries under the peculiar advice of gentlemen who are now advising her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

In estimating the need for aid in a country these alternative sources of finance are taken into consideration.

What account has the Minister taken of giving increased aid to developing countries in kind as well as in cash? Is she having any discussions with her right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the processing of agricultural surpluses and their export in a form acceptable to many countries where there is a shortage of food?

As my hon. Friend said earlier, we play our part in the world food programme. I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that we are not a country with agricultural surpluses to dispense.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans she has now made to co-ordinate and extend the work of her Department in the Caribbean area.

I am setting up a permanent advisory unit to be known as the Development Division of my Ministry in the Caribbean. It will give advice on technical and economic questions in connection with our aid programmes; and its staff will also be available to advise on development matters generally in the area. As its knowledge and experience of local conditions grow our aid and technical assistance should be of progressively greater value. Its first responsibilities will be in relation to the British dependent territories.

Would my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of both sides of the House, I am sure, for this absolutely first-class decision, which is streets ahead of anything which has been done in this respect before? Secondly, could she say where the headquarters of the mission will be, what kind of people are members of it and whether the mission will be co-ordinating plans of the area for submission to bodies like the International Development Authority?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I have been pressed in the House to strengthen our representation overseas and this is an important step in that direction, which I am glad to be able to announce. With regard to the other points, I am afraid that the location of the division is still under consideration. It will be a small specialist unit with about half a dozen expert advisers on subjects such as development planning, finance, agriculture and other forms of expertise. Certainly, its purpose will be to give every possible help to the countries in the area in preparing their plans and in helping them to submit them to bodies which might provide finance.

I am much obliged.

While congratulating the right hon. Lady on what she has set up, I am sure that she will agree that the Caribbean, especially the British islands, are knee-deep in plans which have not been fulfilled, and that what is needed is some application of money and encouragement to private enterprise to invest in these areas. Will she agree that, in the past and today, planning is not what is needed? It is money and private enterprise.

I cannot agree with the right hon. Member that there has been planning of the appropriate type to the extent needed in the areas. I think that there is a great gap there and, before the question of finance or in what form it should come arises, we must get the basic expertise at the disposal of these countries.

Is the Minister aware of the plans being promulgated and going forward in the Bahamas and Bermuda to co-ordinate the administration of justice there and to form a joint court of appeal for those islands? What assistance is she giving to that?

I am afraid that that does not rank as development aid.

Would the right hon. Lady accept our congratulations on this decision? Is it intended to develop this office rather on the pattern of the existing Middle East Development Division? Has she in mind the possibility of associating other Commonwealth countries with this office, so that it might, in due course, become a Commonwealth development office?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. Yes, it is our experience with the Middle East Development Division and the good work which it has done which has led us to extend this to the Caribbean. I hope eventually to be able to extend it to other regions as well. On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I think that, at this stage, we shall get it launched on our own basis, though, of course, we shall seek every opportunity to encourage Commonwealth help to go into that area.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what technical assistance she has offered to the Government of Zambia.

When Zambia became independent, the British Government offered to continue to make available technical assistance over a wide field within the limits of our financial and other resources.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely encouraging reply, especially in view of the fact that for many years the production of graduates and secondary school leavers for Zambia has been appallingly low, below the potential of the country? Would she say a word about whether we are able to give any help for teacher training in these territories?

Yes, Sir. We are undertaking teacher training in the area. I am afraid that I do not have the exact figures with me, but I shall be glad to let my hon. Friend have the precise details. I agree with her that this is a very important part of technical assistance.

Do the right hon. Lady's proposals include any assistance for the railway that Zambia is very anxious to build to an east coast port?

I discussed this matter with Zambian Ministers during my recent visit. I know their interest in the subject, but I could not hold out any prospect of British help at this time.

Does the right hon. Lady intend to increase this figure of 1,700 technical helpers? Is that an upper limit, and, if not, when will the extra help be provided?

