asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the total of British economic aid to India in the last year for which figures are available; and how much this figure represents per head of the Indian population.

In 1966 total disbursements of British Government economic aid to India were something over£44½ million. This represented approximately 1s. 10d. a head.

In view of the articles which recently appeared in The Times, pointing to the danger of the virtual disintegration of Indian democracy and the immense importance to this country of maintaining democratic government in India, can my right hon. Friend explain the principles which lead him to allocate so much less aid per capita to India than he allocates to many countries which are, in fact, economically better off?

We recognise that India's needs are very great, and we are participating fully in the efforts that are being made by the Western Aid Consortium. British aid to India is currently about 10 per cent. of the total Western aid to India. I can only say that we have many responsibilities. Some countries depend upon us substantially for aid, and in their case we could not make cuts to meet the wishes of others.

Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give the House any idea of the percentage of the amount given which has been used to improve methods of agricultural production, and how much has been used in other directions?

In regard to India, we have made it as flexible as possible. We are not a food-producing country, so we cannot send food as such, but the money which is given to India is spent in a way which they think might further food production.

Can my right hon. Friend say what agencies are at work to determine that the aid is used in the most sensible and practical way? Is he aware that I recently visited India as their special guest, and formed the view that their urgent problems are not only irrigation and fertilisation, but also education? What is being done to assist in that direction?

I heard with interest of my hon. Friend's visit to India, and I congratulate him on the part he played in trying to show the Indians that we were meeting their wishes. I hope, at the same time, that he will acknowledge that it is India's responsibility to see how best the resources can be used.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will provide analytical computers for Indian agricultural universities.

If so requested by the Government of India, I would be ready to consider providing equipment of this kind within the normal programme of British financial aid to India.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Would not he agree that as the population of India constitutes half the population of the British Commonwealth of Nations—and bearing in mind our history of 200 years of occupation—we have a special responsibility in providing the most up-to-date aids to the young men of India who are battling against diseases of crops and famine in that country?

Yes, Sir. As I have indicated in previous Answers, we do all that we can to assist.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will provide books a-ad general printed matter to assist educationists in India.

The Ministry already provides books and periodicals in the educational field to India under the Low-Priced Books Scheme, the Management Book Gift Scheme and Colombo Plan technical assistance.

Would my right hon. Friend undertake to look closely at the scheme of assistance in this regard, bearing in mind the fact that there are pressures in India to dispense with the English language altogether and that many British educationists in India consider that they are not yet receiving sufficient aid of this type?

India has been by far the largest single market for the sale of books under the Low-Priced Books Scheme. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that we must constantly watch the demand and respond to it whenever we can.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in view of the fact that the decision of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to deny aid to Portugal and South Africa as well as to Rhodesia is contrary to its constitution, whether Her Majesty's Government will raise this matter in the appropriate organ of this Organisation.

This matter was decided last November by the General Conference, the highest body of U.N.E.S.C.O., and there will not be an opportunity to raise it again until the next General Conference in 1968.

When will Her Majesty's Government make some stand against the corrosion of international standards by international organisations? Should not U.N.E.S.C.O. be at the service of all member countries, irrespective of ideology or régime, and did not this proposal, in fact, come from member States, which are themselves receiving very considerable aid?

We made that clear and, indeed, we voted against the decision on constitutional grounds so far as Portugal is concerned, because as a member State of U.N.E.S.C.O., she had the right to be there.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he has now made a further allocation of funds for the British Virgin Islands; and if he will make a statement.

I understand the need to make the new Colonial Development and Welfare allocations for 1968 to 1970 as early as possible, but I cannot say at present when we shall be able to do this.

Does the Minister realise that if more investment could possibly go into the British Virgin Islands—and I recognise the Government's difficulties here—it would make the islands much more viable and they would not need further aid? Secondly, will he inform the Chancellor that the British Virgin Islands would be great dollar earners if we put the necessary investment into them?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the second part of that supplementary question. As to the first part, I agree that our objective is to get the islands in a state of viable economy as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development by how much he proposes to increase British economic aid to the under-developed countries during 1967.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave on 12th December to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd).—[Vol. 738, c. 32–3.]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that showed not an increase but a reduction in British aid to under-developed countries? Does not he think that if he is to make this reduction, it is most unfortunate that he should take it out on overseas students?

The responsibility of my Department is to ensure that overseas students' fees are met adequately. We recognise the difficulties that confront other countries but we have a right to see that our own economy is sound first. If we cannot do that, we cannot help others.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, as far as the West Indies are concerned, for example, nothing of great importance will be held up as a result of these cuts in the next year?

