asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from Dr. J. E. Martin, now resident in Guernsey, asking that he should be allowed to return to Gibraltar; and what are the obstacles which prevent Dr. Martin's return.

Dr. Martin has appealed against the Governor's decision that he cannot be given a certificate of permanent residence in Gibraltar. The grounds of his appeal are that he lived in Gibraltar prior to 1938 and that he has always intended to return there. Under the Gibraltar Immigration Ordinance the Governor-in-Council has absolute discretion to grant or refuse certificates and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to intervene in this case.

Is there any criminal charge against Dr. Martin? If not, does the hon. Gentleman realise that Dr. Martin is a British subject and that Gibraltar is a British possession? Is it not somewhat anomalous that a British subject cannot reside in a British possession?

I know of no charge at all against Dr. Martin. He was refused when he applied in 1944 because of shortage of accommodation. This continues. The total area of Gibraltar is very small and there is an acute housing shortage. Further, Dr. Martin has never practised as a doctor in Gibraltar and there are plenty of doctors there.

The hon. Gentleman has himself raised the question of engaging in medical practice in Gibraltar. Is it not absurd to tell me that, because there is a shortage of housing accommodation in Gibraltar, a British subject cannot reside there even temporarily? Is there not something strange about this?

Dr. Martin has not applied recently. If he cared to do so, there is no objection at all to temporary visits. Permanent residence there is governed a great deal by the housing shortage, and obviously must be.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have now been made by the Sultan of Brunei in relation to the Malaysian Federation.

I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to Questions yesterday.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House more information about the proposals of the Sultan regarding the Malaysian Federation, concerning which I believe his Answers yesterday were by no means complete? How long ago was he aware of the growing resentment against these proposals lest the considerable wealth of Brunei was to be dispersed over the other Colonies? Further, is not the cry of the rebels "Brunei for the Bruneians" in view of the wealth which they fear may be lost?

It is usual that those who have wealth are not too keen to share it with others.

Without wishing to press the right hon. Gentleman too far on the current events in Brunei, may I ask him at least to acknowledge the fact that the party which opposes federation won a clean sweep at the elections in Brunei last August and that the Sultan himself has not yet declared himself to be in favour of these proposals? Would he not agree that precedents in Central Africa and the West Indies make it most important that countries should not be compelled to accede to federations against their will?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. As far as I know, nobody is trying to compel Brunei to enter the Federation of Malaysia against its will. It certainly is not in our power to take a decision of this kind. As I said yesterday, this is a matter which the Government of Brunei must decide on their own.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases of piracy have been notified to the North Borneo Government in the first 10 months of 1962; and how many pirates have been arrested and successfully prosecuted in the same period.

Thirty-two cases have been notified. Nineteen pirates have been arrested and convicted.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the North Borneo Government on the tremendous visible efforts that have been made since I last raised this case with his right hon. Friend's predecessor? I am certain that this visible effort by the armed forces to put down piracy is greatly appreciated by the people of North Borneo?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the resignation of the Governor of Kenya.

As has already been explained, my predecessor informed the Governor some time ago that, in the final stage of Kenya's advance to independence, it was proposed to replace him by a man with political experience of a wider character. It took some time to find an available person with the necessary qualifications. But last September I was fortunate in securing Mr. Malcolm Macdonald's acceptance of the appointment. I am glad of this opportunity to express once again my appreciation of Sir Patrick Renison's distinguished service in Kenya and in other posts.

While welcoming the fact that Mr. Malcolm Macdonald has agreed to accept this very onerous responsibility, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us are disturbed at the suggestion that administrative ability alone was an adequate qualification for the governorship in Kenya for the last year or so? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are disturbed by reports, emanating apparently from the Governor himself, that there is disagreement between them on the pace of advance towards the elections in Kenya? Most of my hon. Friends believe that it is vitally necessary that the elections should be held in Kenya as soon as is absolutely possible, because the present uncertainty is damaging to every community in the area.

Regarding administration, the House knows that Mr. Malcolm Macdonald has had very extensive administrative experience, though he has not served in Africa.

I was talking about the political qualifications of the previous Governor.

I allowed the hon. Member to put his supplementary question without interruption. I hope he will allow me to answer him in the same way. I was going to say that, of course, administrative experience is of great importance, but, in addition, Mr. Macdonald has proved himself outstanding as a conciliator and peacemaker and I believe that these qualities may prove to be very valuable in the state of intertribal tension which now exists in Kenya. I do not believe there is any basis whatever for the hon. Member's remark that, emanating from the Governor, there have been rumours that the change in governorship has been due to differences of opinion on policy. As I explained, this change was announced to the Governor many months ago by my predecessor, and I am glad to have this opportunity today to make it quite clear that I fully share the hon. Member's feelings that the urgent and important issue now in Kenya is to get on and to get ourselves into a position to hold elections at the first possible moment.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the change-over of Governor at this critical time will not increase delay over administrative decisions, bearing in mind the fact that there have been complaints in Kenya of a certain amount of delay?

