asked the Minister of Overseas Development what have been the proportions of tied and untied official aid expended since November, 1967.

In 1968 about 58 per cent. of the bilateral financial aid spent on goods and services was tied. This represented about 39 per cent. of the total official aid disbursed.

Irrespective of any general results of devaluation on the effectiveness of British aid, is it true that devaluation has resulted in a net reduction of 15 per cent. in the available purchasing power of recipient countries of British non-tied aid spent elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, and how is this effect recorded in the official figures?

It is not specifically recorded. Indeed, it is not a fact. Devaluation did not reduce the amount which could be bought here with our tied aid.

Non-tied aid.

Nor did it reduce the value of our budgetary aid and local cost aid in those countries which devalued at the same time as did. Our multilateral aid, defined in dollar terms and untied, clearly did not diminish in value. There was some diminution in untied aid. I can write to the hon. Gentleman if he cares, but the figures are rather more complex than can be dealt with in a single Answer.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, nevertheless, that tied aid adds a considerable cost to recipient countries?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will be aware that the whole question of tying or untying aid is one of the points on which there will clearly be many international discussions in the context of the specific Pearson recommendation on the subject.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what discussions she had with the Indonesian Foreign Minister on the question of the provision of coastal shipping and marine spare parts to Indonesia.

This was not raised by the Indonesian Government, although our discussions covered several other matters of technical assistance and capital aid to Indonesia.

What other matters were discussed? Is it realised that the great Indonesian problem is perhaps help to the outer islands, and that this is perhaps the optimum form of aid that many people in Indonesia think that we could give?

As my hon. Friend knows, it is a Government-to-Government matter, and we discuss with Governments what proposals they wish to make to us. This was not one of them. I discussed with Mr. Malik and later with Mr. Sumitro the whole of our technical assistance and capital aid programme, but this was not a specific matter raised by them.

Did the right hon. Lady discuss during those talks the question of the estimated £200 million of British assets which have been seized by Indonesia and for which no compensation has been paid?

This was not a matter for me, so, quite correctly, it will no doubt be raised in discussions held with colleagues of mine.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development in what ways she is facilitating co-operation between British and Indonesian universities.

The initiative for establishing associations between universities rests with the universities themselves. I am not aware of any such association between British and Indonesian universities but can always consider requests from Governments for training for students and for help with exchange visits of staff.

Has the Department allocated any funds for such contacts?

Not at present. We do not allocate funds in advance of requests for specific aid in particular matters.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she has concluded her study of the Pearson Report on Overseas Aid; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what conclusions she has reached following her study of the Report of the Pearson Commission.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in view of the decision of the Federal German Government to endeavour to attain the aim envisaged in the Pearson Report, by increasing the public share in development aid by an annual rate of 11 per cent., if she will now make a statement on the Government's proposals for reaching the Pearson target for Government aid of 0.7 per cent. of our gross national product by 1975.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development when she expects to make a statement on the level of the aid programme for 1971–72 and the two subsequent years.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development by what stages Her Majesty's Government propose to increase net overseas aid so as to reach the target set by the Pearson Commission by 1975.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what reply she has given to the Churches' Action for World Development representation that the United Kingdom achieve by 1972 the target of one per cent. of the gross national product for overseas aid, with at least three-quarters allocated in the form of effective Government aid; and if she will now make a statement of Government policy in this matter.

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which I hope to make later today.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the total value of United Kingdom overseas aid, both official and private, in the past five fears together; and if she will estimate how many new jobs this created.

Net official aid and private flows of resources in the years 1964 and 1968 together totalled £1, 667 million. I cannot estimate how many new jobs have been created in recipient countries as a result.

In view of the importance of the aid programme in creating new jobs, is it not time the Government made an investigation into its success in doing this?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the essential need to concentrate our aid to a considerable extent on creating employment, because of the great difficulty that as one has rural development one often creates rural unemployment. But many other factors affect this, and it is not possible to find a precise relationship between our aid and the number of jobs created. If other factors were not involved, I would be very happy to do the investigation that the hon. Gentleman would like.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what Government assistance is offered to local pensioners of the Zanzibar Government, resident outside Zanzibar, whose pensions are in default.

We have made, and continue to make representations to the Tanzanian Government on behalf of the pensioners concerned.

As the Tanzanian Government have not the slightest intention of paying these pensions, are not our Government under at least a moral obligation to look after those who have served Colonial Governments extremely well in the past and who have now hit very hard times? Is not it dishonourable just to leave them like that?

I think that to use the word "dishonourable" is going much too far. As the hon. Gentleman knows my predecessor had and I have a great deal of sympathy on this point. We have made very recent representations. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did so to the authorities involved on 28th October. My difficulty is that I do not have any funds to help these local pensioners. It is a very difficult situation which I fully recognise. I wish I could help, but, frankly, I am not in a position to be able to do so at this moment.

