asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further initiatives he proposes to take to solve the Southern Rhodesian problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the problem of Southern Rhodesia, indicating what further negotiations have taken place during the last two months and what progress has been made towards a settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement about the progress of discussions on independence with the Rhodesian Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations he has had with the Rhodesian Government since the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made in his discussions with the Government of Rhodesia since the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 29th June, we are going forward with the discussions with Mr. Smith. These, of course, remain confidential, but the general considerations which guide our approach to the negotiations were outlined in the communiqué of the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, whatever the eventual solution of this problem, time is not on our side, and would he refute the suggestion recently made that a few years here or there do not matter?

Order. That matter can be raised on another occasion, but not on this.

Can my right hon. Friend say, following this expression of opinion, what official protests have been received in his Office about it?

None, Sir.

Cannot my right hon. Friend devise some way of bringing home to the Government of Southern Rhodesia the importance of the solidarity of the Commonwealth, and would he consider paying another visit to that area with a view to emphasising the importance of trade relations between that country and the rest of the Commonwealth, indicating to it that it may suffer economically unless it settles its political differences?

I am assuming that the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend that I should pay a visit to Rhodesia refers to the political situation and not to increased trade. Increasing trade, we hope, will continue. With regard to the suggestion that I might visit Rhodesia, if I thought that any useful purpose would be served by doing so I would not hesitate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we wish him well in these negotiations and hope that by the exercise of patience and understanding we may reach an agreed solution? Does he think that Mr. Smith might be visiting this country in the near future?

No, Sir. The discussions are continuing and we hope that, as a result of these continuing discussions, in the end success will result.

In view of the difficulty of getting Oral Questions answered at the right time—we know that Parliamentary business makes it difficult—would the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that if there is something to report about the progress of these negotiations he will take the opportunity to make a statement?

Yes. As in the past, I will do my best to keep the House informed on this matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there is some concern that the undertaking which he gave to the House on 15th March, when he said that the Government intended to abide by the convention, is somewhat in conflict with the undertaking which he gave to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that he would be prepared in certain circumstances to call a constitutional conference without the agreement of the Rhodesian Government? Would he confirm that this is not so?

Mr. Smith has said that he would regard the convening of a constitutional conference by Britain as an interference in Rhodesia's internal affairs. I can only say that the British Government do not accept the validity of that statement.

If, as all in this House are agreed, there is no question of imposing a settlement by force, and while not wishing to appear in any way unsympathetic to the wishes of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that there is no way open to Britain of carrying out the wishes expressed in the communiqué that we should suspend the 1961 Constitution and introduce an interim Government?

As I told the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, the issue is one of settling the matter by peaceful means or by war, and no one goes to war until he has failed to succeed by peaceful means.

They do not go to war either.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what discussions took place with Commonwealth leaders on trade during the recent conference; and what were the results of these discussions.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Final Communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting, and to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 29th June.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, might I ask him whether or not he intends to refer the deliberations of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to the Commonwealth Export Council, and whether it is hoped that the Ministers of Trade within the Commonwealth will meet soon to discuss matters of Commonwealth trade?

The Commonwealth Export Council is meeting to see how best we can increase Commonwealth trade. In connection with the Trade Ministers' Conference, it will be necessary, in the first place, for Commonwealth Officials to meet in order to decide the programme for the Ministers when their meeting takes place.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is aware of the hardship being imposed on many British citizens as a result of the moratorium which the Ceylon Government placed last year on the remittance of interest, profits and dividends and certain pensions from Ceylon; what has been the outcome of the representations he has made on the subject; what further action he is taking to improve the present position; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will now seek to expedite the remittance of funds of private individuals from Ceylon to this country.

My right hon. Friend is very much aware of the hardship being imposed on many British citizens as a result of the Ceylon Government's moratorium on remittances. As a result of representations, certain relaxations have been secured. In cases of extreme hardship amongst shareholders in companies incorporated in Ceylon, the remittance of dividends has been allowed: unfunded pensions up to £750 a year are allowed to be remitted and those over that amount are being remitted subject to a quarterly review: sterling is being provided for furlough in most cases. We shall continue to make representations to the Ceylon Government.

