asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid is proposed for Anguilla in 1970.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on 17th December.

Does the sum going for aid and help to Anguilla during 1970 include enough money for the training of Anguillans so that when the Government honour their obligation not to hand over the island to St. Kitts, there will be enough trained people to run the island on their own?

We recently sent out a regional technical assistance legal officer, we have a number of forms of technical assistance available, and are ready to consider other requests covering the matter the hon. Member suggests. We are anxious to help with training if we receive requests.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid Great Britain is giving to Indonesia.

Disbursements of financial aid to Indonesia in the calendar year 1969 amounted to £2,442,117. This was utilised in the import of goods from Britain approved by the Indonesia Government and included buses for Djakarta and crumb rubber processing plant.

Technical assistance is currently being extended to Indonesia in the fields of currency, development banking, irrigation, geological surveys and the tea industry.

Is there not a good case for a Ministerial visit to Indonesia in the light of the visit sponsored by the Department of Power Engineering, University of Manchester, under Professor Colin Thompson? In particular, could we have a little more information on the bus agreements as they affect British Leyland and the commercial vehicle industry?

On the first point, I hope to be able to make a visit to Indonesia later this year. On the second point, I am sure that the whole House will be glad to hear that British Leyland buses have been supplied and are operating in Indonesia.

Is it not a wholly irresponsible misuse of taxpayers' money to give aid to Indonesia when we still have not received any compensation for the estimated £200 million British-owned assets seized by the Indonesian Government?

The hon. Gentleman will know that this matter is currently under negotiation.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action she is taking as a result of the Jackson Study.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what evaluation her Department is making of the Jackson Report.

As I said on 2nd December last, the report is being studied in depth. I hope myself to be in the United States and Canada next month, and to discuss the report informally with many of those who will also be concerned in studying its recommendations.—[Vol. 792, c. 219.]

In the light of such problems as the resettlement of troops of the Federal Army in Nigeria, should not urgent thought be given on a multilateral basis as soon as possible to the creation of a career structure for a United Nations task force in this direction?

This will be the kind of point we shall wish to look at as a result of our discussions on the Jackson Report, which we expect to receive detailed examination at a special meeting of the United Nations Development Programme Governing Council in March.

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

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will now announce the terms of British aid to Malta during the second five-year period.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development when she will reach a definitive agreement with the Government of Malta on the forms of financial aid promised under the 1964 agreement; and whether she will make a statement.

I have nothing at this moment to add to what I said on this subject on 11th December.

Is it not an absolute disgrace that Malta has had no aid for ten months, and is the Minister saying that after the recent Adjournment debate in this House nothing further has been done to resolve this ungenerous attitude by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman may recollect from the Adjournment debate in December that it was agreed by all hon. Members that aid should be resumed to Malta as soon as possible. I only wish that we were in a position to announce agreement today.

Could the hon. Gentleman not explain to the House why a relatively minor matter such as this is taking so long to resolve, much to the detriment of our relations with Malta and to the great inconvenience of the Malta Government? Surely the House is entitled to some answer.

The negotiations are still proceeding and are confidential, but I am sure that the House will feel that, with reasonableness on both sides, agreement can be reached.

Is the Minister not well aware that since the beginning of this mean wrangling the case of the British Government has been based solely upon the weakness of the balance of payments. Now that we are told that we have such a splendid balance of payments what possible reason can there be for not meeting our obligations fully and reaching a generous agreement on the loan/grant ratio forthwith?

The case of the British Government rests on the 1964 financial agreement, which was entered into by the previous Administration.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what agreement has been reached with the Government of Swaziland over the problem of alienated land; and what aid is now being given or planned for Swaziland.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress has been made in the talks with the delegation from Swaziland at present in this country.

We have been having very useful and friendly discussions during the past week with a delegation from Swaziland, and these discussions are now in their final stages. We have agreed to make available to the Government of Swaziland over the next three years 1970–71 to 1972–73 a total amount of £6,395,000. This includes an amount of £250,000 as a contribution to their general revenue balance. The remainder will take the form of development aid, to be spent on projects to be jointly agreed by the Swaziland and British Governments, including land development projects following consideration by the two Governments of the report of the Land Mission to Swaziland in February and March, 1969. The necessary provision will be sought in the annual Estimates.

Now that these discussions have been going on for over a year, could the Minister say whether the sums she has mentioned include an element of compensation for the land alienated many years ago?

That is a different question. The British Government cannot accept an historical claim on that point, but the figure mentioned includes a considerable sum for the kind of action on land which the Swaziland Government wishes to take.

Will my right hon. Friend tear in mind the special geographical situation of Swaziland, with its powerful and racialist neighbours, and the fact that this will mean that rapid progress to economic self-reliance is even more important to Swaziland than perhaps some other countries with which she deals? Can she assure the House that in allocating the sums of money which she has announced she has taken these special circumstances into account?