The right hon. Lady tells us that to use the word "dishonourable" is to go too far. This is a default of obligation, and surely obligations of this sort should have a priority?

I would totally resist that adjective applied to the British Government in this case. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Zanzibar Government."] That is a very different matter. I took the word to be used in a rather different context. Of course it is serious and a matter of very great anxiety that people who have served in a public capacity in any country should not be able to draw the pensions to which they are entitled.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are former Zanzibar officers living in this country who are drawing public assistance? Does not she think that this is a very grave reflection on the Government, and will she look into this matter again and take action?

Again, one gets the reflection on our Government. I am glad that we are able to substitute for a pension some assistance from our own funds for a former colonial servant who is now living in Britain. The difficulty is that those who are not living here cannot be helped in such a way. I wish this were not so.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress has been made with the representations made to the Pakistani Government about the extinguishment of the pensions of former Pakistani Navy officers consequent upon their becoming United Kingdom citizens.

The matter is still under consideration by the Government of Pakistan, who are being pressed for an early reply.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the full extent of the disappointment felt in this country at the attitude of the Government of Pakistan has been conveyed to them? Is she aware of the feeling here that such pensions are a form of deferred pay and that it is dishonest for the Pakistan Government to withhold this money? Will she represent that view to them with vigour?

As my hon. Friend knows, there have been formal and informal representations made throughout the year by the British High Commission in Pakistan. The High Commissioner has himself taken up the matter only this week, and many of the points mentioned by my hon. Friend are being expressed to the Pakistan Government. Certainly the feeling which he has expressed has been conveyed to them.

As one who, believe it or not, is a pensioner of the Pakistan Government, which I had the honour to serve, may I ask the right hon. Lady if she will vigorously take up this matter with the new High Commissioner and, if necessary, will she receive Members of this House interested in this matter if her representations to the new High Commissioner are not successful?

As the hon. Gentleman recognises, the responsibility for conveying representations to the Pakistan Government has rested with our High Commissioner and with my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I am in close contact with them and, if it would be helpful at any point for me, as distinct from one of my colleagues there, to receive hon. Members, I shall be delighted to do so.

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

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will seek to initiate discussions on the next replenishment of the International Development Association.

It is for Mr. McNamara, the President of the Association, to initiate such discussions rather than myself. He has recently visited London, and I understand that the first meeting on the subject between the I.D.A. and the potential contributors is likely to be held next month.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask if she is aware that, in the view of the Pearson Commission, the I.D.A has done a thoroughly efficient and valuable job in the dispersal of aid and it is a matter of urgency that concrete discussions should start this year or early in 1970?

Yes indeed, and I am certain that Mr. McNamara will be taking fully into account the Pearson Commission recommendations as he now formulates his proposals for the form and size of the next replenishment. I am equally certain that there will be no delay in proceeding with this matter.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans she has for increasing the aid given to the International Planned Parenthood Federation; and what other steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to assist in the solution of the problem of population growth in under-developed countries.

I have been making a special study of aid to developing countries in evolving and applying their population policies, including support for the very important activities of multilateral agencies such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation. I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government are giving £100,000 to the Federation and, if that is so, what proportion of the total is it? Does she agree that this is probably the most important problem of the under-developed areas and, unless we solve it, further aid would be like trying to go up a down escalator?

My hon. Friend's figure is not quite right. My Ministry is at present making a grant of £50,000 a year to the Federation and this is to be continued for five years. We are now considering what further assistance we can give, and it is on this that I may be able to make a statement later. On my hon. Friend's second point, I would be very happy to send to him, if I may, a copy of the speech which I made two weeks ago at the meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, in which I dealt very strongly with this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Estimates Committee in looking at overseas aid was most concerned about the emphasis which her Ministry was laying on having its own organisation for this? The Estimates Committee felt that it would be better for this to be done by international co-operation rather than by a specialised national agency.

This is very much in my mind in the study which I am making.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on British aid to Tunisia following the recent flood disaster.

Tunisia's economy has been severely disrupted by the unprecedented floods. Her Majesty's Government have already made an immediate gift of £10,000 for the first aid relief, and my Department is now urgently considering what further help of rehabilitation can be given. We hope to provide some immediately needed reconstruction equipment and also assistance for a radio-telephone link in central Tunisia.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, as she has perhaps suggested in her reply, that the most significant aspect of the flooding disaster in Tunisia is its impact on the long-term development of the country, and does she understand that she will have every possible support for a sympathetic response from this country?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I realise this, and it is in this direction that we would hope to make our further contribution.

Does the right hon. Lady think that £10,000 is adequate, in view of the magnitude of the disaster—things like radio-telephones will not help very much?

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my answer. I did not say that £10,000 was what we would give. I said that £10,000 was our immediate response for first aid relief. I am now considering what further help we can give and it is likely that this will be quite considerable.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on the future policy of her Department towards development assistance in Tanzania.