As far as all countries are concerned, consistent with our ability to meet their wishes, we shall do so.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect the U.N.C.T.A.D. Agreement of 1964, whereby the Government agreed to allocate I per cent. of the gross national product to overseas aid? Does not the figure recently announced show that we are falling below that 1 per cent.?

That is not so. We reached the figure of 1·17 per cent. in the past year, and I am confident that in the current year the figure will also be about 1 per cent.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what money has been given to Tonga to help with the rebuilding of the general hospital and other projects since December, 1966.

None so far this year. A request for £219,600 for the new hospital was received early in January and is now being considered.

There was a slight misprint in the Question. The year should have been 1965 and not 1966. What did the right hon. Gentleman's representative report to him with regard to education, particularly the teachers' training college and the printing press? Will he help with either?

The report is being considered and in due course I hope to be able to give the hon. Lady a satisfactory reply.

Will my right hon. Friend seek the co-operation of the Secretary of State for Defence in order to ensure that the £800,000-odd a year which we are now spending on building military airfields in Siam is spent instead on building a hospital in Tonga so as to save life rather than destroy it?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's supplementary question will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what money has been allocated to the still dependent territories, and for what projects, in 1966.

About £28 million. This includes budgetary aid, development grants and loans, technical assistance and C.D.C. investment.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Does not he think it very important to see that the territories that are still dependent on us, and therefore cannot ask us personally for aid, are well equipped for the time they become independent? We are, after all, facing this difficulty at the present time, when territories in the West Indies are getting independence without being properly equipped.

I am conscious of the importance of this matter. My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and I are in constant touch.

When will it be possible to make the statement foreshadowed by the Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs, on Second Reading of the West Indies Bill on Monday about continued assistance to the Leeward and Windward Islands after their new associated status takes effect?

We have never shirked our responsibilities to dependent territories both before and after independence.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps have been considered to offset the extra cost to developing countries of the decision to treble fees for overseas students in Great Britain.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps he is taking to provide additional assistance to overseas students accepted for places in institutions of higher education in this country whose fees are now to be raised.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development to what extent his Department will meet the increased fees now payable by Commonwealth students at universities and colleges of further education in this country.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action his Department will take to provide additional assistance to overseas students at universities and colleges in this country in view of the recent increase in fees.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 20th January. In order to minimise any possible difficulties arising for students who will not benefit from the measures I described in that reply, the announcement of the increases was made at the earliest possible moment and before most institutions of higher education normally begin to notify students of their acceptance.—[Vol. 739; c. 147–48.]

Would not my hon. Friend agree that this must be seen in the context of the declining priority given by the Government to overseas aid generally? If we accept the move towards political independence as being worth while, we must provide the trained personnel to run independent countries, and future students are as important as present students.

I agree that there is a clear connection between this question and that of aid policy generally, but it is not the case that there is a declining will on the part of the Government in respect of aid to developing countries. There was, of course, a reduction connected with the measures announced on 20th July, but the basis for this is that no aid programme can succeed unless the home economy is sound and secure.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what percentage of students from developing Commonwealth countries will have their extra charges defrayed by his Department? What is to happen to those who, in the middle of courses, find they have not the means to meet the economic charge? Was this not a breach of faith with them by the Government?

The total of those affected is about 25,000, and some 6,000 students have their fees financed by their own Governments. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, be able to do the arithmetic himself. With regard to the private students, they are not a direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend but of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to whom the hon. Gentleman should put his question about them.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report on the serious effect this increase may well have on future enrolments at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine? In view of the value of certain courses, particularly to overseas students, will the hon. Gentleman consider giving grants to this institution so that the whole cost of overseas students attending certain courses may be defrayed?

It has been indicated in earlier replies that it will be open to overseas Governments to submit suggestions about students whom they wish to sponsor, and these will be open to consideration by my Ministry.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that overseas students are not only the most economical but the best ambassadors that this country has, and that the decision recently announced is resented by both sides of the House? Would he perhaps recommend this decision to the Secretary of State for Education and Science as a suitable candidate for any new abortion legislation?

I agree about the great value of having students from overseas in our educational institutions. I believe, however, that the effect of the proposed measures has been considerably exaggerated in the recent controversy.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, of all forms of aid, this is one of the most useful and important? Would he not agree that the main burden of this cut will fall on those least able to bear it?