I am grateful to the Minister of State for that reply, but is it not a fact that sterling company shareholders are particularly hard hit in this respect? Will he do his best further to impress on the Ceylon Government the fact that very considerable hardship is being experienced by people in this country and that we expect the Ceylon Government, in the light of the assistance they are getting from the International Monetary Fund and from other sources, to honour their obligations?

We are certainly very conscious of the hardship that exists, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pressing the Ceylon Government as hard as we can.

Will the hon. Gentleman further comment on remittance discrimination in this particular sense, for this, again, appears to be a very real hardship? Constituents of mine, on the one hand, have returned to this country with no remittance whatever, having given lifelong service to Ceylon, and, on the other hand, non-nationals have returned, and enjoy the full compensation and reward of retired pay from the Ceylon Government.

I am aware of the hon. Member's constituent's case and have tried to be as helpful as I possibly can. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Ceylon Government have throughout continued to allow the remittance of pensions earned by Government service. As I said in my original reply, unfunded pensions up to £750 a year are allowed to be remitted and those over £750 a year are allowed subject to a quarterly review of the position. The Ceylon Government are, as we must recognise, entitled to make their decisions about the priority with which obligations in this regard are met, but we will continue to talk with them about this.

Will the Minister of State also bear in mind that the balance of trade between this country and Ceylon is very much in favour of Ceylon?

That, of course, is constantly borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the salary of and what expenses are allowed to the third secretary on the staff of the British High Commissioner in Lagos.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many of the staff at the British High Commission at Lagos are temporary; what is their status; and why they cannot be replaced by permanent civil servants.

A third secretary on the staff of the British High Commission at Lagos would receive a starting salary of approximately £965, rising by annual increments which vary from £50 to £60. The salary is taxable. He would also receive an overseas allowance of £876 per annum and an accountable entertainment allowance of £321 per annum, both non-taxable.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that this unusual appointment of a person who has twice failed the Civil Service examination to a post that he would have got had he been successful is grossly unfair, not only to those other candidates who failed the examinations and did not get a similar appointment, but to those who were successful?

It is necessary to make temporary appointments because of the specific and fluctuating shortages of people with the right qualifications for certain posts which fall vacant from time to time. When the case of the applicant to whom my hon. Friend refers was put to me, I asked, "How would any other applicant fare who was making an attempt to get into the Service for this kind of appointment?" I was told that this would be the treatment, and I saw no reason to make any distinction between that applicant and any other.

Can my right hon. Friend say how many of those holding temporary appointments in Lagos, or any other overseas High Commission, have failed their Civil Service examination? Secondly, can he tell me whether he still adheres to the view that social background and education—the schools to which applicants went—are not taken into account? Thirdly, is it not the case that the previous Government refused to sanction this appointment?

With regard to social and educational background, my hon. Friend is already aware, because of information given elsewhere, that applicants have come from all schools and all sections of society. With regard to the particular appointment to which he refers, I again say that one does not make any distinction between any kind of applicant who is suitable for a particular appointment.

Are not these mean expressions of crypto-republicanism by question and Motion from the party opposite quite unworthy and becoming a monumental bore?

Order. That must be inviting an expression of opinion which the Minister is not responsible to give.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further steps Her Majesty's Government propose to recommend to their Commonwealth partners in order to facilitate a peaceful solution of the crisis in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a further statement on the progress of the proposed Commonwealth mission to Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further initiative about the situation in Vietnam has been discussed with other Commonwealth Governments; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 1st July. Her Majesty's Government do not intend at the moment to take any further initiative with Commonwealth partners on Vietnam.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be general support for any further initiatives that the Commonwealth may be able to take in the cause of peace, whether in Vietnam or otherwise, but would he not also agree that unless such initiatives are adequately prepared and very carefully launched they may actually damage the Commonwealth?

Yes, Sir. It is always desirable, of course, to try to launch any attempt to secure peace in the most careful manner. We were aware at the time of the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference that here was an admirable opportunity to seize the initiative, and that is what was done.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the latest news he has received from the capitals concerned as to whether or not they are not likely or willing to receive this proposed mission?

In the case of Peking and Moscow, we have replies which indicate that the mission at this time would not be acceptable. The Hanoi authorities have neither formally refused nor agreed to accept the mission.