I regret I have nothing to add to previous statements on this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, while there is genuine concern for the pensioners, there is great distress in the House that pensions for former colonial officers should ever have been regarded as aid and that a disagreement on this issue should have led to a break in economic relations with Tanzania? Will she assure the House that we will as soon as possible resume aid to Tanzania is one of the countries which is most deserving in terms of its emphasis on self-help?

I am glad to hear and I welcome what my hon. Friend says. It will clearly be controversial when I now say that it is my personal hope that we can renew British aid to Tanzania as soon as we can resolve this pension question. I have a further Question on the Order Paper dealing with this. Studies are going on at the moment.

Is the Minister aware that we have in Zanzibar no diplomatic British representation? In these circumstances how is it possible to have any effective aid system in that country?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the difficulty is that we have our representation in a State, and in the case of Tanzania and Zanzibar our representation appropriately is in Tanzania. The situation is complex and it makes it difficult for us to convey effectively, although we have been making tremendous efforts, any concern we may have about purely Zanzibar matters as distinct from Tanzanian matters.

On a point of Order. The Minister said that this was her personal view. Is it possible for a Minister at the Dispatch Box to give a personal view and not a Ministerial view?

That is not a point of order for me.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement about the progress on the land resettlement, 400,000 acres, scheme in Kenya.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to his Question on 20th October. According to the latest information, it now seems that the total acreage to be transferred under the three current schemes, covering purchases for land settlement, purchases by the Agricultural Development Corporation, and purchases through the Agricultural Finance Corporation, may amount to 370,000 acres by March, 1970.—[Vol. 788, c. 147.]

Will the Minister give an undertaking that the fourth year of the scheme will be completed as planned? Will she say what the Government are prepared to do to help elderly British farmers who cannot continue much longer because of the pressure on land and the deteriorating security situation?

Beyond March, 1970, when the current schemes come to an end, we hope to hold discussions with the Kenya Government. We do not expect those discussions to take place until after the forthcoming elections in Kenya.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on aid to Malta.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress has been made in regard to the fulfilment of Great Britain's pledged aid programme to Malta.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will now make a statement about aid for Malta during the second five-year period of the aid programme.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to a Question by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on 17th November to which as yet I still have nothing to add.—[Vol. 791. c. 205–6.]

Is it not disgraceful that, because of a dispute as to whether 25 per cent. of our aid should be in the form of grant or loan, all aid should be cut off as has occurred in regard to Malta? What plans have the Government to remedy this situation?

It is well known to the House that we are engaged in discussions with the Government of Malta on this matter. We do not regard them as having ended. At the moment we are seeking clarification of some specific proposals which have been made. I regret, as much as the hon. Gentleman, that this is holding up our aid to Malta. What is comforting is that Malta's development plan has not been held up by the disagreement.

Could we get back to the facts of the situation? Will the Minister confirm that all we are arguing about is whether the sum of £5½ million should be a grant or loan repayable after a large number of years? Will she also take the opportunity to deny, rather than making a waffly statement, whether one of the matters in dispute is whether an additional sum of £4 million promised to Malta for dockyard rehabilitation under a quite different heading is being lumped together with the total sum agreed in 1964 or is to be a separate sum? Could we have two plain answers to those two plain questions?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. He is well aware that a full statement was made by the Malta Government in the Malta Parliament. Our view is that it would be unwise for us to make a similar statement in this House while we believe it is possible to reach a fruitful end to those discussions. I am sorry that I cannot give the specific answers for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Will the Minister tell the House how much longer these negotiations are to go on? If the Prime Minister thinks that a week is a long time in politics, then nine months is a very long time indeed. Will the Minister genuinely do her best to expedite a settlement on mutually agreeable terms with Malta, with which we have always had the closest and most friendly relations and to which we owe a great deal, especially in the last war?

Indeed, I can completely assure the House that it is my desire and that I shall do everything within my power to reach a conclusion acceptable to the Malta Government and ourselves. There is no denying that it is a difficult matter, but we are in process of discussions and it is my hope and intention that the result will be satisfactory to both sides.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much the United Kingdom has contributed to date to the building of the new capital of British Honduras; and how much is the estimated total commitment to its completion.

£3,400,000 has so far been drawn. Further sums amounting to about £1½ million have been earmarked for this project.

The Minister will be aware of the gratitude of the people of British Honduras for the generous amount of aid. Has any thought been given to the level of aid available to British Honduras when it becomes independent, which appears likely to occur next year?

I myself have not yet had discussions with British Honduras on the point, but no doubt as independence draws nearer it will become a rather urgent matter on the agenda.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what measures have been taken, or are being considered by Her Majesty's Government to establish a British association with the Organisation of American States' International Fund for technical assistance for the economic and social development of Latin America.