I agree that this is an important form of aid, which is why we have made arrangements to ensure that those students for whom my Department is responsible do not suffer, nor the Governments who send them here. Questions about private students are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Is it not the case that this policy is equivalent to eating the seed corn and can prove, in the end, far more expensive and, indeed, dangerous if implemented at this stage? Will my hon. Friend make every effort to get the Secretary of State to rethink this myopic and dangerous proposal?

I assure my hon. Friend that consultations have taken place between our two Departments, with a satisfactory outcome for the students for whom our Department is responsible.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he has considered the effect upon developing countries of the increased fees for their students in the United Kingdom; and whether, in the light of this, he will take action to increase the capacity of universities particularly in the newer Commonwealth Dominions.

We cannot yet predict the precise effects but the situation will be watched. Substantial assistance has been given over the years to develop capacity in overseas institutions of higher education and we expect to continue this work in future.

Does not my hon. Friend accept the view that this unpopular and backward financial step of cutting aid will hit many nations particularly in Africa where, as he knows, many villages and clans club together to send their best boys over here for education? Will he consider stepping up the number of teachers?

We are constantly seeking to recruit teachers for service overseas and providing funds on a generous scale for establishment and expansion of educational institutions there.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what initiative the Government have taken in trying to establish a World Food Board on the lines proposed by Lord Boyd-Orr.

This is one of the possibilities being considered under a comprehensive study of multilateral food aid instituted by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations which the British Government supported.

When does my hon. Friend expect some result from these consultations?

It is a matter for United Nations procedure. I cannot give any date as to when we can expect results.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development why he has refused to help the Government of Malawi with their proposal to establish their capital at Lilongwe.

The British Government believe that in the deployment of British aid priority needs to be given at this stage to the most productive development which will help to reduce Malawi's present dependence on Britain for budgetary aid.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Malawi, which has a most responsible record, as he would agree, in financial matters, has attached a high priority to having the capital of the country near the centre of the country, so as to be able to encourage and stimulate development? Will he think about this again?

I accept what has been said about the President and the Executive of that country, but we agreed with the British Economic Mission's recommendation, after it had been to that country, that the building of the capital should be deferred. At the moment, the British Government meet between one-quarter and one-third of Malawi's total budgetary aid expenditure. We believe that the emphasis should be, first, on the kind of development which will relieve that kind of pressure.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the mathematical dead centre is not always the best nodal point for any country's capital?

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what further precise details are now available of where the cuts in the overseas development programme are to be made; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 19th January.—[Vol. 739; c. 116.]

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is unsatisfactory that we as a House should be expected to approve cuts without knowing their practical implications, territory by territory? Further, would he not agree that to plead current economic difficulties is shortsighted, because increased world purchasing power is so much in our long-term economic interests?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that when aid is discussed, it is between the donor and the recipient, and not until a decision is reached is it in a form which can be presented to the House. When that time comes, it will be so presented.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that his attitude in replies to Questions on overseas aid this afternoon is in direct contrast to the attitude which he took when on these benches? Is it not time that the Government tried to implement in action what they have promised before General Elections?

The aid programme under the previous Government and this Government has been expanding each year. It is a policy on which both sides agree. Temporarily, because of economic difficulties, there has not been that continual expansion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall also the successful Conference at Geneva in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took a leading part, in which Great Britain, along with other nations, was going to adopt expansive plans for helping the undeveloped countries? We were told by the Prime Minister that this is in the United Nations. Is it just being left there?

No, Sir. The U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference had said that it was desirable that all the developed countries should give one per cent. of their national income to help in such a programme. The British Government have exceeded that, and I am fairly confident that we shall do so in future.

As a considerable amount of the money which we grant to these countries goes in the form of buildings like hospitals and houses, will my right hon. Friend consult the Minister of Technology to see if we cannot devise a new method of constructing prefabricated buildings like hospitals in such places as the Congo with wood and plastic materials? This is possible and would be a better method of giving grants than money in certain cases.

We are constantly studying ideas of this kind in our own research organisation in the Ministry. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions, I should be glad to hear of them.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what consideration he gave to the effect that his decision to reduce British overseas aid in the year 1967–68 will have upon opinion in Africa; and if he will make a statement.

The recipients of our aid are well aware that the amount we are able to give depends upon our own economic strength and I am sure they will understand the reasons for our decision about the level of the aid target next year.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that a 10 per cent. cut is minimal in terms of this country's economic position and is well understood to be so in Africa? Since so large a proportion of our aid is directed there, the effect which it is bound to have on African opinion must far outweigh the advantages to our economy of such a small saving.