With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), would the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, not only that careful and patient preparation is necessary in regard to our Commonwealth partners, but that it is also advisable that every attempt should be made to ascertain what reception such an initiative will receive before action is taken?

If we did that, perhaps nothing would ever be attempted.

In view of the prejudicial effect which the presence of Australian troops may have on the Commonwealth peace initiative, would my right hon. Friend take action to meet the Prime Minister of Australia with a view to the withdrawal of these troops?

This is a matter for the Australian Government.

Would my right hon. Friend consider this? If we wish to pursue a useful and profitable attempt at peace negotiations with North Vietnam, it might be a useful preliminary to recognise the Government with whom we propose to negotiate. Would not this ease the path, and might not we advise some of our Commonwealth associates to make that recognition?

This is a question which might properly be addressed to the Foreign Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations which Commonwealth countries have now officially informed Her Majesty's Government of their support for United Kingdom policy in regard to Vietnam.

At the recent meeting of the Heads of all Commonwealth Governments, or their representatives, unanimous support was given to the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for a Commonwealth initiative on Vietnam as set out in the communiqué issued after the meeting. The Governments of Kenya and Tanzania, however, have indicated their reservation on certain points.

How many of the Commonwealth countries have indicated their opposition to American action?

That is a question which ought to be put to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and not to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what reports he has received from Her Majesty's High Commissioner in Wellington about the effect on British pensioners resident in New Zealand of the failure to negotiate a new double taxation agreement with the New Zealand Government.

The British High Commissioner in Wellington has reported that, in the period immediately following the termination of the 1947 agreement, he received a number of inquiries from British pensioners in New Zealand who were concerned about their tax liability.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not a very satisfactory reply? There is evidence that inconvenience and distress are still being caused to British pensioners in New Zealand, particularly widows. Will not he take some action to urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to conclude a new double taxation agreement so that the uncertainty can be cleared up?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said, in reply to a Question asked by the hon. Gentleman yesterday, that our two countries are in touch with each other on this matter.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the agreement on double taxation relief is likely to be accelerated by the Finance Bill?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would address that question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what countries Lord Mountbatten visited during his recent mission concerning immigration.

Lord Mountbatten visited Canada, India, Nigeria, Jamaica, Trinidad, Cyprus and Malta.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we want to have as much agreement as possible in the Commonwealth on this very difficult and tricky subject? Next time such a difficult negotiation has to be conducted, would it not be a good thing to have somebody who is persona grata in one of the principal immigrant countries, which is Pakistan? Would it not be better if we had had somebody who could have been allowed to go to that country and discuss the matter on the spot?

The mission went to all the listed Commonwealth countries, including the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, except, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that Lord Mountbatten was not able to go to that country. The Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office, a very eminent and distinguished gentleman, went with the mission to Pakistan and brought back a very satisfactory report.

When is a statement of the Government's policy on immigration likely to be made?

We hope in due course to tell the Commonwealth Prime Ministers what we have in mind. After that, we shall be in a position to state what the policy of the Government will be, and that statement will be made in the House.

Is the Secretary of State really saying that the opportunity of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' presence in London was not used to tell them what the Government had in mind?

Discussions took place with the particular Prime Ministers concerned. As a result of the talks that we had, we are considering the policy which Her Majesty's Government will announce in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many British-owned farms in the Arusha area of Tanzania have had their leases terminated; whether compensation has now been agreed; and when it will be paid.

According to my information, the leases of four farms owned by three British citizens have been terminated. As I informed the House on 4th May, the Tanzanian Government have stated their intention of paying compensation for unexhausted improvements. I understand that the valuations have already been completed and that a decision on the amount of compensation is likely to be taken shortly.

I welcome the steps taken by the Tanzanian Government since the cancellation of these leases, but would the Minister of State bear in mind that it is now nearly nine months since these leases were revoked? Many of the owners are in difficult circumstances in this country? Will he press the Tanzanian Government to come to a final decision over compensation as rapidly as possible?

I realise that there has been a delay, but the hon. Gentleman will realise also that these land questions in Tanzania and elsewhere in East Africa are complicated. We are continuing to press the Tanzanian Government to give us an early decision, because we are aware of the difficulties created for these people.