Since 1965 my Department has undertaken each year two or three technical assistance projects in Latin America proposed by the Organisation of American States, and we accept O.A.S. nominees for training in the United Kingdom.

In view of the important potential of Latin America both politically and economically, and the fact that the proposal mentioned in the Question was put forward recently to the Foreign Secretary by the Latin American Secretary of the Organisation of American States, will the Minister take full note of the significance of this matter and discuss it further with her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary?

I will certainly take full note of it, but I am sure my hon. Friend will be the first to accept that there are difficulties of principle in making a cash contribution to an organisation of which we are not a member and in whose policies we therefore can have no say That is the real difficulty of the matter.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many requests she has received, and from which Governments, in the past two years, for agricultural technical advisers, machinery, seeds and fertilisers.

Over the last two years 311 requests from nearly 70 countries have been accepted for agricultural staff —including technical advisers. Commitments totalling £2·2 million have been made for agricultural production requisites and a further £2·8 million for processing, marketing and storage.

Would the Minister agree that this is a highly satisfactory state of affairs? Could she give an undertaking that such aid is in the best interests of the British taxpayer and of the recipients in the country to which the aid goes?

I do not regard it as at all unsatisfactory. A few moments ago we were talking about bilateral aid, but we also make a very large contribution to the Food and Agricultural Organisation. Our multilateral aid is able to help a very great deal in the purposes in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.

I agree with what the Minister has said, but would she not agree that if one takes the figure of the agricultural technical advisory service and adds to it the consultants who advise people on the best agricultural and technical methods of improving their production in an industrial sense, this indirectly helps our own export trade?

That is a valid point. I assure the House that we undertake an enormous amount of overseas development expenditure in terms of skilled expert advice and technical assistance as well as in terms of cash project programmes. In addition to our cash contributions to multilateral programmes, we are one of the foremost countries in the scale and expertise of advice.

Would the Minister agree that it is in agriculture overseas that the most specific results have been achieved in the last few years, where the results have been truly amazing? Is there not need for much more information to be made available? Could not her Department publish some special facts and figures showing our contribution to this important development?

I should be delighted to consider the suggestion. There is a very great deal that is not known about this subject. Many hon. Members in the House would be happy to hear about the matter as would many people outside.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what schemes she has for co-operation with German institutions in the provision for aid in developing countries of the Commonwealth; and if she will make a statement.

My predecessor had regular contacts with the Federal German Ministry for Economic Co-operation, and I certainly hope to continue this practice. I shall be meeting Herr Eppler this evening in Paris. I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of two specific joint projects which we have entered into with German aid authorities.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that the Commonwealth Development Corporation already collaborates with the Germans on certain schemes? The Germans have the money, yet they wish to collaborate with us bilaterally as we have local knowledge of the developing countries of the Commonwealth.

I will, of course, bear that in mind, and I am looking forward to my discussions with Herr Eppler. There are examples where C.D.C. shares with the German aid authorities in projects, and this is all to be encouraged.

Assuming that "German" can mean East German as well as West German, may I suggest that my right hon. Friend applies her mind to the possibility of co-operation in Zanzibar, where the East Germans are building excellent houses for the Africans there?

One is always delighted to hear that there are effective bilateral programmes in any developing country, wherever the aid comes from. We have our part to play in bilateral aid, and so do other countries. Here and there, it is possible by co-operation to achieve a great deal more.

Is it not an extraordinary situation that, if a German firm invests in a Commonwealth developing country, arrangements exist for insuring it against political risks, whereas if a British firm invests, they do not? Will the right hon. Lady discuss this and examine the German system?

That is another question. I will be happy to answer it if the hon. Gentleman puts down one about it.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if the £8 million development loan offered to the Zambian Government has been accepted by them; and what were the terms for repayment.

The offer of a loan has been accepted, but the terms of repayment have not yet been settled.

Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the terms for repayment are reasonable, otherwise it will put too great a strain on a country which in some ways is fighting our battle?

My hon. Friend will be aware of my own past great concern about these matters in a former capacity. In the discussions that we are having with the Zambian Government, it will be our endeavour to reach a very fair settlement.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the best way in which Her Majesty's Government can help the Zambian economy and the British economy is by restoring normal relations with Rhodesia?

I did not expect that the hon. Gentleman would agree with what I said on this issue.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she is satisfied as to the accuracy of the previous official figures showing that the flow of resources from Great Britain to developing countries in 1968 was less than 083 per cent. of the gross national product; and what is the latest estimate of the percentage.

The figures previously given require amendment for 1967 and 1968 mainly because of later information about private investment and guaranteed private export credits. The latest estimate of total flows for 1968 is 0.75 per cent. The full revised figures will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this shows a much lower percentage for 1968 than we previously thought? In view of that, does it not strengthen the case for a growing programme of official aid in the years immediately ahead to make good the larger gap now existing between our performance and the 1 per cent. target?