Yes, indeed. I am very glad to tell my hon. Friend that I completely share his understanding of the special geographical difficulties of Swaziland. It is mainly for this reason that we have felt it right to give the amount of aid that I have just announced, which is generous, and, I hope, I will help the Swaziland Government to make the kind of rapid developments they wish to see.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development (1) what estimate she has made of the number of industrial projects, involving local finance, British finance and joint finance, in developing countries assisted by her Department in 1969, the approximate cost and the form in which this outlay has been undertaken;

(2) what was the total value of the British aid programme in 1969, the value of Government aid, and the estimated value of British industrial investment in dew loping countries.

I am sending the hon. Member copies of the last four issues of "Overseas Development", which include quarterly statements of outstanding bilateral grants and loans with indications of the purposes of the expenditure. I hope that this will give the hon. Member the information he is seeking. The full figures for 1969 will not be available until February. I will write to the hon. Member when they are.

Could the Minister say, either now or when she writes to me, how much of the funds will go to industrial development as against infrastructure and other purposes? What is the policy of Her Majesty's Government at present in this direction?

I would be glad to include in my letter to the hon. Gentleman a statement of our policy. As to the precise number of items of assistance and aid involved, this would be rather difficult to give because there are thousands of different items of expenditure. The amount of labour involved in collecting them together under these heads might be very great, but perhaps in my letter I shall be able to give the hon. Gentleman most of the information he needs.

Would the Minister agree that private industrial investment is an extremely important component in the total programme? Would she reconsider the Government's attitude towards insurance schemes against political risk, on a national and multi-national basis, to cover such private investments, as was envisaged in the Pearson recommendations?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Indeed this has been recognised both by Pearson and by U.N.C.T.A.D. as including private investment as part of total flow. As for the second part of the question, the hon. Gentleman will have to put down another Question.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what assistance she is giving to the Council of Fiji in establishing a prices and incomes board in that territory; and whether it is her policy to encourage the development of prices and incomes boards in other territories receiving assistance from her Department.

My Ministry has been asked by the Government of Fiji to assist them by providing an adviser and consultant on the establishment of a prices and incomes board. We have agreed to help. It is for overseas governments to decide for themselves what policy, if any, they wish to adopt with regard to prices and incomes matters; if they wish for assistance from Her Majesty's Government in this field, my Department is glad to try to provide it.

Since the policy of the National Board for Prices and Incomes of this country has been accompanied by record price rises and uncontrolled wage demands, is it prudent to foist such absurd folly on the people of Fiji? Is this a Machiavellian plot to redeploy Mr. Aubrey Jones more purposefully? Is there any truth in the rumour that the Government are planning a land commission for Malta and a little "Neddy" for Anguilla?

Fiji is internally self-governing in labour maters. It is for that Government to determine their policy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to apply after the next election, I can assure him that his application will be given impartial consideration.

What have the unhappy people of Fiji done to deserve this wretched decision? If it is really the desire of the hon. Gentleman's Department wholly to alienate one of the last loyal members of the Commonwealth, why does he not persuade one of his colleagues to apply for the post?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that this is the desire of the Fiji Government. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's only course is to emigrate and put his question to the Fiji Government.

Before any action is taken on this proposal, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government of Fiji are made aware of the study undertaken at Essex University which suggests that the prices and incomes policy is counter-productive and has tended to increase rather than decrease inflationary pressures?

I cannot answer for the Fiji Government, but I am confident that they are aware of all the relevant considerations.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether money lent to overseas countries under the aid programme, and which is then re-lent by the accepting country for contracts of one sort or another, has any restriction placed upon it by her Department on rate of interest charged to the contractor.

We normally require that the terms shall bear a reasonable relation to those which would apply to money borrowed within the country concerned for similar purposes.

I am interested in the word "normal". I understand that a number of Governments are charging high interest rates to contractors whereas they have been loaned the money at low interest rates. This is an abuse, and cannot be helpful to our contractors working in those countries.

We favour the policy that I have outlined, because the use of the appropriate domestic lending rate avoids any distortion on the economy of the country. But each case has to be considered on its merits.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what requests she has received from the Government of Guyana for financial and technical assistance to improve the health and educational conditions of the Amerindian population of that country; and if she will make a statement.

Since independence the Guyana Government has made five requests for British financial assistance specifically aimed at improving conditions amongst the Amerindian community. We have agreed to meet all those requests, which have included provision for hostels, roads, housing, agriculture and agricultural education. The total cost is £153,000.