We are making a large contribution to African development and the discussions which we are having continually with African countries show that they accept that we have our difficulties but that they recognise that we are doing our best.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to think to earn gratitude by aid is not a good basis for it, but that to seek to lay the foundations of productive enterprise of all sorts is to the interests of both the giver and the receiver?

I hope that this point of view is shared by both sides of the House.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if the cuts in British overseas aid foreshadowed for 1967–68 indicate a reduction in Her Majesty's Government's preparedness to assist developing countries; and if he will give an undertaking that the programme of aid will not suffer further cuts in subsequent years.

Her Majesty's Government remain prepared and anxious to assist developing countries as far as our resources permit. I think the House understands that the economic crisis of last summer did require some restraint on overseas expenditure of all kinds. Resources for aid in future years will depend on our economic circumstances and I cannot forecast them now.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that that is a disappointing Answer, particularly in the light of his Answer to the previous Question, since one of the greatest dangers, now that the programme has been cut, is that people abroad, particularly in Africa, will feel that this is a reversal of the previous trend of ever-increasing aid to which he referred earlier?

I imagine that my hon. Friend has read the recent White Paper on overseas development, which shows what has been done. We will keep that up, to the extent which is possible consistent with our economic difficulties, but he will no doubt agree that the introduction of interest-free loans and improvements of that kind mean that aid, if not in substance, has in fact increased.

How far are the Answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given this afternoon to this and other Questions on the subject consistent with the Labour Party's 1964 manifesto, which promised to increase the share of our national income devoted to essential aid programmes?

As I explained, we are meeting the requirements laid down by the United Nations. We should like to do more, but in present economic circumstances it is not possible.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will publish a summary of the terms and conditions under which Her Majesty's Government grants and loans were made to the Government of Kenya for the Million Acre Scheme and the subsequent 400,000 Acre Scheme, respectively.

The terms of our financial assistance for both schemes are set out in the Civil Estimates Class II, 9. So far as the Million Acre Scheme is concerned, further information is contained in the 1962–63 annual report of the Settlement Fund Trustees of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. The 400,000 acre scheme has begun to be implemented, but the Memorandum of Understanding which sets out the detailed conditions governing this scheme has not yet been signed by the two Governments. As soon as this has taken place I will be glad to inform the hon. Member of the main points of this Memorandum.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is upset over the terms of the valuation of both these schemes? Are these terms of valuation readily available to people in Kenya? Will he bear in mind that the Land Bank has been closed for six months, which makes the transfer of land extremely difficult?

I am told that the terms of valuation are available to the people in Kenya.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the progress of compassionate land purchase schemes for British residents in Kenya.

As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 18th October last—[Vol. 734: c. 30]—Her Majesty's Government have provided an interest-free loan to the Kenya Government to enable them to offer to purchase the farms of the remaining 18 outstanding cases. Six of these have so far accepted the offers. Nineteen of the previous round of cases have now accepted offers.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that as people get older, this becomes a continuing liability? Is a new scheme being worked out to compensate such people who may be security risks or who become infirm in the next few years, but who are not now on the list?

A new scheme has not been worked out, but there is provision for the consideration of compassionate cases.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total amount of United Kingdom aid given to Rhodesia, apart from the contribution to the University College in Salisbury; and for what purposes it was granted.

Since 1953 loans totalling £4,855,000 have been made for African housing and education and for general development; and grants of £6,569,000 have been given, of which £4 million was to help Rhodesia with her share of the ex-Federal public debt and the balance mainly for capital development at the University College. These figures do not include the payments which are still being made to the University College in support of its recurrent costs.

Is it not then the case that standards of living and social services which compare favourably with nearly every other part of Africa have been achieved in Rhodesia by the efforts of all races in that country, with very little help from the United Kingdom?

I think that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, because of the economic development in Rhodesia, there has not been the same need for the help given in other parts of Africa. The quarrel with Rhodesia is not about its economic development but its constitutional form.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development to what extent he is prepared to reduce the tying of aid if other donor countries would do the same; and whether he will initiate discussions with the principal donor countries with a view to bringing about such a change in aid policy.