I agree with my right hon. Friend, of course, and I am sorry that I cannot enter into a fuller discussion because, as I have said, I expect to make a statement later this afternoon.

Does the right hon. Lady also agree that this decline in private investment overseas calls, as Pearson recommends, for a new look at insurance against non-commercial risks? If other development countries find it to their advantage to embark upon such schemes, why does not this country?

This is very much a question not for me but for one of my colleagues. Certainly I am ready to consider this in conjunction with him.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make increased grants to Gibraltar to provide additional playing and sports facilities to assist the local population and to promote the tourist industry on the Rock.

We have recently received proposals from the Government of Gibraltar and shall be discussing them in London next week with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and his colleagues.

I feel sure that that answer will be welcomed by the Chief Minister and the Gibraltarians. I hope that this country, through the right hon. Lady, will give to the Gibraltarians all the help that we can at this time, and perhaps also some support for Miss Gibraltar this evening.

I shall be in Paris this evening and, regrettably, will miss the great event, whether or not she wins. I sympathise with what has been said. Again in a former capacity I was much involved in the problems of Gibraltar at a key period. I am very much looking forward to our discussions next week.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during this past summer, Her Majesty's Forces stationed in Gibraltar have achieved marvellous results in improving tourist facilities and in the various work on which they have cooperated with the civil authorities? Will she ensure that whatever help is given by way of monetary grants it will not end that co-operation in a practical way?

I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says, and I should be delighted to hear more from him about what he has discovered on his recent visit. I think that we all take it for granted that co-operation with Gibraltar will not stop just at money, and we all desire to give every possible and practical assistance that we can.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on the future arrangements about responsibility for the payment of pensions to former colonial civil servants by countries who receive assistance in aid from her department.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will review the future arrangements regarding the payment of pensions to former colonial civil servants by countries who receive or have received aid from the United Kingdom.

This is an important and complex question with substantial implications for the aid programme. It is being re-examined in depth, but I cannot at present add to what my predecessor said in the adjournment debates of the 26th July, 1968, and the 20th Decem- ber, 1968.—[Vol. 769, c. 1248–53; Vol. 775, c. 1724–33.]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is a very unsatisfactory situation? We are the only former colonial Power to treat our colonial servants in this way. It means that they are dependent upon our former colonial territories for their pensions which, as we have seen, has unsatisfactory repercussions. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side are resentful that this should be described as overseas aid when, apparently, some of it goes into the pocket of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)?

I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's concern about this. I know that he pressed my predecessor strongly on the point. Clearly it is a very great problem, and I hope that my own re-examination of it will perhaps make it possible to move on. But I cannot yet say, because I am in the middle of it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are widespread feelings on the subject, especially in view of the fact that, as far as we know, no other country imposes this kind of burden upon its ex-colonial territories?

There is a very powerful case to be made here. There are also powerful arguments against. It is a matter of reaching the right balance of judgment on the basis of further study.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that I am not a former colonial civil servant, that I am quite happy about my exiguous proportionate pension which is coming from Pakistan, and that I will not worry Her Majesty's Government about it?

I am delighted to hear that there is one subject about which the hon. Gentleman will not be worrying us.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what help she is giving to the Government of Malawi in connection with the building of their new capital at Lilongwe.

None. British Government aid to Malawi, which is currently over £8 million per year, is fully committed.

In view both of the responsible nature of that Government and their friendlines to this country, is it not rather tragic that a project to which they attach the greatest importance has been left by Her Majesty's Government to be helped by other Governments.

It was a question of reaching the right decision on this and, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was a very difficult problem at the time. Again, I was somewhat involved in it. The problem is that development aid money from Britain must go to projects which have development value. If a country attaches importance to a project which intrinsically does not have development value, it is very difficult to justify giving aid for it. But we are giving very generous help to Malawi in many other directions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a controversial and dubious scheme and, in a nation where one child in two does not live to the age of five, there are far better ways of spending money?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I would not want to comment on judgments made in Malawi by the Malawi Government about this problem.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what sums were paid in aid to the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore during the years 1967 and 1968.

The amounts of economic aid made available to Malaysia in 1967 and 1968 were, respectively, £5·6 million and £7.1 million. The corresponding figures for Singapore were £1·9 million and £1.0 million.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these figures include a certain element of military aid? Having confirmed that, as I believe that she will, will she explain why she does not accept the U.N.C.T.A.D. definition that military aid should not be included in the definition of aid?

I think that my hon. Friend may find that I shall have something to say about this in my statement. But I can confirm that, and perhaps I might write to my hon. Friend with full details of the way that this operates in relation to Singapore and Malaysia and the aid programme.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the effect on Great Britain's balance of payments for the years 1967 and 1968, rounded to the nearest £1 million, taking account of purchases in the United Kingdom, the amortisation on borrowed capital and interest payment on loans, of the total aid programme.