While I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, does she agree that the situation of the indigenous Indian population of the whole continent is now one of gravity as the interior is opened up? Does she not agree that, however exaggerated reports of brutality against the Amerindian population may have been, a great deal of work remains to be done if these people are to stand a chance of contributing fully to their country in the future?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Guyana Government are making considerable efforts to assist on this. They are anxious to achieve integration with the other people of the country. I am glad that we have been able to help. We are willing to consider requests coming to us in the normal way from the Government of Guyana.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the present amount of assistance provided by Her Majesty's Government to improve family planning provision overseas; what proportion this represents of the total aid outflow; and what proposals for expansion of this assistance are planned in the light of the Pearson Commission Report.

In 1968–69 we spent about £175,000 or rather under 0·1 per cent. of gross official aid. We now plan a sharp increase over the next three years. The main expansion will be in the support of multilateral programmes.

While I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging indication that we may one day approach 1 per cent. of our total aid on this very worthy purpose, does she agree that this is a far more urgent problem than the figures which she has given might suggest?

I agree that it is an urgent problem, and that is why we are anxious to put up our expenditure on it so sharply. The real difficulty has been that there as been a slowness amongst the developing countries to seek this kind of help, and there has been a late entry of the multilateral organisations in this field. They are now moving faster, and that is why we shall now be able to do as much as we would have liked to do in the past.

Do the Government accept the principle stated by Mr. MacNamara on behalf of the World Bank, that in granting aid special consideration should be given to those countries which make serious attempts to deal with their population growth?

I have read with interest all Mr. MacNamara's remarks on that and previous occasions on the subject. I had things to say about it myself at the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference in November last year. We intend to make available as far as we can more help to the multilateral agencies. They are the people who are best able to judge where their help is likely to be most effective. That is why this is a better way of doing it than giving a tremendous increase in bilateral aid, which clearly would lead to problems.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development, if she will publish in the Official Report a table showing annual provision for overseas aid until 1973–74 in real terms, assuming that the rise in prices between now and 1974 will be the same as that between 1964 and 1969.

According to the assumption which my hon. Friends asks me to make that the prices of aid financed goods will increase at the same rate between now and 1974 as between 1964 and 1969, but excluding the effect of devaluation, the increase in gross aid in real terms counting against the U.N.C.T.A.D. target from 1969–70 to 1973–74 would average 5½ per cent. per year. I am putting the detailed annual figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I am much obliged for that answer, as far as it goes. Will my right hon. Friend add in that reply the net figures, deducting the repayment of old loans, so that we can get a more realistic figure than that given on page 30 of the White Paper which is currently being debated?

I am afraid that I cannot do that at the same time as the figures go into the OFFICIAL REPORT. However, perhaps I might write to my hon. Friend and explain the exact relationship between his point and the figures which I have produced.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action is being taken by her Department to increase the availability of surveyors for work needed overseas, especially in the West Indies.

My Department is able in most instances to meet the requests received from overseas Governments, including the West Indies, to recruit surveyors. In addition, the Department arranges training in this country, again at the request of the Governments concerned.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that I have information that there is a shortage? Will she consider consulting professional bodies and others which have done such excellent work, such as Voluntary Service Overseas, to see whether individuals could not be made available to fill the gap?

I have before me complete details of the existing vacancies and the recruitment efforts that we are making. Broadly, where there are vacancies, we are able to recruit, but the process is bound to take a short time. If the hon. Gentleman would like more information about this, I will gladly send it to him.

Mr. Tilney.

Question No. 18.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have not called Question No. 16.

Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was not here when his Question was answered with No. 3.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what extra money, following the end of the civil war in Nigeria, Her Majesty's Government are making available for Nigeria; and in what areas.

As already announced, £5 million has been made available for relief and rehabilitation and this is now being drawn upon for various relief purposes.

Some discussions with the Nigerian Government about aid for rehabilitation have already taken place, and we aim to have further discussions with them as soon as they are ready.

Will the £5 million be in the form of grant rather than loan aid?

Yes, it will. It will be appropriate to the purposes for which we are now receiving requests from the Nigerian Government. For the most part, we suppose that it will be in grant form.

Presumably this figure was assessed before the latest reports about conditions in Owerri and other areas were known. Will the figure be revised in an upward direction, which is clearly needed?

We do not yet know what will be needed financially. That is why we decided to make so large a sum as £5 million available. We do not want any financial limitation on the help to be given. Should the money prove to be too little, we should want to look at it again.

The reports coming out of the Biafran enclave suggest that there is an acute shortage of medical supplies. Will the right hon. Lady advise the Nigerian Government that there need be no delay in supplying them, because they could be air-dropped over the hospitals themselves?

The Federal authorities of Nigeria, especially on the basis of Lord Hunt's visit, are aware of what we can supply and the speed with which we can do it.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on the action she has so far taken to assist in the Nigerian relief operation.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps her Department is taking to assist with relief and rehabilitation in Nigeria.