We have not set an upper limit of figures because we know how great are Zambia's needs, for the reasons which my hon. Friend has given. We are doing our utmost to meet the innumerable requests from Zambia for more experts. We shall have to take steps which we now have under consideration to strengthen the recruitment in this country of the people who are wanted, and I hope to be able to announce something about that shortly.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a contribution to local costs where an under-developed country will otherwise be unable to use development aid funds effectively.

This is already done in a large number of cases although we naturally limit this form of aid mainly to cases of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind.

In view of the fact that this is a form of aid which puts the least possible pressure on our balance of payments, especially in the sterling area, while producing the maximum effect locally, will my right hon. Friend consider this very favourably when there is an opportunity for local resources to be used more fully in giving development aid, particularly local resources of manpower, as well as other forms of local resources?

We are one of the donor countries which are most generous in this respect. We are so because we appreciate that, in giving finance for development schemes, it is not enough to give it for the import content. One must also take steps to meet the local costs. We wish that other donor countries would follow us in this respect and thus share the burden of what is, in effect, a form of untied aid.

What form of control does the right hon. Lady keep over the funds to see that they are not wasted? Does she have a veto if she does not approve of the way in which they are used?

When requests are made to us for aid, we get round the table with the Ministers of the country concerned, discuss their development plans and what approaches seem most helpful in those plans and then allocate our aid on the basis of these specific schemes.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress she has made in her study of ways of improving the arrangements for providing practical training in industry for students who come to Great Britain from overseas to take engineering or other similar courses in technical colleges.

I hope that we shall be able to provide, through the industrial training boards, more opportunities for overseas students and trainees to be trained in British industry, including those who are taking engineering or other similar courses in technical colleges. Discussions with the industrial training boards are in progress.

Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to use the power which is incorporated in the Industrial Training Act, 1964, to make grants to industrial companies in return for them taking overseas trainees?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the powers contained in Section 14 of that Act. It has not been necessary to exercise those powers so far, and we are not anxious to use them, but we are certainly prepared to do so if it should be necessary.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress she has made in her study of how Great Britain can best provide for high-level training and study in the field of public administration and economic planning.

Good progress has been made, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I attach much importance to this project and I will make an announcement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Is the Minister aware that discussions were well advanced at least a year ago regarding the establishment of a special institute in this country for this purpose with a certain university? Is it not rather disappointing that as much as a year later she cannot say anything more definite?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that endless discussions went on under the former Government, but no policy decisions were taken. I hope to be able to announce a policy decision soon.

Is the Minister aware that, as so often, she is quite incorrect about this? Is she aware that this matter was put to Commonwealth countries months ago—indeed, about a year ago—and that, while I would not blame her for this, some of the delay may have occurred in waiting for replies from Commonwealth countries? Would she agree that the delay has not been due to the lack of a decision being taken a year ago?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The proposal which I thought he had in mind, and which certainly I had in mind, was for the provision of facilities in this country. That is a matter for decision by Her Majesty's Government, who are now in process of taking that decision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the first-class college of this nature in Paris which caters for that country's overseas students? Will she look at the work that is done in that country in this sphere?

I am aware of the work that is being done in other countries, not only in Paris, but also in The Hague, which I recently visited. There is a special training institution there. I think that the proposals which we have in mind will do very great credit to this country and will be at least as good as those in other countries.

Is not the Minister in a position to make any reference to any action that may be taken following the reference made to this subject in the last communiqué arising out of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference a year ago?

The action which I have taken has arisen from my own approach to this problem since taking over this bring it to fruition in a remarkably rapid Ministry. I think that I am going to time.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Report, Tax Incentives in Capital-Exporting Countries for Private Investment in Developing Countries, produced by a special working group of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's fiscal committee.

None, Sir. This Report of the Fiscal Committee, on which we are of course represented, was addressed to the Development Assistance Committee and then to the Council of the O.E.C.D. and not to member Governments at this stage.

Would the right hon. Lady say whether this means that Her Majesty's Government have played no constructive part in formulating these proposals? Does she accept that private enterprise has an important part to play and that it must play an important part in aiding the developing countries?