First, is it a fact that some of the leases which were originally revoked have been restored to their owners? Secondly, do the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State think that there is a long-term future for European farmers in this area? If not, would they consider, in consultation with the Government of Tanzania, introducing some scheme similar to that which has been adopted in Kenya for the orderly buying out, with their concurrence, of these farmers?

Some of the leases in question have been restored, although obviously the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to give the details here. If he will write to me, I will let him have the details.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has received from the Government of Zambia for the establishment of a United Kingdom defence base in that country in the event of a threat to its economic or political well-being; and what reply he gave.

None, Sir.

In view of the possibility of illegal action by the Rhodesian Government, such as the declaration of unilateral independence, will my right hon. Friend assure our friends in Zambia that, should the position of the Zambian Republic be affected, either economically or in a defence sense, we would at once come to their assistance?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a hypothetical question. I prefer to say nothing further.

Is it not inconceivable that anybody in a United Kingdom Parliament, whatever the merits of the problem of Southern Rhodesia, should contemplate an establishment of this kind in Zambia, which could only be directed against Southern Rhodesia, against our kith and kin there who came to our aid as recently at 1939?

Is the Secretary of State aware that in an earlier answer this afternoon he gave great cause for concern by talking about resort to warfare where negotiations broke down? Perhaps he would now like to explain to the House what he meant.

I did not say anything at all about warfare resulting from a breakdown in negotiations. What I said was that when there is a question of war or peace one always tries to negotiate without violence of any kind. It was in this sense that I referred to peaceful negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will now consider a fresh initiative in an attempt to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) on 30th March.

In view of Her Majesty's Government's success in bringing about a peaceful conclusion to the Rann of Kutch dispute, would not my right hon. Friend treat as a matter of urgency the possibility of a new initiative over Kashmir, in view of the appalling defence and financial costs to both countries of that crisis?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the satisfactory settlement of the Rann of Kutch dispute and the part played by Her Majesty's Government. I accept that this has created the right kind of atmosphere for further negotiations to develop between India and Pakistan, but this is a matter for those two countries in the first instance. As with the Rann of Kutch, British help would always be available if required.

Why does the Secretary of State find it so easy to be so pleased, with full justice, about what has happened in the Rann of Kutch but so reluctant to try to get at the basis of the trouble between the two countries, which is Kashmir? He must be as well aware as anyone in the House that all these other matters are merely symptoms of the basic malaise. Why does he not say something a little more encouraging about a new initiative?

I repeat that the initiative must come from the two countries concerned. This has been a long-standing problem. The fact that there has been a peaceful settlement over the Rann of Kutch leads one to hope for greater success in the future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that he considers it infinitely preferable that inevitable change in this as in other parts of the world had much better be brought about gradually than as a result of a bloodbath?

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement about the functions of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

I would refer the right hon. Member to paragraphs 3–22 and 27–30 of the Agreed Memorandum on the Commonwealth Secretariat which was issued along with the Final Communiqué of the Prime Ministers' Meeting.

While appreciating that the Secretariat is likely to expand, could the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of the initial size of the Secretariat, both as regards numbers of the staff and the total cost to the various Commonwealth countries?

There is an Agreed Memorandum which we shall publish tomorrow in the form of a White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when it is proposed to hold the next Ministerial meeting of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council.

Arrangements are in train for the next Ministerial meet- ing of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council to be held towards the end of September in Kingston, Jamaica. It will be the meeting of Finance Ministers that normally takes place each year before the meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Can the Minister of State say whether, as usual, trade matters will not be discussed at this meeting? If so, in what way will the proposed Conference of Commonwealth Trade Ministers perform a function which is not normally performed by the regular meetings of Commonwealth Economic Ministers through the Economic Consultative Council?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers agreed that discussions should be arranged between officials of Commonwealth Governments in the first instance to examine the issues further and prepare for an early meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers. The meeting to which we are referring, and which is to be held in Jamaica, is the normal meeting of the Finance Ministers that precedes the I.B.R.D. and International Monetary Fund meetings.