Relief is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; I am responsible for aid for rehabilitation and reconstruction. There is, of course, close co-ordination between our Departments.

Her Majesty's Government has so far been able to meet all requests received from the Nigerian Government. The overriding need has been for transport, aid 50 Landrovers and 18 4-ton lorries have been flown out. We have agreed to supply 110 lorries in all.

Of the 35 doctors and nurses we were asked to provide, 27 will have left by tonight, of which 18 are already in the forward areas. The others will follow. We have also sent 28 tons of medical supplies and 5 tons of vehicle spare parts. As previously announced. I have opened a list for doctors and nurses who would be willing to go at short notice to Nigeria in the event of our receiving a further request, and I am glad to say that 61 doctors and 155 nurses have so far responded to this appeal.

Following Lord Hunt's visit to Nigeria we have been asked to supply a large number of tents. These will be sent out by air as soon as possible.

We shall do our best to meet any other request which the Nigerian Government might make.

Mr. Barnes.

I will wait for the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Will the right hon. Lady ensure that any medical supplies are given to the needy and not sold to those who have no Federal money?

These are all matters which arise from Lord Hunt's more detailed knowledge and the report that he has made to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await my right hon. Friend's statement.

Will any members of the right hon. Lady's staff be going to the territory which was Biafra in order to assess the situation? If not, why not?

One of my staff accompanied Lord Hunt on his visit, which included a visit to the territories affected. There are a number of people in my Ministry, including medical advisers, who have an intimate knowledge of the areas involved.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether the sum of up to £5 million, which has just been made available for relief and rehabilitation in Nigeria, will be provided from within the total figures previously announced for the overseas aid programme.

Yes, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who welcome the scale of the help that is to be provided for Nigeria nevertheless would wish it to be provided additionally at our own expense and not that of other countries which are very poor and have great need at present?

The House will know that there is a contingency reserve element in the aid programme each year. It is this that we have been able to release for this purpose, as we do for many other emergency purposes at different points in time. There are no specific allocations to any other country having to be cut in order for us to make this £5 million available.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development when she expects that the two powered barges, on order for the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands, will be delivered to Grand Turk.

I understand that only one powered barge has as yet been ordered, but I am informed that it is likely that the Administrator intends to apply for capital aid funds in the year 1970–71 for the purchase of a second barge.

The barge at present on order should be delivered towards the end of August.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that these islands are held up in their development by the shortage of barges of this type? Will she do all that she can to make the delivery date earlier?

I will. The problem is one of the delivery period. The hon. Gentleman and I are two of the few people who know the Turks and Caicos very well.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will publish a White Paper in due course setting out the Government's views on the recommendations in the Pearson Report.

I have nothing to add to my written reply of 19th December last to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd).—[Vol. 793, c. 462.]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when she announced the aid figures in November she said that they were not a Government response to the Pearson recommendations, which would require more time? After the time that has elapsed, should not we have a definitive statement in the near future, preferably in the form of a White Paper, on the whole range of the Pearson recommendations, and could not that include a fresh look at the aid figures?

It may be that my Ministry and I will want to publish something not just on Pearson but on the whole aid policy that we are implementing and considering in the future. The difficulty about making an immediate statement on the Pearson Report is that it covers the whole subject of international development policy, and, in advance of the international discussions which will be taking place in the next few months, it would not be helpful to those discussions or the objectives of the Pearson Report for there to be ex parte statements by the United Kingdom or any other major donor country.

Will the right hon. Lady consider the possibility of including in the official aid figures the aid given to sugar producing countries of the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? In my view, that would, quite legitimately, greatly improve the official aid figures and percentages and would be more accurate as to the aid that we give to the Commonwealth.

I agree that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement makes a most valuable contribution to a number of developing countries. The difficulty about including it in any figures is that it cannot be quantified at any point in time. It has varying effects according to the varying price of sugar. This is the real difficulty. Otherwise, we would gladly include it. I realise that it would make our aid figures more realistic.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what has been the value of the British aid programme in East Pakistan, and what has been its value in West Pakistan in each of the past five years.

I am publishing details of the allocations of new bilateral project aid in each of the five United Kingdom financial years from 1965–66 in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

New commitments of non-project aid which have totalled £22·8 million in the last five years are not separately allocated to East and West Pakistan, but the bulk of this aid has been for commodities such as fertilisers, industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals, agricultural equipment, tractors, machinery and spare parts of various kinds which have been used in both East and West Pakistan.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that when the immediate life and death issues of East Pakistan are taken into account, it will be found that some of our economic involvement in West Pakistan has been of rather marginal significance and that there is an important priority to change the balance between them?