The effect of our aid programme on the balance of payments is complex. The balance of payments cost of a marginal addition to the aid programme is estimated at about one-third or rather more where there is pressure on the capacity of industries producing aid-financed exports. Amortisation and interest payments on account of past aid loans, amounting to approximately £58 million in 1967 and £60 million in 1968, are estimated to make a net contribution to the balance of payments of the order of £40 million a year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, looking at the figures, the demands on the economy of this country for economic aid are far less than many people both in this House and outside accept? Does my right hon. Friend not think it proper to bring this information to the notice of the public in a more acceptable way than is already done?

There is a valid point here. I am certain that the opponents of aid do not understand that this is so. I shall be glad to do everything that I can to make this information more fully known to the public. But I also have to rely a great deal on those Members of this House who are in favour of aid and higher aid programmes to help me to do it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the point that she mentions, there are considerable indirect benefits to our balance of payments through aid, such as orders for spare parts and replacements in aided projects, and the orders that we get from other countries' aid programmes and multilateral aid programmes? The position can be summarised by saying that the best possible investment for the future of our balance of payments would be an increase in the flow of development aid from Britain and from the developed world generally.

I agree with my distinguished predecessor, and add one further point. The extent to which expenditure on aid can promote in general an expansion of world development can subsequently develop world trade from which we, along with others, can only benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the percentage increase in average weekly earnings in the exhibition contracting industry implicit in the agreement signed between the two sides of the industry on 7th February and frozen by her Department until February, 1970; and what is the corresponding percentage increase expected to result from the new settlement now negotiated under the aegis of her department.

In its Report No. 117, the National Board for Prices and Incomes did not quantify the increases implicit in the February agreement referred to them but said that the increases were well above the 3½ per cent. ceiling. The new settlement, operative from September, was not negotiated under the aegis of my Department. It is difficult to say what the precise effect of the agreement on earnings will be, but I would accept that the percentage increase may be of the same order as would have resulted from the February agreement.

Is it not a fact that the rejected settlement involved a 10s. a week so-called productivity bonus, and that the sole result of the right hon. Lady's meddling in this instance was to transform it into an l1s. 6d. increase in basic rates which will be inflated by overtime rates?

No. The hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. It was a 3½ per cent. plus 10s. per day agreement that was originally referred to the board and eventually resulted in a settlement of 11s. 3d. for craftsmen. The settlement referred to the board was still the subject of a work to rule within the industry and was not the subject, therefore, of agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many days' work were lost in the exhibition contracting industry through industrial action between the freezing of the wage settlement for the industry agreed on 7th February and the agreement of an alternative settlement.

The number of days recorded as lost is approximately 15,600.

What was the resulting loss of export orders from these days lost purely and exclusively from the fatuous meddling of the right hon. Lady? Is not this a classic example of the nonsense that goes on when the right hon. Lady puts her fingers into matter which do not concern her?

The hon. Gentleman is about as wide of the mark on that point as on the last. There is no evidence that exports were in any way adversely affected. No exhibitions were affected as a consequence of the work to rule or other militant action in the industry.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make arrangements for an examination of manufacturing costs and retail prices in the main field of consumer spending, with a view to establishing some degree of prices stability.

The objective sought by my hon. Friend is already being pursued through the operation of the policy for productivity, prices and incomes.

Will my hon. Friend use his influence in this direction in view of increasing apprehension about price increases, bearing in mind that this is one of the central features of our economic policy and that we want to see some results in the immediate future?

I think that we are all anxious about possible price increases. But we shall shortly be introducing a new White Paper on the future policy of prices, incomes and productivity. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of that White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State and Productivity what is the unemployment rate for men and for women in the Consett-Stanley travel-to-work area of County Durham at the latest convenient date.

At 10th November, 1969, the provisional percentage rates of unemployment in the Consett, Stanley and Lanchester travel-to-work area were 7·3 for males and 2·4 for females.

Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to break down these figures in terms of age groups? Can he say whether there is a predominance of older men of working age amongst them?

I cannot give the breakdown offhand, but I shall be pleased to write to the hon. Gentleman to try to give him the information that he seeks. There is a problem with the older male workers, particularly redundant exminers.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take an initiative and approach both General Gowon and General Ojukwu with the aim of ending the Nigerian war.

On ending the war I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a Question by him on 17th November. I am discussing what further approach should be made on the question of relief.—[Vol. 791, c. 824.]

Will the Prime Minister at least support the new Swiss move and reject any insistence that only the O.A.U. must solve this problem, because manifestly the O.A.U. has failed?

Secondly, on aid, will my right hon. Friend help Joint Church Aid, because it is known still to be flying in food to the starving children of Biafra?