Is the Minister not aware that these meetings normally deal with trade matters and also that there are regular meetings of Commonwealth Trade Ministers? Can he tell us in what way this new proposal will do something different from what has been done previously through the ordinary and regular channels?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that as a result of the initiative of the Prime Ministers' meeting, the purpose of the meeting of trade Ministers which will follow the meeting of officials will be to expand Commonwealth trade, a matter upon which I should have thought hon. Members in all quarters of the House would agree.

What part will the Commonwealth Secretariat play in the preparation of these meetings and what is to happen to the Commonwealth Economic Committee?

The part that the Commonwealth Secretariat will play in the meeting of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council is, as the hon. Gentleman will know, set out in the Agreed Memorandum attached to the official communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting, but it is rather too early to say whether the Secretariat will be in operation by the date of the September meeting in Kingston, Jamaica.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the progress of his negotiations regarding the Maldive Islands.

The negotiations for a revision of the Anglo-Maldivian Agreement are progressing favourably, and I hope to be in a position to announce their satisfactory conclusion to the House very shortly.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he can assure us that a satisfactory conclusion will include the safeguarding of our R.A.F. bases at Gan?

Negotiations have been confidential and I would not like to reveal the terms at this stage. However, they are satisfactory to us and, we have every reason to believe, to the Maldivian Government.

asked the Minister of Power when he will introduce the Bill relating to the nationalisation of the steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24th June, 1965.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this rather ambiguous Answer conflicts strongly with the Prime Minister's statement in the House on 18th March that steel would be nationalised this Session? Does he not think it is un- reasonable and outrageous to expect the industry to continue operating under this difficulty? Will he not state clearly and precisely whether or not it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to nationalise steel?

I have no evidence that the normal operations of the industry are not proceeding smoothly. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary I shall be very interested to hear it. As to the earlier part of the question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made abundantly clear on 24th June what the situation was. He referred to the amount of legislation before the House this Session and said further that it would be a matter of convenience whether to extend this Session to get this and other necessary legislation through or whether to

"make a clean start with an early new Session".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1965; Vol. 714, c. 1939.]

Will my hon. Friend note the impatience of the Opposition in this matter and do his best to bring in this Bill as soon as possible to meet their desire?

I appreciate that some right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been appointed to shadow my right hon. Friend and myself. I always have great sympathy with the unemployed, especially those genuinely seeking work.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no impatience on this side of the House to find ourselves confronted with the horrid Measure with which the Government have threatened the country and the industry? Is he also aware that we do not share the illusion, which he evidently does, that the Prime Minister ever makes anything clear? Will he kindly bear in mind that though we are prepared to wait for ever, we are nevertheless optimistic enough to expect that every now and again—

Ask a question.

I am asking a question.

Let there be less noise or we shall never get to this Bill.

I am simply concerned to find out whether the Parliamentary Secretary can answer my hon. Friend's question which was quite simple: yes or no, do the Government intend to introduce this horrid Measure?

I thought I had made the matter abundantly clear. As my hon. Friend indicated on 24th June, it will be a matter for the convenience of the Government whether the Bill will be introduced this Session or whether we shall have a clean start with an early new Session.

asked the Minister of Power what are the capital costs of making gas and electricity per unit of installed capacity by the latest processes available to both industries, including coal-fired, oil-fired and atomic-powered in the case of electricity generation, and oil reforming in the case of gas making.

Typical construction costs of large power stations now being built are about £40 per kw (sent out) for coal and oil-fired stations and about £100 for nuclear power stations of the Magnox type. No comparable figure can be given for a nuclear power station incorporating advanced gas-cooled reactors until contract negotiations for Dungeness "B" power station have been completed. A typical capital cost of making gas from oil reforming plant is £10 per therm day, or £8 per kilowatt equivalent.

In view of these very complicated and important figures which the hon. Gentleman has just given us, may I ask when we can expect a detailed statement from the Government of their fuel policy setting out the comparative figures right across the industry?

My right hon. Friend, in conjunction with his Energy Advisory Council, is working on all aspects of fuel policy.

asked the Minister of Power what restrictive practices within the electricity industry have been abandoned by agreement during the past six months.

