asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with Sir Roy Welensky, with regard to the future of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland; and what intimation he gave to the Federal Prime Minister regarding Great Britain's retention of the full ultimate responsibility to make any constitutional amendments required in the constitutions of the Federation, and its constituent parts, including Southern Rhodesia, in the interests of all races.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official talks with Sir Roy Welensky.

During Sir Roy Welensky's recent visit to this country, I and several of my colleagues had discussions with him on a number of matters. These conversations were confidential.

Would the Prime Minister answer the second part of Question No. 5? In view of the fact that Sir Roy has made it clear that he would not regard Britain as having the final responsibility in deciding the Constitution for the Federation, did the Prime Minister discuss with Sir Roy the statement made by Mr. Greenfield, one of the Federal Ministers, that it may be necessary for unconstitutional actions to be taken by the Federal authorities?

All sorts of things are said by all sorts of people. The facts of the legal constitutional situation were set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on 22nd February, when he said:

"… Parliament does not possess the power to deprive itself of the right to legislate for any British territory which is not fully independent. On the other hand, there are other established conventions for legislating for self-governing dependencies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 636.]

In view of the widespread reports of plots to deprive Her Majesty's Government of their constitutional authority in territories of the Federation, can the Prime Minister at least assure the House that he told Sir Roy that he would take the gravest possible view of any attempt at unilateral action to deprive Her Majesty's Government of the responsibility for the welfare of the inhabitants in these territories?

I am not prepared to disclose what I did or did not say to Sir Roy Welensky. What I have set out is the constitutional position, and I should have thought that hon. Members would wish to see if we could find a way round these difficulties, rather than add to the tension.

Will the Prime Minister at least tell the House—and surely the House is entitled to know—what he said to Welensky about his threat to use force?

No, Sir. Perhaps I might repeat that when Ministers from the Commonwealth, or indeed from foreign countries, come here to discuss matters with Ministers, the whole basis of the discussions is that they shall not be publicly disclosed except in any agreed communiqué.