I certainly agree that we should try to ensure, as far as we can —indeed, this is what we do—that a reasonable balance is maintained in the use of British bilateral aid. During the third development plan of Pakistan—that is, in the last five years—East Pakistan has had an increased share of public development expenditure, but it has lagged considerably behind West Pakistan in private investment. However, we know that the Pakistan Government have every intention of diminishing the disparities.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will publish a White Paper on the Government's policy towards the payment of pensions to retired British Government employees who have served in former British colonies and dependencies.

This depends on the outcome of the re-examination of the pensions question, to which I referred in my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) on 27th November last. This is proceeding, and I hope will be completed soon, but I cannot, of course, yet say what our conclusions will be—[Vol. 792, c. 603–4.]

Again, I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that there is still a great deal of consternation among many elements of the aid lobby within the House and outside about the fact that pensions for former colonial officers are still counted as part of the aid programme and that, bemuse of the complexity of the issue, there is a desperate need for a full statement about the implications of the policy so that we can have an intelligent debate and the right decision?

I am aware of that. While my hon. Friend was away, as he will know, I had a discussion about the matter with some of his hon. Friends. It is the case that much of the pre-independent service of colonial civil servants was making a contribution to development, and that has to be taken fully into account. When we have concluded our consideration of the matter, I shall be able to make a full statement to the House.

Is it not true that every year the basic pensions are put in the budgets of developing countries and that they are becoming more and more un- popular? Is it not time that this country, in common with other ex-imperial Powers, took over the pensions and reduced aid accordingly?

This is exactly the question that is now under consideration. I hope that it will not be long before I can report the results.

Will the Minister publish a paper of some kind showing what individuals are not getting what they are supposed to get, so that we can at last see clearly which territories have defaulted in pensions?

I will certainly look into that question. If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it. My impression is that this is not the major problem involved. The problem, as his hon. Friend has put it, is the financial responsibility involved in the payment of pre-independence pensions.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many petitions representing how many signatures she has received on behalf of the Sign On, Churches Action for World Development, concerning overseas development; and what action she is taking to reply to these petitions.

Well over 50,000 signatures have been received. My right hon. Friend has written personally to those hon. Members who have presented petitions already, and I hope to reply to others who write to me.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not enough just to sign on, but that action should be taken by these people? Has consideration been given to the proposition that I put forward in the debate on the Pearson Report, that there should be a special trust fund set up into which they can pay in the near future?

I know that this proposition has been discussed by some of the independent organisations. I am sure that both sides of the House welcome the concern and compassion shown by those who are involving themselves in this campaign.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that a much wider public is being adequately educated about the need for overseas aid being given in this way? Is he aware that the work of these various organisations would be helped considerably if a wider public was not led to believe by some newspapers, rather reprehensibly, that giving overseas aid is charity that we cannot afford?

My Department does everything possible to present the real facts before anybody who is interested.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the total number of hours lost in strikes in 1969; and what were the comparable figures for each of the past five years.

The provisional estimate of working days lost during 1969 through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom, at the establishments where the disputes occurred is 6,772,000. The corresponding figures for 1968, 1967, 1966, 1965 and 1964 are 4,690,000, 2,787,000, 2,398,000, 2,925,000 and 2,277,000 respectively.

Are not these figures very disturbing indeed, showing, as they do, a substantial increase over the previous five years? What, in the Under-Secretary's opinion, is the main reason for the serious state of industrial relations today?

Certainly the figures are disturbing. I am not sure that, in the scope of a reply to a supplementary question, I should try to analyse the various reasons for what is a complex situation.

Whilst not taking pride in these figures, may I ask my hon. Friend to indicate how these figures compare with other industrial countries? Is he also aware that some responsible trade unions, such as the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, are taking prac- tical steps to deal with these unfortunate occurrences?

A number of unions, along with the T.U.C., are taking vigorous steps to implement the undertaking that they gave to the Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State in June, 1969. The figures for the United Kingdom, whilst disturbing, none the less compare favourably with those of many other major industrial countries.

Is not the disturbing point about the figures the escalation that they show? Even if the hon. Gentleman cannot today give his analysis of the causes, should be not tell the House and the country what the Government are going to do about it?

I thought that we had spent a large part of 1969 debating just this subject—[Interruption.] I think that I am entitled to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Tories had 13 years in which to produce a policy and they had to leave it until 1968.

Will my hon. Friend explain how it is so remarkable that, although 1969 was the worst year for strikes, it was the best year for exports?

It is certainly true that we have a very fine export record. But 1969 was not the worst year for strikes. One has only to go back as far as 1962, 1959 and recall the first nine months of 1957, when we lost 8 million working days as a result of strikes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity by what percentage the highest recorded salary paid in the United Kingdom exceeds the lowest full employment wage so recorded; what were the corresponding percentages for 1938, 1945, 1951 and 1964; and if she will make a statement on equalisation of incomes.