The abandonment of any restrictive practice relating to employment in the electricity supply industry would be a matter for negotiation between the electricity boards and the trade unions and not one for which my right hon. Friend has responsibility.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the London Electricity Board recently had to send no fewer than 14 employees to install one refrigerator in the house of one of my constituents? Is he aware that the chairman of the Board wrote to me saying that this was due entirely to restrictive practices? What progress has been made to try to solve this nonsense?

The issue raised by the hon. Member is a matter for the day-to-day management of the Board [H.Ms: "Oh."] As for the progress that has been made, the recent agreements with manual workers have created a climate whereby management in conjunction with the unions and employers can gradually eliminate any obstacle which may still exist to the improvement of efficiency. As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 6th April, considerable progress has been made in carrying out the agreements.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever matters are for day-to-day management, the Government are under an obligation to see that where there are restrictive practices of that kind steps are taken to eliminate them?

Yes, Sir, and we shall take them.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the terms under which the gas and the electricity board are to be allowed to compete for business on new housing estates.

My right hon. Friend will do so as soon as he is ready.

Although we have no objection to the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend trying to define the ground rules under which the two boards are to operate, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will undertake to the House that he will do nothing which will restrict competition between these two rival fuel industries?

Some competition between the fuel industries is inevitable and, indeed, very desirable, but there must be co-operation between nationalised industries and that should be in the consumers' interests. All I would say is that my hight hon. Friend is as anxious to find an early solution to this problem as he was in the matter of the resale of electricity, where people were finding themselves in difficulty when there were unscrupulous landlords who were taking advantage of them.

asked the Minister of Power what proposals for new opencast coal mining in the West Midlands have now been put to him; if he will give details of the proposals and of his decisions on them.

The National Coal Board's application for an authorisation to work the Orchard St. Leonards site in Warwickshire is the only one at present before my right hon. Friend. Objections have been lodged and arrangements have been made to hold a public inquiry, which opens today.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give the shortfall in the number employed in the coal mining industry.

This is a matter for the National Coal Board. My right hon. Friend understands from the Board that its operating plans are made in the light of the men available, that the labour force is at present about 5,000 below the Board's manpower budget for 1965–66, but that production has been maintained at a level sufficient to meet overall demand.

While realising the social problems involved, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether, in view of the new plans for the coal industry, there is any plan in the Government's mind for redistributing employees from uneconomic to economic areas of the industry?

That is a matter for the National Coal Board.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the prospects of continued employment in the anthracite coalfield in South-West Wales.

The prospects in this and other coalfields are among the subjects which my right hon. Friend is at present discussing with the National Coal Board in connection with a co-ordinated fuel policy. He is also in constant touch with my right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales about related questions of economic and social planning.

Can my hon. Friend say to what extent the supply of anthracite falls below the demand? In view of the clean air policy, can he give an assurance that steps are being taken to ensure an adequate supply of smokeless fuels?

I cannot give any figures to my hon. Friend without notice, but I am assured that there are ample supplies of smokeless fuels.

asked the Prime Minister what proposals Her Majesty's Government now have for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; and if he will make a statement.

My noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Chalfont, told the Disarmament Commission in New York in April that we should like to work out an agreement in the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva on the means of detection and identification of underground tests. This is the main difficulty in the way of a comprehensive test ban treaty. The Disarmament Commission in its final resolution supported a return to Geneva for this purpose.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir John Cockcroft, who is a member of the Advisory Panel on Disarmament set up by the Minister of State who is responsible for disarmament matters, has recently expressed the opinion that the political advantages of a comprehensive test ban treaty without on-site inspection now outweigh any military risks that would be involved? Do the Government agree with that view, and may we expect them to put forward new proposals for a comprehensive test ban treaty soon?

I am well aware of the statement made by Sir John Cockcroft, and he makes these statements with very great authority. Our view—the advice we have—is that there has been a great advance in methods of external verification in the last year or two, but we have not yet reached a point where we can safely rely on external verification being able to distinguish between a nuclear explosion and, say, a chemical explosion of equal power.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect that about two years ago we made a proposal to the Russians that Russian, British and American scientists might meet together to consult on this subject to see whether any modifications could be made on previous experience? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is worth resurrecting this proposal?