On the first point. I have never insisted, in so far as this country is in a position to insist on this purely Nigerian question, that mediation should take place by the O.A.U., but I have always thought that it was best fitted to do it.

On the question of the appeal that has been made to the Swiss Government and to certain other European Governments, obviously if they are able to solve the problem we would welcome any initiative which could be taken. But whoever does it will still have to face the problem that the O.A.U. has so far not been able to succeed.

On the second point, as I have said, we are currently discussing what should be done—and urgently—on the question of relief.

The Foreign Secretary has told the House that the Federal Government are prepared to enter into talks without prior conditions. First, can the Prime Minister say whether this means without any insistence that there should be one Nigeria?

Secondly, as Colonel Ojukwu has publicly said that he will enter into talks without prior conditions, will the Prime Minister explain to the House what is holding up the two sides getting together at the moment?

Thirdly, would it be possible to take the initiative through one of the African countries to see whether a meeting can be brought about through the African system?

We have been in close touch with a large number of African countries, both Commonwealth and otherwise. Only a week or two ago I discussed the question with the Emperor of Ethiopia's Foreign Minister when he was here.

The position for a long time has been —and I so reported to the House last March after my visit there—that the Federal Government have made it plain that they were prepared to sit down without prior conditions. On the other hand, Colonel Ojukwu has felt that to sit down without a cease-fire would be difficult. So far there has been no agreement by the Federal Government to sit down without conditions and at the same time to have a cease-fire. We know the use to which a cease-fire might be put, and I think that is the real difficulty. The Federal Government have said that if there is to be a cease-fire—[Interruption.] —These are very important matters affecting the lives of millions of people. Three questions were put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he is entitled to a reply, even though his back benchers do not.

The Federal Government have said that if it was a question of a cease-fire they would want to make sure that any talks were meaningful and that, therefore, involved, as they put it, talks on the basis of a United Nigeria.

Will my right hon. Friend consider sending a Minister or a senior official to Biafra to see what can be done to end the deadlock over relief supplies? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern in Britain over the starvation in Biafra, and the lack of action on our part in ending the deadlock by sending food direct to these people who need it?

I do not accept the strictures in my hon. Friend's last few words. Eighteen months ago I sent Lord Hunt there, and the mercy corridor would have been open ever since if it were not closed at the Biafran end. The same is true in relation to daylight flights, a matter which we pursued when I was there. I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the deep concern in this country, and indeed in all civilised countries, about the malnutrition, starvation and shortage of food in Biafra. The food is there, much of it in Nigeria, and could be driven in in trucks within a matter of hours, or days at the worst. [Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. If the hon. Gentleman wants to titter in his constituency about starvation, he may do so. I was trying to answer a question from my hon. Friend expressing concern about this matter, a concern which I am sure is shared by 99 per cent. of the House. There is enough food in Cotonou, I think 10,000 tons, which could be flown in there in a matter of days if we had daylight flights. That expresses our concern. We have been trying to get daylight flights established.

I do not rule out sending a Minister or other emissary into the area to see Colonel Ojukwu if we think that that might help.

What approach is being made by the Government to the other Powers who are sending arms to both sides to see whether the maximum pressure can be brought to bear on the Federal Government and the rebels to reach some sort of solution?

We have had talks with the French Government and also with the African Commonwealth countries who have recognised so-called Biafra and others who are at any rate fairly neutral about the matter and pressed them to put pressure both on the relief question and on the question of the settlement of the war. As my right hon. Friend has reported to the House, we have talked to the French Government about this and they are considering it.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the problem of caring for old people.

We are constantly seeking to bring about further improvements in this field, but I do not think that at the present time a Royal Commission or special inquiry would take us forward in this task.

Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1965 the Government told us that 361,000 old people never, or rarely, had a hot meal? Is the Prime Minister aware that now, in 1969, a growing number of old people are found on admission to hospital to be suffering from malnutrition, a state into which they relapse after being released? When are the Government going to deal with this problem?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a considerable number of those in 1965 who were living below any standard that anyone in this House would support were living on that standard because, although they would have qualified for what was then National Assistance benefit, for one reason or another, in many cases pride, and the evidence of stigma, they did not apply for it. As a result of the reforms that we introduced in 1966, about 450,000 of those people are now in receipt of supplementary benefits.

Will my right hon. Friend consider bringing in legislation to prevent the rise in the numbers of people abandoning their parents at a cost to the public purse? In particular, will he consider introducing legislation so that when children do abandon their parents some of their wages can be attached for assistance, instead of allowing these people to fall as a burden on the public purse?

That raises a very wide question indeed, and one can imagine that legislation would need a great deal of thinking about and would be highly controversial. It is my impression, and I am sure that of the whole House, that the vast proportion of middle-aged and young families have a very real concern and make real provision for their elderly parents. We are dealing only with the exceptional cases, for which we have made provision.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the planned development of special community health and welfare services for the elderly has been throttled right back by the Government at a time when the number of elderly is increasing very considerably? As the Government cannot sort out their own sense of social priorities, is not there a strong argument for having a Royal Commission to review the whole field?