Agreed progress in this direction would be welcome. Various countries' balance of payments problems, including our own, have inhibited recent discussions and make it difficult for us to give a lead.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that most donor countries pay lip-service to the idea of untying aid but that nobody seems to be prepared to do much for fear that others will not? Will he, therefore, initiate discussions with the main donor countries with the aim of securing a common change of policy which would be helpful to the beneficiaries?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that at the Colombo Plan meeting and at the Asian Development Bank conference I did discuss these matters. We can only hope that discussions among the various delegates to these conferences will, in due course, bear fruit.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the net cost to this country in foreign currency of the Government's programme of overseas aid, taking into account interest and loan repayments, payments to pensioners living in this country, and exports resulting from tied grants and loans.

It is not practicable to calculate the foreign currency cost of the whole aid programme. We have made estimates of the foreign exchange cost of marginal changes in the programme, which might affect decisions on its size. As is made clear in paragraph 61 of Cmnd. 3180, only about one-third —or rather more in certain circumstances—of a change in the size of the programme would have a direct effect on our balance of payments.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that before cutting the aid programme on the grounds of balance of payments difficulties, one should conduct a careful analysis into the foreign currency costs of that programme?

The difficulty is that we cannot say what other use might have been made of the goods and services supplied as aid. It is on this basis that we must try to find out the true situation, and it is really impossible to do it.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how the net total of overseas aid in the current year, allowing for interest and loan repayments, compares with the net total in 1960–61.

The net total of Government aid in 1960–61 was £126·5 million. The outturn for this year is not yet known. The latest year for which we have a figure is 1965–66, when it was £153·7 million.

Does this very small increase over this five-year period make good the considerably increased salaries involved in overseas services in the last five years, also bearing in mind the increase in the price of goods which go to make up aid?

I repeat, regarding the question of aid generally, that the interest payments in the past coupled with the present reduction in interest receipts, means that, in the aggregate, more aid is being given.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what consideration he gives, in negotiating agreements for the provision of tied aid to developing countries, to the relative economic efficiency of the British industry which is to supply the goods concerned.

We try to ensure that development needs are met by the supply of goods and services which are well and economically produced in this country.

In that case, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be most dangerous and wasteful if money used in tied aid were ever to become a subsidy to inefficient industry and a barrier to necessary structural change in our economy?

I agree, and our endeavour is to see that that is avoided. The countries concerned, which place the orders, not only see that the right tenders are accepted but that the types of goods they require are supplied.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what total of British private investment in developing countries will need to be achieved in the year 1967–68 if the flow of financial resources from Great Britain to those countries is to achieve the level of one per cent. of national income in that year.

I regret that no precise answer can be given since a number of the factors involved, such as the level of national income, can only be estimated. It is, however, my expectation that we shall meet the one per cent. target.

While appreciating that the Minister does not have the faintest idea of what the G.N.P. will be in 12 months' time, assuming that he wishes to achieve a figure of 1 per cent. and to see that level maintained—although it is a quite arbitrary and meaningless figure in economic terms—how can he expect private enterprise to increase its investment in developing countries if the Government persist in pursuing their present policies?

In view of the economic situation and the way in which it affects both Government aid and private investment overseas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—it is hoped that, despite our economic difficulties, both Government aid and private investment will be increased.

Does this Question make any sense at all, bearing in mind that if one looks carefully at the two parts of it they appear to have no connection whatever?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman's task of finding 1 per cent. of the national income for this purpose being made progressively easier for him by the successful efforts of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the national income?

Answer.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development in view of the useful rôle of the International Development Association in improving the effectiveness of aid and his aim to make British aid, with its reduced target for 1967, more effective, he will increase Great Britain's subscription to the Association.

Our 1967 contribution was settled in 1964 at £11·5 million. Future contributions will have to be settled in fresh negotiations with the World Bank and the donors.

Would not the Minister consider this a sad retreat from the brave statements made when the Ministry was established? What is he doing to fulfil the pledge to increase the proportion of multilateral aid in the total aid programme of Her Majesty's Government.

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I refresh his memory by reminding him that in a Written Reply on 25th January I stated:

"Her Majesty's Government take the view that the funds of I.D.A. should be substantially replenished, but their future size is still for negotiation between the World Bank and the contributors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 313.]

Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the clear undertaking given in the Labour Party's manifesto to increase the share of the gross national product which would be devoted to overseas aid? How can he square his conscience and the replies he has been giving to this and previous Questions with that promise given only a few months ago?

I repeat what I have said on several occasions; that both sides of the House are agreed that we should go on expanding our aid programme. [Interruption.] Certainly most hon. Members take that view. In this case it has been expanding continually, although at the moment, temporarily, there has been a halt in that expansion but, like most hon. Members, I hope that, in due course, the expansion will continue.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid will be given to the Government of the United Arab Republic during 1967–68.