We have covered the last point of that supplementary question endlessly in preceding Questions. The answer to the first part is that of course our representatives play their full part in D.A.C., but these proposals have not yet been put to Governments.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make it a condition of further aid to Tanzania that adequate compensation shall be paid to all British subjects who lost their possessions during civil disturbances since Zanzibar's independence and that pension commitments to expatriate officers formerly serving in Zanzibar shall be honoured in full.

The Tanzania Government have agreed to assume responsibility for paying the pensions of all officers entitled under the Zanzibar Public Officers Agreement and, except for special cases which are being urgently considered, arrangements are already in train for disbursement of the amounts due. With regard to compensation for loss of property, payments have been made to British former officials in Zanzibar. I understand that claims from a small number of non-officials are under consideration by the Commonwealth Secretary.

Before aid to Zanzibar is increased will the Minister ensure that all the cases are settled satisfactorily? Does she realise that the whole concept of overseas aid is damaged if we do not stand up for the rights of those who have devoted their careers to helping development in overseas countries?

I think that my original Answer indicated that considerable progress has been made in this sphere. I do not think that it would be appropriate, following this success, to start making threats of the kind the hon. Gentleman invites me to make.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that this Question involves two quite different matters; that riot damage may be an acceptable risk in a high-profit area but that compensation to officials who have given their whole lives to a territory ought to have a first priority?

We are fully aware of the needs of the officers who have served and I think that we are making commendable progress in satisfying their needs.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Great Britain's east of Suez rôle.

asked the Prime Minister what action is being taken to reduce the economic burden of commitments east of Suez.

It is our policy to ensure that we have the necessary strength to be able to fulfil our commitments to our Commonwealth partners, our allies, and to undertake any measures which will be necessary for the purpose of the peace-keeping activities of the United Nations. It will be one of the principal objectives of the review of defence rôles and strengths to ensure that we are able to do this in the area east of Suez, as in other areas, at the minimum cost in terms of money and physical resources.

As we shall soon have to regard China as the fifth nuclear Power, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any progress on the proposition of, I think, last December, that India should be given a nuclear guarantee? Would he agree that if we did use our nuclear deterrent in this way it would save India the possibility of developing her own nuclear deterrent and thereby allow her to use her resources for needful purposes?

As to the first part of that supplementary question, if I am successful in catching your eye in the debate which is scheduled for later today, Mr. Speaker, I will have a word or two to say on that. There is not as yet a great deal of progress to report. On the second part, I think that we all agree that it would be disastrous if India and other countries felt impelled to develop their own nuclear resources. This is a question of providing international safeguards or guarantees so that India or, indeed, any other country in the area, does not feel so impelled.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the directly attributable cost of our forces east of Suez is £320 million a year and that this excludes overheads, which, if added, would produce a figure hardly less than £500 million a year? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the present economic situation this high level of expenditure is totally unacceptable? Will he prepare plans for a run-down of expenditure in this area?

I have said that one of the main purposes of the review of defence rôles is that we should be able to discharge our responsibilities with the minimum cost both in terms of money and physical resources. This review is not an easy task, but it is being related to more tolerable costs, in terms of money and physical resources, than would have been involved with the planned increase in defence expenditure in this and in other areas if we had not taken radical action.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there are many people who are suspicious that the Labour Party's rôle east of Suez, particularly in supporting the actions in Vietnam, is closely connected with support which is given to the sterling market?

The hon. Gentleman is always elliptic, but I am not sure what he was trying to get at there. Perhaps he will allow me to point out to him that we have no troops in Vietnam.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to his hon. Friend seemed to indicate that we were going to maintain the same defence rôle east of Suez indefinitely, and that all that he could do was to try to ensure some reductions of expenditure by making economies? Is he really saying that the commitments to, our Commonwealth partners and allies east of Suez are immutable and fixed for all time? Would he not consider trying to persuade our partners in the Western Alliance to play a bigger part in that part of the world than they have played hitherto?