Information in the particular form requested is not available but extensive statistics about the range of wages and salaries in September, 1968 were published in the May, 1969 issue of the Employment and Productivity Gazette. These were obtained from the new earnings survey. Earlier surveys of this type covered wages only but not salaries. The Government's policy in relation to low pay is set out in Section E of the White Paper on Productivity, Prices and Incomes after the end of 1969.

Why is this information not available? Is it not part of the justification which the Government give for the prices and incomes policy that it is supposed to provide justice for the lower-paid worker? How can this be achieved if we do not have a clear idea of the task which we have to perform to telescope the differences in income, bearing in mind the great inequality which still exists?

It is true that we desire more information to enable us the more effectively to apply a prices and incomes policy, but I remember that we were asked many critical questions in the House when we introduced the limited earnings survey which has produced the information to which I have referred.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the greatest disparity over the widest field is between the lowest-paid workers, many of whom work in the countryside, and the escalating pay being given to the already highly-paid workers in industry, particularly in the motor car industry?

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some of the rather high settlements which have recently been given Government approval have been made by correcting the imbalance between the lower-paid and some higher-paid workers. In fact, this is the current emphasis of Government policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she will introduce further legislation on prices and incomes to replace or supplement Part II of the 1966 Prices and Incomes Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will now make a statement on her proposals for legislation to establish the Commission for Industry and Manpower.

I have today placed in the Vote Office copies of a consultative document setting out the Government's proposals for legislation to establish the Commission for Industry and Manpower. It is proposed to discuss these proposals with the principal industrial organisations. The legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.

Order. It helps the Chair if the groupings are known.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the framing of these proposals, he was influenced at all by the decision of the T.U.C. not to continue with the vetting committee to watch trends, and whether he knew these circumstances existed, in which a voluntary incomes policy cannot in any meaningful sense be said to exist?

As the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads it, the consultative document develops a voluntary policy for prices and incomes. It takes account of the current circumstances. None of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers undermines the Government's intention to pursue a voluntary policy on incomes.

What powers do the proposals suggest this Commission should have to enforce any of its recommendations? Or is it simply to be another "three wise men"?

There will be power in the Government to enforce the recommendations of the Commission in cases where the Commission finds there to be action by a company against the public interest. There will be power to regulate prices where the Commission finds there to be non-competitive conditions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House something about the status of this consultative document? We know what White Papers are. We have become accustomed to understanding what Green Papers are. Now there is this consultative document. To what extent is this a commitment of Government policy to the contents of the document?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department of Employment and Productivity issues many consultative documents in respect of the legislation which it intends to introduce. This is such a consultative document and we intend to discuss with industrial organisations their views on it. It nevertheless clearly contains Government philosophy on prices and incomes policy, and on competition policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity why the interdepartmental committee involved in the calculation of regional prices has not held a meeting since 12th November 1968; if she will list those who attended the meeting held on that date and state how long it lasted.

The interval of 13 months between the first meeting of the committee and the second meeting, which was held on 10th December, 1969, was due to the heavy programme of detailed information asked for by the committee at its first meeting. Both meetings lasted about three hours. The next meeting is expected to be held this month. The members of the committee are:

• Professor Sir Roy Allen, C.B.E., Professor of Statistics, London University.
• Professor A. J. Brown, Professor of Economics, Leeds University.
• Officials representing the following:
• Board of Trade.
• Central Statistical Office.
• Department of Economic Affairs (1st Meeting only).
• Department of Employment and Productivity.
• Department of Health and Social Security.
• Government Social Survey.
• Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
• Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
• Northern Ireland Cabinet Office.
• Scottish Statistical Office.
• Welsh Office.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain frankly why, his predecessor having promised to produce an index of prices for Scotland, the Government are breaking their word? It is a very simple issue. Shall we get a price index for Scotland, or not?

The hon. Lady has been told that an interdepartmental committee is studying the recommendations of the cost of living advisory committee. That is the extent of the Government's commitment.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that this problem is so lacking in urgency that it is necessary to hold only one committee meeting a year? Would he care to come to Scotland to see for himself the price differentials with which we have to contend? The price of our gas is 20 per cent. higher than it is in England. Will the hon. Gentleman take some action about this?

The hon. Gentleman does his constituents a disservice by suggesting that they are oppressed and downtrodden. My experience of the Scots suggests that they are anything but that. The hon. Gentleman ought to recall that the complaints to which he is giving expression have been expressed for a long time, including during the 13 years when his Government did nothing about them.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of policy between the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales with regard to the appointment of members of the British Tourist Authority and the new tourist boards; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister think that it was altogether wise for Ministers to appoint as chairmen to two of these boards the fathers of Labour Members of Parliament.