Yes, Sir, and also the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman will remember I put to him that it might be a good idea, if Russian scientists are positive that they can be externally verified, that we should arrange one or two small staged tests at times known only to the Secretary General of the United Nations to see if the Russians are successful in detecting them from outside. It would be useful to get scientists together for this kind of purpose, but so far we have not succeeded in doing it.

In view of the progress which appears to have been made in the science of detecting and verifying underground explosions, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will see that Her Majesty's Government will not go into the forthcoming disarmament discussions bound to the proposals of the previous Government that there should be at least seven on-site inspections, and that they will be prepared to consider a much smaller number with a view to securing an overall agreement?

As soon as we are satisfied, which we are not vet, that it is safe to do this without any on-site inspections, we will be prepared to say so and support a treaty to that effect. As to the number of inspections, I think that in the talks which were going on with the Soviet Union two years ago there was a suggestion to reduce that figure below seven, and then there was a change of direction in favour of the more limited test ban treaty. We are not tied to a particular figure and we shall certainly be prepared to go to Geneva hoping to get a solution which would be universally accepted.

During the weeks of preparation before the next stage, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the authoritative opinions expressed in Washington in recent weeks by the Kilpatrick Committee, set up by Senator Kennedy, that we should not do anything to give priority in any reorganisation in N.A.T.O. to nuclear arms control which later might be a hindrance in arriving at wider agreements between East and West which would be a guarantee of peace?

I agree that the report by the Committee headed by Mr. Kilpatrick is a vitally important report. We have put forward ideas of our own, and some were incorporated in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' agreed communiqué, for a non-dissemination agreement. Certainly the points put forward by my hon. Friend and by the Kilpatrick Committee will be borne in mind.

asked the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made for the celebration of the 900th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings.

I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under Secretary of State in the Home Office on 1st July to a Question by the hon. Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people see no need for any special expensive arrangements, but that just as the Finance Bill is a more than adequate commemoration of the Great Plague of 1665, so his apparent intention to cling to office until 1966 will give the people of this country an excellent chance of delivering another one in the eye for Harold?

I read the same joke in the Press two or three weeks ago. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is getting his history a bit mixed. The Harold who, in the words of the bard, got "his eye full of arrow" was, in fact, Harold Macmillan at the hands of the French two years ago.

If there is to be a celebration, may we take it that President de Gaulle will the principal guest at this commemoration of a quite notable defeat of the Anglo-Saxons?

As one of my hon. Friends has said, we are awaiting the programme that a committee of the south-east of England is preparing. I thought that it might be helpful, and we might be able to secure the attendance of the French President, if we were to link the two celebrations, the one which has been mentioned in the Question and, perhaps, the 550th anniversary of Agincourt on 25th October this year.

As the Government's policy is a policy of peace, would it not be better to forget, or try to forget, these bloody episodes of the past and concentrate on such happy peace-making events as the union of the Scottish and English Crowns, which brought great happiness to England, and also the union of the Scottish and English Parliaments, which brought even greater happiness to England?

I am not sure whether it was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) or another of my hon. Friends who was very anxious last year that we should celebrate that anniversary of Bannockburn.

Hear, hear.

Perhaps we can leave this matter now happy that we celebrated the Anglo-French occasion of the Simon de Montfort Parliament. In any case, all of us are well aware of the great benefits of the Act of Union with Scotland in that it produced, if nothing else, the Scottish Grand Committee.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Economic Affairs.

No, Sir.

Will the Prime Minister consider this again? Does he realise that but for a very handsome apology, which we all appreciate, which has just appeared on the tape, my supplementary question would have been very different? I content myself today with expressing the hope that henceforth there will be rather fewer of these weekend diatribes and more concentration by the First Secretary of State on his duties.

As the hon. Gentleman's Question has been down for about eight weeks, I congratulate him on the prescience with which he formulated his supplementary question at that time. But I must restrain the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for trying to increase the number of Ministers.

asked the Prime Minister whether, following the creation of a unified diplomatic service and in view of the proposed setting up of a Commonwealth Secretariat, he will now consider merging the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office.

No, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister realise that by creating a unified Ministry of External Affairs he would bring Britain into line with all the other members of the Commonwealth and greatly assist the smooth running of our external relations without detracting in any way from our belief in the Commonwealth as an institution?