I think that the hon. Gentleman did not quite hear my first answer I referred to the review of defence rôles—not merely to defence costs, but to the defence rôles we have and the best way in which those rôles or their objectives can be discharged. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is certainly one which should be pursued and which will be pursued. At the moment we have accumulated a total of rôles, a total of commitments, a total of in-built costs adding up to the figures my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned, which are far beyond the reasonable economic capacity of the country. This is the purpose of the review.

asked the Prime Minister what is his policy on the future place of nuclear weapons in Great Britain's military strategy; and whether he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and myself in the defence debates of 16th and 17th December and of 3rd and 4th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on these benches look forward to the time when Britain will no longer depend at all on nuclear weapons?

Sir, I have made it clear in debate, and I should be glad to make it clear on another occasion, that it is our purpose to internationalise the use of nuclear weapons until we can get a world disarmament agreement getting rid of them altogether.

Whatever the future may hold, is it not a fact that the nuclear situation with regard to our armaments is exactly the same as it was a year ago, and may I congratulate the Prime Minister on that?

No, Sir. Unlike a year ago, when the whole of our nuclear defence policy was based on an electoral pretence, when everything the right hon. Gentleman said on this was systematically misleading the country as to the true facts, the situation today is that we have made proposals for internationalising nuclear weapons on the only basis that makes sense—interdependence.

In the more limited field of N.A.T.O. strategy in Europe, has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that the Secretary of State for Defence is at this moment putting forward a plan for N.A.T.O. which would increase our immediate need to use tactical nuclear weapons in the case of any conflict? Is not this policy in complete contradiction to the policy of the Labour Party? Is it not also true that it would be much better, though there might be a desire to save currency by reducing troops there, not to save currency at the expense of making the use of tactical nuclear weapons necessary earlier than was planned?

It is quite clear that my hon. Friend, despite his very high degree of homework on reading newspaper reports, has totally misunderstood what my right hon. Friend has said in Paris. So far from increasing the dependence on nuclear weapons, we are asking for a new and up-to-date review of what has now become a totally out-of-date situation in respect of both conventional and nuclear weapons in the N.A.T.O. Alliance.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will grant the Minister of Shipping a separate Department and raise his status to Cabinet level.

No, Sir. The present arrangements, whereby responsibility for shipping rests with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, assisted by a Minister of State specially appointed for the purpose, are working well and I see no reason to change them.

I do not wish to reflect in any way on the present Minister, but, in view of the substantial contributions of both British shipbuilding and shipping to our foreign trade income, in view of the type of subsidised and ruthless foreign competition we are facing, and in view of the national importance of both these industries in peace and war, does not the Prime Minister feel that, as with aviation for some time in the past, the interests of these industries would be best served by having a separate Ministry with a Minister of Cabinet status in charge?

I agree with a great deal of what was in the preamble of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, though not with the conclusion which he draws from it. The hon. Gentleman will, I think, have taken encouragement from the fact that, as a result of the measures we introduced in January for interest rates in respect of export orders, the export orders of the shipbuilding industry in the first quarter of this year were double the export orders received for the same quarter of last year and that the total tonnage placed in British shipyards in the first quarter of this year is the highest for any first quarter of the year since the immediate post-Suez shipbuilding boom.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarkable tribute in this morning's Daily Express attributing this tremendous increase entirely to the very sensible arrangement between the Government and private enterprise?

In fact it was still true, even before the Daily Express printed it. This has been a remarkable reaction, perhaps more than any of us expected, to the success of the new provision for export credits in respect of shipbuilding which I remember that one or two right hon. Members opposite dismissed as meaningless when we introduced them.

Arising out of the Prime Minister's Answer and his declared satisfaction with what the Government have continued to contribute to what we did in the past, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I should now be right in assuming that all that the shipping and shipbuilding interests want, and which is embodied in Amendments to the Finance Bill, will be acceptable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that we can see them accepted when we move the Amendments to the Finance Bill accordingly?

The hon. Lady is always very persuasive. I am glad that it was she and not her own Front Bench who called attention to the shipbuilding measures of two years ago in 1963. The difference is that we have now introduced something of help to the shipbuilding industry, especially in relation to shipbuilding exports. Right hon. Members opposite introduced once-for-all financial aid to the shipbuilding industry.

Jolly good it was, too.