My Ministry has at present no plans to give aid to the United Arab Republic during 1967–68.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a financial team from Egypt is in Britain asking for substantial extensions of credit? Why should we contemplate giving massive financial help to the U.A.R. when we are cutting down so sharply on our Maltese friends?

It must have escaped the notice of the hon. Member that we are not in diplomatic relations with the U.A.R., and therefore the question as put by him does not arise.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many teaching hospitals have now established links for the exchange of staff and ideas with overseas medical schools; if he will publish a list of such links in the OFFICIAL REPORT; and what action he is taking to extend this form of assistance.

I am publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the 11 teaching hospitals, which are now exchanging staff with overseas medical schools on a continuing basis, but as the record of proceedings of the Edinburgh Commonwealth Medical Conference shows, this is only part of the valuable associations which are developing between medical institutions here and overseas.

I am grateful for the effort that has been made by the Ministry and doctors to increase this kind of work. Can my hon. Friend say if he is obtaining any assurances from his right hon. Friends who are in charge of health and education with a view to making sure that doctors who go overseas do not lose their places in the career structure on this side as a result of going overseas?

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now make a detailed statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on incomes after the end of the present 12-months' period.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he intends to publish a White Paper dealing with the Government's prices and incomes policy after 1st July.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a statement of Government intentions on the incomes policy it will pursue after the period of severe restraint ends in July.

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a detailed statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on incomes and dividends after the end of the period of severe restraint.

This is a matter to which we are constantly giving attention, in co-operation with my right hon. Friends. They, in fact, participated in the Edinburgh Conference to which I referred in my original Answer.

Consultations are now taking place with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress about the criteria which should govern prices and incomes behaviour after the period of severe restraint. The Government will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern felt by many wage and salary earners and the trade union movement in this matter? Could he give a pledge that the present freeze will not be extended beyond July, and will he deny that there will be crippling powers which would undermine trade union normal collective bargaining?

There is no question of extending the freeze after this particular period. We are in consultation with the C.B.I. and the unions on the other matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if Part IV lapses in July this year and needs statutory authority to extend it, he will give a definite pledge in relation to his earlier Answer that it is not intended to introduce legislation to extend in any way Part IV?

As I tried to intimate, the general principle is that we consult first and decide after.

As the Minister knows, the T.U.C. has already made its views very clear on this matter, and I understand the C.B.I. has as well. Therefore, what are the Government waiting for now in their own declaration?

Despite the admiration we all feel for the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., I feel sure that my hon. Friend would not suggest that they had taken over the government of the country.

Whether compulsory wage fixing is continued or not, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep dissatisfaction that is felt at the moment about the exemption of large classes of wage-earners whose salaries are fixed by annual increments? Whatever system follows the present system, will he do something to remove this anomally which is annoying millions of workers?

I quite agree that the system of free collective bargaining has produced anomalies of that type. We seek to remedy them by our policy.

Further to the point made in the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government continue to pursue their policy as they have done, the trade union movement will withdraw their support and there will not be a Labour Government afterwards? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Hon. Members opposite seem to think that that is the only chance they have of getting rid of a Labour Government. Already in my Answers I have explained that we are in the closest contact with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., and I am quite certain that as a result we shall get the right answer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Government utterances on this subject seem to pile confusion on obscurity? Can he explain what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House meant by his reference to new experiments between State planning and collective bargaining, as it seems humbug to us?

I know that the party opposite is adept at producing confusion. We must point to the fact that in the last six months of this Government's policy living standards have been maintained at a more stable level than in any period prior to that.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position on Rhodesia.

I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on 19th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 648.]

Could the Prime Minister tell us when it is likely that there will be a progress report on the effects of United Nations mandatory sanctions? After all the time he has been involved in this particular question of Rhodesia and looking back over the last two and a half years, does he feel that if the Conservative Opposition had played straight on the issue it would have been easier to have ended U.D.I.?

On the first point, my hon. Friend will be aware, of course, that a report is due on the functioning of sanctions, I think, next month at the United Nations. With regard to the second question, certainly the confusion among hon. Members opposite has not helped in these matters, but I think the problems are too deep-seated and we are dealing with men who are far too intransigent for this to have been the issue. It is, of course, a fact that in Mr. Smith's mind—and he was only too ready to accept what he was repeatedly told in the period after the "Tiger" talks—the Labour Government would be out in three months and the Conservatives would be there to give him what he wanted.