I hope that I never have to defend the social priorities of the previous Government. Fortunately the noble Lord has the advantage that he was not a member of that Government, so he can approach this with a fresher mind. As the noble Lord says, this is a question of priorities. The enormous advance that we have made in the social services, with the provision of a more than 70 per cent. increase in financial provision for helping the social services generally, is sufficient earnest of what we have done, very often in the face of heavy criticism, to help the kind of people whom the noble Lord has in mind. As regards the centres, in many parts of the social services we have increased these immeasurably beyond what we inherited.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a Ministerial television broadcast on New Year's Eve on Government policies for 1970.

I shall be otherwise engaged on that date, Sir.

If the Prime Minister's plans are changed and he is given an opportunity to speak to the nation in any way, will he perhaps tell the nation what proposals he has for dropping any of his policies in 1970? Second, could he also make a very clear statement to the nation on what he proposes in the way of further action to deal with industrial stoppages which are causing so much anxiety to the public?

I think it unlikely that my engagements will be changed. I shall be in severe trouble if I do change them, because on that evening I shall be starting the celebration of my 30th wedding anniversary.

She has my sympathy.

She has mine, too, in view of the number of times that she comes to listen to Questions. If the only incentive which the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) can offer for cancelling the arrangements which I made a long time ago is to make the kind of broadcast that he suggested, I can tell him that I have no intention, at this or at any other time, of announcing the dropping of policies which are so valuable to the nation.

asked the Prime Minister what arrangements for dealing with policy matters by Her Majesty's Ministers have been made as a result of the prolongation of the war in the Middle East.

There has been no change in the arrangements, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that U Thant is reported to have said that we are probably in for another hundred years' war in the Middle East? As we are so dependent on the Middle East for such a large slice of our oil supplies, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a further illustration of how the White Paper on Fuel Policy is redundant? What does my right hon. Friend propose to do about it?

I do not think that anybody in this House, nor U Thant, would want to use that remark to show that nothing should be done about trying to get a settlement in the much nearer future. I know that my hon. Friend would not want his question to be misinterpreted as meaning that he is concerned only with oil supplies. There is a much stronger moral reason why we should all try to seek a settlement—

Like in Nigeria.

Yes, like in Nigeria.

And in Rhodesia.

This is a very difficult problem, almost an intransigent one. We are pressing for an early resumption of the four-Power talks in which we have an important stake.

Bearing in mind the increasingly deteriorating situation and the threat that it could bring to British interests, should not the Prime Minister now consider a new British Government initiative, possibly in association with France?

I hope that the hon. Member will feel the right answer is that, since France and ourselves are both engaged with the United States and the Soviet Union in four-Power talks, this is the right forum for pressing what I know the hon. Gentleman genuinely has in mind.

Would the Prime Minister not agree that the full implementation of a cease-fire in the area would be the most valuable contribution to the solution of the problems there?

The United Nations has repeatedly called for a ceasefire on both sides. That is really aimed at preventing the situation from getting even more dangerous than it is. The future solution of the problem, which we hope will be at a much earlier date than has been mentioned this afternoon, must depend on the full implementation of the Security Council resolution, which we moved there.

The Foreign Secretary told the House, I think on 17th November, that his interpretation of the United Nations resolution was that withdrawal from territories did not mean all territories which were occupied in the six-day war and that this had to be read in conjunction with the words "there should be secure frontiers as a result of a settlement." Is this not a most important interpretation of the resolution, and can the Prime Minister say whether this represents any change in British policy? Is this interpretation accepted by the other three Powers with whom we are having private talks in the United Nations, and is it accepted by the Israelis and the Arabs?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to what my right hon. Friend said, but that is the interpretation we have put on it all along and made clear at the time of the acceptance of the resolution. It has been the basis of Dr. Jarring's talks. It has also been the basis of our approach in the four-Power talks. It is a question of concurrence, not necessarily in terms of time, but an agreed package from the beginning, so that if point A happens point B automatically follows, including the security of frontiers and the security of the right to live, of countries in that area who have not been granted the right even of recognition. As to what the areas from which withdrawal would be appropriate may be, that is still an unsolved problem between the Four. We have made our position clear, that it must be a package as a whole. If one thing begins the rest must follow.

Returning to the real meaning behind my hon. Friend's Question, namely, the fuel policy, and in view of the difficulties obtaining in the nuclear power and natural gas industries, could my right hon. Friend and the Government have another look at the fuel policy with a view to its early review?

The difficulties which my hon. Friend may have discerned, whether in the supply of North Sea gas or in the generation of nuclear power, do not, I think, arise from the prolongation of the war in the Middle East.