Yes, very nice, and neatly timed to last for 12 months ending in the June before the last General Election.

Will not the Prime Minister acknowledge more candidly that the purpose of that action in 1963 was to break the cycle created by the loss of shipping during the war and to anticipate the natural recurrence of orders at an interval of 20 years from that period? Does net the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it achieved its object?

It did not achieve its object in fact. The plain fact about this situation is that it was introduced in June, 1963, and was designed to last for 12 months till June, 1964, which was the time when right hon. Members opposite at that time hoped they might be able to stage a General Election.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation scheduling the minimum requisite number of persons to be made members of the Upper House with full voting rights on the coming into force of the Act, in order to redress the present political imbalance.

As I said in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend on 13th April, I would not feel it right to propose any change in the constitutional position without first seeking an electoral mandate.

My right hon. Friend should not drag his feet like that. May I hasten to declare my singular lack of interest? Since my right hon. Friend said on another occasion that there was no lack of aspirants in our own movement for elevation to the other place, will he give an assurance that their rather queer ambitions will be satisfied if the occasion should arise?

I do not remember qualifying my answer in that way. I think that the answer, which was to a supplementary question, referred to hon. Members who belong to the party opposite, who I would not consider part of our movement.

asked the Prime Minister what progress he has made with his plans for establishing closer links between the European Free Trade Association and the Common Market.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to the recent Ministerial meeting of the European Free Trade Association in Vienna.

At Vienna we reached unanimous agreement in the European Free Trade Association on the desirability of Ministerial meetings to promote closer economic co-operation in Europe. The European Free Trade Association Council will now examine and report to Ministers at Copenhagen in October what procedural arrangements for contacts between the two groups might be considered and what subjects might be suggested for discussion. With permission, I will circulate the text of the Vienna communiqué in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome his endorsement of the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) for preferential tariff reduction between E.F.T.A. and the Common Market? I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to allow himself to be deterred from pursuing this idea by any objections from third countries. Will he give priority to rebuilding this country's bridges with E.F.T.A. by removing the import surcharge?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the initiative of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) many years ago, before the Treaty of Rome, I certainly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, though the conditions are entirely different now. That broke down, as many on both sides of the House said, because it was conceived as being an attempt to stop the Treaty of Rome from being signed and to stop the Common Market from being formed, whereas this proposal accepts and welcomes the existence of the Common Market and is trying to bring the two sides more closely together. There is this difference. In fact the hon. Gentleman must recognise that from the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations in 1963 right up to last October no initiative whatever had been taken. This initiative, limited though it must be, has been welcomed. We had the full support of our E.F.T.A. colleagues, and I hope, with the hon. Gentleman, that it will lead to constructive results.

If the Prime Minister is thinking about some sort of approach to the Common Market countries, will he attempt to get agreement with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference on the sort of approach that should be made?

That would really be a change. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that I stressed to the E.F.T.A. meeting last week what I am sure most hon. and right hon. Members would have wished me to stress and I made it absolutely plain that we could not envisage any arrangement, whether in direct relations with the Common Market, or through E.F.T.A.E.E.C. arrangements, that would prejudice our ability to go on importing foodstuffs from the Commonwealth.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is reported to have said in Vienna that if we are not able to build bridges we will dig a tunnel? Could he explain what distinction he makes between those alternatives?

I was asked at a Press conference, "What happens if you do not build a bridge?" I said, "We will dig a tunnel." I thought that was a perfectly fair answer which would commend itself to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). We all have our different tastes in metaphor. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has. What I was trying to say was that we are going to try and get understandings and agreements between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. as a result of the suggested high-level talks between Governments who are members of these two organisations. In addition, remembering that we have these high tariff walls, it will be our purpose as a British Government—and I am sure that it is true about many of our partners—to try and work out direct bilateral arrangements, such as we have worked out with France and other countries at the moment on joint aviation projects.

In view of the serious economic consequences which must inevitably flow from widespread economic division between E.F.T.A. and the Common Market, is my right hon. Friend aware that most people warmly support the proposal which he has made as a means towards securing a measure of economic co-operation between the two sides in Europe?