What is the latest position regarding the bank notes manufactured in Germany for the illegal régime? Do powers exist to prevent the export of those notes to Rhodesia?

I think this is subject to appeal and is sub judice and I ought not to make any comment on it.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the genuine and continuing doubt felt among many lawyers as to the basis and validity of the Government's reference of this matter to the United Nations and the consequential action under Chapter VII, which has not been dispelled by the statement of the Lord Chancellor in another place? Will he therefore take steps to see if an advisory opinion cannot be considered from the International Court?

I am aware that some lawyers, including the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), take those views. I shall certainly inform the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with him, but for my part I accept the authority of the Lord Chancellor in this matter.

The Prime Minister will have seen the most recent speech by Mr. Smith in Salisbury in which he indicated that he and his colleagues were considering moving towards an entirely fresh constitution for Rhodesia, that some aspects of this constitution indicate a movement towards apartheid, which would be most undesirable, and that this only confirms the fears which so many of us on this side of the House have held for a long time. May I put this question to the Prime Minister? In these circumstances, is he prepared to allow the general situation to go on developing without taking any action of any kind whatever and only waiting for the report of U Thant at the United Nations?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing concern about the move to apartheid and also the hints of a republic, but it was not this side of the House which voted to support the rejection of the "Tiger" agreement by Mr. Smith when we all now know that Mr. Smith wanted the "Tiger" agreement and was over-ridden by the very extremists who were encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister may go on trying to deceive the rest of the world about what—[Interruption.] All he is doing is succeeding in deceiving himself. Will the Prime Minister now address himself to the question and give the House a serious answer?

I do not deceive myself about the right hon. Gentleman's vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman's preamble first and then reply to his question. I do not deceive myself about the right hon. Gentleman's vote, which is on the record in this House, and which he could have avoided by an honest Amendment to our Motion.

asked the Prime Minister what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the submission to Parliament of any settlement with Rhodesia which involves independence before majority rule.

The position is as set out in the Answers I gave to Questions on 20th December.—[Vol. 738, c. 1175.]

Is it right to say that the conditions laid down in paragraph 10 of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué refers to an illegal régime? Would the Prime Minister make quite clear what are the conditions under which a return to legality is possible? Is it a return to the 1961 Constitution—nothing more and nothing less?

I have answered this question on previous occasions. The answer to the first part of the Question is that paragraph 10 of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué, both (a) and (b), is now in force. With regard to a return to constitutionality and an ending of the illegal régime, they could go back immediately to the 1961 Constitution and we could negotiate from there. This has been made clear in previous answers.

Will my right hon. Friend now consider calling a conference with other African leaders, in view of the serious situation and the whole question of Rhodesia, which is now a world matter and not merely a British matter?

I am not sure if my hon. Friend means a conference of African leaders in Rhodesia. I dealt with that question in answer to Questions the other day. If he is referring to African Commonwealth leaders, this matter was discussed very fully and at great length as recently as September. We are in the closest touch with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, both in Africa and more widely.

The Prime Minister was prepared a few weeks ago to contemplate independence before majority rule. Is it a fact that he is now not prepared to contemplate independence before majority rule under any Government whatsoever in Rhodesia?

Yes, Sir. I made that perfectly plain in my statement on 20th December. After a very hard fight with the Commonwealth, when the whole future of the Commonwealth was at stake, we secured their reluctant agreement to three months more to try to get an agreement with Mr. Smith and his colleagues or anyone else in Rhodesia, because my right hon. Friend met sections of all opinion there. This was wantonly rejected by the Rhodesians after they had every chance, on the basis of proposals which many people would have felt went a very long way on our behalf. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too far."] Many, including many Commonwealth leaders, would have felt they went too far. We went to the limit in trying to reach an agreement. We had exhausted the three months. I was not prepared to go on seeing the risk of the Commonwealth being destroyed for a bunch of racialists in Rhodesia.

Does that mean that, whoever might be the Government of Rhodesia, the terms from now on are unconditional surrender?

No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman, most unusually, is talking nonsense here. There is no question of unconditional surrender. The only surrender we are asking for is the surrender of an illegal rebellion. That is what we are asking for. We asked for it on the "Tiger" and offered some very attractive terms, in some ways more attractive than the Conservative Government's 1961 Constitution, which the Conservative Government rightly said was never a basis for independence. We went to great lengths to secure a package which would have meant the end of a rebellion. They decided that their rebellion was more important than an agreement.