I think that that is rather unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. He will know the persons in question, and their very high repute, which is generally agreed to by members of all parties who have worked with them.

Is it not carrying patronage a little too far, though, to extend this benevolent care, for which the right hon. Gentleman cares to be known, to the parents of Members of Parliament —jobs for the dads, and all that?

I have not heard any complaints from the hon. Gentleman in the matter of appointments by me to important positions of former Conservative Members of Parliament, and he will not, I think, feel that in the Honours List, now twice a year, as we used to have for the purpose of the Chief Whip of the day, honours are given to Members of Parliament on the Government side for their support in the Division Lobby.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the appointment in Scotland, to which, presumably, the hon. Gentleman is referring, has been widely welcomed by people who know what the problem is, and that the hon. Member concerned knew nothing about the appointment until it was made?

Can my right hon. Friend say which is the more despicable kind of patronage, this, or the kind under which Mr. Harold Macmillan, when he was Prime Minister, appointed his nephew to Government office?

These two gentlemen were appointed on their own merits. We have not, as has been the basis in the past with some appointments to important Government offices, including Ministerial office, made these appointments purely on the basis of whose sons they were.

asked the Prime Minister if he proposes to visit the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in the near future.

I have no plans to do so at present, Sir.

If the right hon. Gentleman does visit Luxembourg, will he seek the agreement of the Luxembourg Government, and other Governments who were at the recent W.E.U. meeting, to his telling the House precisely what assurance the Foreign Secretary is reported to nave received recently that further steps towards political co-operation among the Six would not be taken without British participation? Or perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us right away.

I do not think that I need go to Luxembourg to discuss this with the leaders of the Six. The hon. Gentleman is free at any time to put down questions to my right hon. Friend about the W.E.U. meeting. I think that most of those who attended it, or have read the report of it, have said that it was quite a successful meeting.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will nominate a Treasury Minister to be a member of the British negotiating team which will enter into discussions with the Common Market countries.

It is too early to make detailed arrangements for the handling of the negotiations, but all Ministers with relevant responsibilities are already, and will remain, in close touch with my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on all matters affecting our entry into the E.E.C.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in 1969 both he and the Chancellor made speeches supporting the Common Market and also speeches attacking agricultural levies and the value-added tax? In 1970, if he adopts the rather uncharacteristic pose of consistency, will he either abandon the Common Market or find virtues in agricultural levies and the value-added tax?

What I said and what my right hon. Friend has said, and what the Minister of Agriculture has said, is, of course, that if we secure entry to the Common Market we have to accept the burdens that go with entry. Both of these are burdens, and they would only be worth accepting if the advantages in trade and other matters corresponded with them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This has always been our position. We are not enthusiastic about the common agricultural policy levies: I hope that no hon. Members are. What puzzles me is that the party opposite wants to harm the country by the increased cost of living represented by V.A.T. and by the levies, as an act of government, without the corresponding advantages of European entry.

I appreciate that one of the senior Ministers on the negotiating team is a Scotsman, but he has not recently been in touch with Scottish affairs. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is some representative of the Scottish Office on this team?

On agricultural matters and on all other matters affecting the negotiations in which the Scottish Office has a statutory responsibility, of course the Scottish Office is fully in the picture in relation to preparing the negotiations. But I cannot accept the innuendo that my right hon. Friend has not been in touch with Scottish affairs. He is just as much in touch with Scottish affairs as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is in touch with national British affairs.

My right hon. Friend has mentioned burdens on the economy. Has he anything further to say regarding opinions of authoritative sources that the burden on our balance of payments if we join the E.E.C. will be in the region of £1,000 million a year?

My hon. Friend will, I think, be willing—I know that I have had to ask him and others to wait a considerable time, for reasons which I have explained—to wait for the Government's White Paper, which I hope will be published in the early part of next month, so that he can, from reading it, form his own assessment of the estimates which the Government have been able to make on the basis of what must be very imprecise assumptions about the results of the negotiations and other questions.

Mr. Heath.

On a point of order—

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not ask for it at the moment.

The Prime Minister has mentioned agriculture and the V.A.T. First, on agriculture, when will he address his mind to the real matter of this subject and recognise that a change to the levy system on prices, which need not be in any way as high as those in the Common Market, will allow British agriculture to expand without continual Government expenditure, which his own present policy does not permit, and will provide the Treasury with the funds from subsidies and from levies to enable it to start reducing taxation and improving social service benefits? This is the real substance of the matter. Why does he not address his mind to it?

Second, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give an undertaking to the House that the present Government will, in no circumstances, introduce the V.A.T. unless we become a member of the Common Market?

On the first—[An HON. MEMBER: "First?"] There are two questions and I will deal with the first first, if that is convenient to the hon. Gentleman.