When the Plowden Committee, which led to the amalgamation of the diplomatic service, reviewed this possibility it recommended against any such amalgamation on the ground that it could be misinterpreted as implying a loss of interest in the Commonwealth partnership. Quite enough has happened in the last two or three years to give support to those who may feel that there is a loss of interest in the Commonwealth partnership, and I agree with the Plowden Report. That is why I rejected the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Will the Prime Minister emphasise that the comparison in the Question between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the new Secretariat could do a lot of harm to the new Secretariat since the Commonwealth Relations Office exists to serve British Government policy whereas the new Secretariat serves all Commonwealth countries?

That is absolutely right, and anyone who reads the Commonwealth communiqué will feel that that is the position of the Secretariat.

asked the Prime Minister on whose authority the letter, dated 4th March, from the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East, addressed to the Standing Security Commission was referred to the Foregn Office; and what action he intends to take on the recommendations put forward in this letter.

No special authority was needed. The hon. and gallant Member's letter was replied to by the Foreign Office because its subject matter was more its concern than that of the Standing Security Commission. The recommendations it contains are being studied afresh, but I can hold out little hope that they will in fact prove acceptable.

Can the Prime Minister tell me when I shall receive a reply from the Security Commission itself, to which I addressed the letter? In the light of the past 15 years, is he really leaving it to the Foreign Office to be judge and jury in its own case in these important security matters?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman, whose deep concern in these matters we all know, will realise that the Security Commission is an independent body, and it is extremely important that it should be allowed to act on its own without interference from political sources, Government, Opposition or anything else. I understand that, in fact, he sent his letter to one member of the Security Commission who, if I may say so, appropriately passed it to the secretary who decided that it was a matter for the Foreign Office since it raised matters within the field of the Foreign Office and not within the Security Commission's terms of reference. He will recall, as I had a long discussion with him about this matter, that I have asked him for any further suggestions which we might be able to consider.

I am glad that the Prime Minister added what he did in the last sentence of his reply. Will he look at this procedure again? My hon. and gallant Friend wrote a quite important letter to the Security Commission. It was handed on to the Department which was interested in the particular points which he raised. I should have thought that it might have gone to the Prime Minister or, indeed, that the Security Commission might have dealt with it on its own without referring it to the Department which was to some extent criticised in my hon. and gallant Friend's letter. Perhaps the Prime Minister would look at it again.

The right hon. Gentleman himself set up the Security Commission. I hope that he is not now criticising the procedure which was followed in respect of a letter received by a member of the Commission. I think that it would be quite wrong for us to start giving instructions to the Commission about how it does its business. Its independence is something to which both sides of the House have attached great importance.

The Prime Minister quite rightly says that this Commission is independent, but it did immediately react to my hon. and gallant Friend's letter by sending it to the Foreign Office. This does not look very much as though it thought it was independent and able to deal with it independently. I am only asking the Prime Minister to look at the subject again, and this matter in particular.

This must be a matter for the Commission. If the Commission is to be told, instructed or asked, if it receives letters from Members of Parliament, that it must not pass them forward, it will cease to be independent. I agree that there are difficulties here. I agree that there are problems raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's letter. But I think that the right thing for him to do is to correspond with Ministers when he wants action taken by Ministers. If he wants me to act, he should write to me. Where he thinks that there is a point within the terms of reference of the Commission in any particular case, it is right to send it to the Commission, but the Commission must decide what to do with it.

May the House be told what all this mumbo-jumbo is about? If it is important, we ought to know. If it is not important, let us not waste time with it.

These matters are important, but so is the independence of the Commission.

The right hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned that my hon. and gallant Friend sent a letter to a member of the Security Commission and he described the secretary as a member of the Commission. Would he confirm that he is quite right about that? Surely the secretary is not a member of the Commission? If an hon. Member of this House wishes to write to the Commission, is not his right course to write to the secretary?

I did not say that the secretary was a member of the Commission. I said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wrote to a member of the Commission and that it was the secretary of the Commission who then passed the letter on to the Foreign Office. I think the secretary acted perfectly properly. These matters must be for the Commission whenever it receives letters.