Did not the Prime Minister say just now that he would not concede independence to any Government before majority rule?

The right hon. Gentleman must have studied many times, because he has made important speeches on this, the statement of the Commonwealth Conference which on 20th December I said was in force. That statement said that we would not commend to the House proposals which would involve independence for Rhodesia ahead of majority rule. I said that on 20th December. [HON. MEMBERS: "Any Government?"] Certainly any Government—independence for Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman knew this perfectly well on 20th December. I remember his comments at the time. So far as that is concerned, the Rhodesian people, a legal Rhodesian Government, could enjoy all the very extensive degree of self-government that they had had before independence, but they chose rebellion as their course and they rejected the idea of deserting that rebellion. At the end of the day rebellion was more important than independence.

Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realise, as apparently right hon. Members opposite fail to realise, that, if a legal Government were formed in Rhodesia, we should expect that Government to act legally?

Yes. The very basis of a return to legality would mean that we would then be dealing with a legal Government in Rhodesia. The difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House is that we draw a sharp distinction between legality and illegality, as my right hon. Friend does. We should be able to negotiate with them, I hope, to get improvements in the Constitution—improvements, I hope, to take account of some of the "Tiger" proposals. We would be prepared to discuss easements that they might feel helpful. But Rhodesia chose independence and rebellion, and right hon. Members opposite backed them in their choice.

Leaving aside the Prime Minister's last ridiculous sentence, is the Prime Minister really saying that, if there were to be a moderate Government in Rhodesia who accepted the constitutional proposals worked out on the "Tiger", with suitable interim arrangements, he would not then be prepared to go back to the Commonwealth and see whether independence could be granted before African majority rule? Is that what he is really saying?

The right hon. Gentleman really must not work himself up into a rage on something—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which he has known to be the position since 20th December and which he has known would be the position from the Commonwealth communiqué. Indeed, he made an appeal to the Rhodesian people to reject the Commonwealth communiqué and he got his answer. He can now be landed with the answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered his question three times this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand it, I will tell him again. The position is, as I said on 20th December, that we have now withdrawn any suggestion that we can commend to the House independence ahead of majority rule for Rhodesia. We said it in September. They had three months. We said it in December, against the right hon. Gentleman. We have been saying it ever since, and some day the right hon. Gentleman will realise what it means.

I put this direct question to the Prime Minister, because I believe that it is of immense importance. If there is a moderate Government coming to power in Rhodesia who are prepared to accept the constitution worked out on the "Tiger", with suitable interim arrangements, will the Prime Minister then go back to the Commonwealth and ask them whether it is possible to arrange for independence before African majority rule?

While the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a moderate Government may be different from mine, he has correctly stated the position. We are operating the agreement made by the Commonwealth. If the right hon. Gentleman would now start to use his influence to get a moderate Government accepted —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered the question. If the right hon. Gentleman, for a change, would now encourage the forces of moderation, if a new situation were created, of course we would discuss it at the next Commonwealth Conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Of course we would discuss the situation, as we always shall be discussing the Rhodesian situation, at the next Commonwealth Conference. But we are bound by the agreement with the Commonwealth, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should now help to get a moderate Government and stop[Interruption.]—by his votes and by his speeches supporting the extremists who rejected moderation.

Order. We cannot argue by noise.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will implement the recommendations contained in paragraphs 106 and 107 of the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee on Government Statistical Services relating to the possibility of upgrading the post of Director of the Central Statistical Office and to the position of the Central Statistical Office in the Government machine.

I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 20th January to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).—[Vol. 739, c. 156.]

With apologies for asking a somewhat anticlimactic question, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the Estimates Committee's Report shows that at the moment the needs of the Departments which use statistics are not properly taken into account by the Departments which collect them and that this is why this point about the C.S.O. is so important? Will he, therefore, give an assurance that, when a Government statement is made on this matter, this point will be covered in it?

Yes, Sir. There will be a reply from the Treasury to the Estimates Committee in the normal way in the near future. We are considering this very urgently. I do not think that the main question is the position of the C.S.O. I think that the main problem is how far it will be possible to get the additional figures which ire required for economic purposes and for the purposes of the House, as well as of the Government, without adding unduly to the burden on the firms concerned. If we can do something to rationalise the collection of some of these statistics and lessen the burden, that will be a very useful by-product of this exercise.