On the first question, I have addressed my mind to the successive proposals on agriculture of the Conservative Party. The only thing which it is quite clear would expand from it would be an unnecessary increase in the cost of living and in retail prices: that has not been contested by anyone. But I am in some difficulty—perhaps this will be clarified in the debate which I understand may take place shortly—about the shifting basis of the Opposition's policy on agriculture, which, having been based first on the levies and having upset the farmers, has earned for the right hon. Gentleman the condemnation even of the loyal Spectator, in the strongest terms, for what he is saying.

With regard to the value-added tax—

Keep going.

I might, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would listen.

With regard to the value-added tax, this was turned down first by the then Conservative Government, and at that time I thought that there was more value in it. We have re-examined it, after the Richardson Report, hopeful that it might be able to solve some of the fiscal problems which the country has faced for many years. We have turned it down and see no case, at any rate in present circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] We see no case at all for doing it. We believe also, as I have said to the House, that it would place an intolerable burden on Inland Revenue staff and Customs and Excise staff and would raise the cost of living. If it were part of joining Europe, it would be a different matter.

Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we debating the merits or demerits of entering the Common Market? Are we to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to initiate a debate at Question Time? Why not put a stop to this nonsense?

The right hon. Gentleman must leave the chairmanship to the Chair.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, so far as V.A.T. is concerned, such burden as there is—in other words, the operation of V.A.T.—falls on Custom; and Excise, which is not overburdened at the moment? Second, will he now admit that he will not give the undertaking for which I asked him—that the Government will in no circumstances except entry into Europe introduce V.A.T.?

On the first part of the question, both the Inland Revenue and Customs are involved. The House has been given the estimates of the number of staff. I note the enthusiasm with which the right hon. Gentleman always seeks to increase the size of the Civil Service, and at great cost to the taxpayer, by imposing a price-raising tax.

On the second part of the question, I have made the position clear but I will repeat it if he is not clear. We certainly do not intend to introduce the V.A.T. except in the special circumstances of entering the Common Market, when we have corresponding advantageous gains. I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman's recognition that we are going to be here during the whole of that period.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss joint policies designed to end the Vietnam war on his forthcoming visit to Washington

As the House knows, I keep in regular contact with President Nixon on Vietnam, and my visit to Washington next week will provide an opportunity for a further exchange of views.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, first, that one is very pleased that proceedings against those accused of the terrible massacre at Pinkville are continuing? But is he also aware that many people would say that the best service which he could render the United States and the American people is to tell President Nixon that the American engagement in Vietnam is futile and doomed to failure?

I do not think that I have anything to add on Vietnam to what I said in the debate just before Christmas and also, of course, to what was said then and subsequently in pointing out to my hon. Friend, first of all, that substantial withdrawals, including ultimately total withdrawal of ground combat forces, by President Nixon have already been announced as part of his policy and that, if we want to see quicker progress, it is time we got something of a progress-making offer from the other side in the talks in Paris, which are now celebrating the first anniversary of their commencement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when in Washington that it is widely believed in the Far East, contrary to many reports, that this is the most propitious moment for a settlement in Vietnam since the Tet truce of 1966, when the right hon. Gentleman made his initiative to Mr. Kosygin and President Johnson which so nearly proved fruitful?

It was, I think, in February, 1967. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, that there are reasons, for which the evidence is very hard to produce, why this could be a moment when advance can be made, but it means an advance, over and above what President Nixon has said, by the other side in the negotiations in Paris. Anything which we or our fellow co-chairman can do, separately or together, we have made clear that we will do if the parties want us to.

In view of the important bearing of Sino-Soviet relations on the ending of this war and the serious and alarming deterioration in the situation between those two countries, would my right hon. Friend not think it urgently necessary to impress on President Nixon the need to bring China into the councils of the United Nations?

It has always been our policy and the policy of our predecessors to support the entry of the Chinese Government, which has been recognised by Governments of both parties in this country, into the United Nations. I am not at all certain whether that fact of itself, if it became a reality, would, of itself, help with a Vietnam settlement. However, it is something which, on its own merits, we have always supported and which we will continue to support in any discussion of this subject next week.

Has the Prime Minister consulted President Nixon on the possibility of diplomatic or other action on behalf of American prisoners of war in North Vietnam whose plight has caused grave concern in the United States and elsewhere?

The hon. Gentleman is right when he speaks of the concern that is felt in the United States and elsewhere on this issue. He will be aware of what has been attempted in Paris to bring this matter to the attention of the North Vietnamese authorities. If either or both of the fellow co-chairmen could help in this matter we would, of course, be ready, if asked, to do so. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt also be aware that on my visit to Moscow in July, 1966, the main theme of the discussions at that time, which I think proved fruitful, was in relation to the treatment of certain prisoners and the threat at that time to put those prisoners on trial.