It was precisely because of our anxiety about the results, not only for economic affairs but for Europe generally, of this hardening of the two tariff blocs that we took the initiative we did. I was very glad to find that we had the support of all our E.F.T.A. partners in taking this initiative. The danger which many of us foresee if this continues and nothing is done about it is that there will be a sort of further hardening of industrial attitudes and there will be a breaking off of selling arrangements and an artificiality in the siting of factories which may make further reconciliation very much harder when the time comes for a move forward.

Can the Prime Minister answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) about the import surcharge? The right hon. Gentleman talked about the initiative taken with the full support of our E.F.T.A. partners. Is not it right that the support which we received from our E.F.T.A. partners was, to say the least, lukewarm? Is not it clear that there is little likelihood that they will show any real enthusiasm for such a British initiative while the import surcharge remains in force and that they are still suspicious of British intentions and motives? Has the Prime Minister any more immediate proposals to help to restore the confidence of E.F.T.A. in Britain?

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. and learned Member for Conway (Mr. Peter Thomas).

Will the Prime Minister correct himself on two points? How can he possibly suggest that he is prepared to negotiate from a position of strength when he has imposed the surcharges and has the additional indebtedness from the International Monetary Fund which he is now carrying? Secondly, to say that there was no initiative taken after the break-up of European negotiations in Brussels is completely wrong. The initiative was taken, first of all, to strengthen E.F.T.A. at the Lisbon Conference which set the course for E.F.T.A. and the final abolition of its tariffs internally. Secondly, there was the recreation of Western European Union in which economic affairs were to be discussed, of which E.F.T.A. was kept fully informed—and E.F.T.A. created its own contacts with Brussels.

The reason why I said that in this case we shall be negotiating from strength is that E.F.T.A. has got strong and will get stronger. That was not the case when the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept such intolerable terms in his own negotiations. As for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to initiatives after January, 1963, that of course was the work of the W.E.U., but it did not quite cover the whole work of E.F.T.A., as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. It excluded the E.F.T.A. neutrals. The difficulty right through—and it was difficult to get reassurance from the right hon. Gentleman during the talks until the last moment—was that at the time when he negotiated there was no assurance that the position of the E.F.T.A. neutrals would be looked after. Certainly we welcomed any steps taken through Lisbon and elsewhere to strengthen E.F.T.A., but that is not the same as saying that the initiative was taken to bring E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. closer together.

rose—

Is it—

Order. If the House wants to debate the matter some time that is for the House, but in my view we must get on.

On a point of order. Does not this situation recall to the House that the Committee on Procedure has made suggestions to the House about Questions and particularly about the number of Front Benchers who speak and rise at Question Time? Has not the Committee referred to this and made recommendations to the House? Could not you use your influence, Mr. Speaker, with the usual channels to have this point debated and have some guidance given?

Whether the House likes to debate arrangements for business is not a matter for me.

Further to that point of order. Is not it also correct, following what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has just said, that if the Prime Minister is going to make such lengthy answers impugning the actions—[Interruption.]

Order. I must be allowed to hear what is being said.

—of former Ministers at international negotiations—[Interruption.]

Order. I must be allowed to hear the words which are addressed to me.

The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West raised a question about Front Benchers being allowed to ask questions. My point is that if the Prime Minister is going to make lengthy answers in which he imputes motives and actions to former Ministers in international negotiations, ought we not to have an opportunity of questioning the right hon. Gentleman about it?

The idea of not having further Front Bench questions is in order that more questions from back benchers may have an answer. As for imputing bad motives to other people, I deprecate any use of Question Time for the purpose, because it occupies time, and even people on the Front Bench tend to answer back. Let us get on.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us have been very patient during Question Time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.]—unduly patient and very tolerant. I wish to make a submission to you on a point of order, as to whether right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench are to be privileged to raise a great number of supplementary questions while hon. and right hon. Members on this side are not so permitted?

I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's restraint during Question Time, for which I am grateful. But I do not depart in any circumstances from the idea that it must be left to the Chair to do its best to call supplementary questions rightly.