I can certainly give my right hon. Friend that assurance. There will be no delay. Those who complain of delay I think underrate the magnitude of the task of drafting the new constitution, about which I will have something to say in reply to a later Question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the main complaint, both in and out of Kenya, has been about the extraordinarily dilatory nature of the Government's decisions to appoint the various commissions which must report before the elections are held? The Commission on the Northern Frontier district, for example, was not appointed until October, although the requirement of the Commission was announced in the spring. In view of his apparent desire to have elections held as early as possible, can he say whether he is yet in a position to state when the elections may be held?

I cannot say when the elections will be held. All I can say is that it is my firm objective to see the necessary preparations—which must be made before the election can be held, including the completion of the new constitution—expedited as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet appointed the Chairman to the Kenya Land Board; and when he will take up his duties.

I have appointed General Sir Geoffrey Bourne to be Chairman-Designate of the Kenya Land Board. He will take up his duties early in the New Year.

Can my right hon. Friend say what experience in African land this distinguished soldier possesses and whether he will be assisted in his chairmanship by anyone who has skilled knowledge in dealing with land in Africa?

One of the great difficulties has been to find somebody who was not mixed up with African affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Kenya possess a list of those who through age, infirmity, remoteness of residence or other reasons can be regarded as security risks in the even of disturbances occurring in Kenya; whether such persons receive priority on compassionate grounds in cases of farm purchase; and what steps are being taken to assist them to move to safer areas or to Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to assist the aged sick and impoverished who are now leaving Kenya, or are anxious to leave but have not the financial resources to do so.

About half the farms occupied by persons in these categories will come within the scope of the Settlement Scheme already announced. I am in consultation with the Governor about methods of dealing with the balance of the farms and with the problem of other types of compassionate cases.

Will my right hon. Friend answer the first part of my Question? Is there a list? How many are on the list, and how many are on farms or outside the farm area? Is he aware that there is considerable concern about the plight of many of these people, some of them bedridden or old, who, if there is disturbance in Kenya, should be brought out to safer areas as soon as possible?

The Governor of Kenya has very full information about these cases. It is a little difficult to say how many there are, because it is not possible precisely to define someone who is old, infirm or living in an exposed situation, but I assure my right hon. Friend that very full particulars are available to the Governor of Kenya about these cases.

Do not the aged, sick and impoverished people we are concerned with here deserve very serious consideration on humanitarian grounds, quite apart from any political issues involved? Has the Minister no complete statistics on the subject? Further, what arrangements, if any, have been made for the welfare here of those who are able to come to this country?

When they return here, they will be like any other British subjects living in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in preparing the draft of a new Constitution for Kenya.

The broad framework of the new Constitution was agreed at the Kenya Consititutional Conference earlier this year. The filling in of the details of the settlement of outstanding issues was left to the National Government of Kenya in consultation with the British Government. During his visit to Kenya in July, my predecessor decided that, although a number of important policy issues had still to be resolved, the drafting of a Constitution could begin. This was put in hand at once.

In view of the many changes 'likely to take place in Kenya in the near future, does my right hon. Friend intend to go there to see matters for himself?

I am planning to go to Kenya early in February. After consultation with the Governor, I am satis- fied that that would be the most useful moment when a number of these issues will be ripe for discussion and, I hope, decision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many new schools have been opened in Hong Kong since 1st January, 1962; and what is the present rate at which schools are being built and opened in the Colony.

In the first nine months of 1962, 159 new schools were registered, including schools in adapted premises. In this period 40 new schools were built and 17 extensions were made to existing premises. These new school buildings and extensions have provided 38,000 primary school places and 5,670 secondary school places. School building at this rate is still continuing.

In view of that astonishingly impressive record, will my hon. Friend congratulate the Government of Hong Kong and press the Lord Privy Seal to obtain terms in Brussels which will enable Hong Kong to continue to thrive?

I thank my hon. Friend very much for the first part of his supplementary question. Regarding the second pant, I think that that raises a different question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of Hong Kong's exports to Great Britain could surmount the Common Market external tariff if it were applied by this country.

asked the Secretary of State far the Colonies if he is aware of the concern felt in Hong King regarding the Common Market negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the safeguards that it is planned to obtain in Brussels for the colony.

It is not possible, because of many unknown factors, to estimate the percentage of Hong Kong's exports to Britain which would be excluded, if the common external tariff were to be applied by Britain. I am, however, aware of the concern felt in Hong Kong, and the representations I have received have been carefully considered. The European Community did not feel able to agree to the proposal which we made at the beginning of the negotiations that Hong Kong should be eligible for association. We are accordingly seeking alternative methods to safeguard the Colony's essential interests. The negotiations 'are still proceeding.

Will my right hon. Friend keep the House advised on this matter during the coming months?

Certainly.

Is it not a fact that one-third of the total population of Hong Kong are refugees from Communist China? Is it not expected that there will be an adverse swing in the competitive position of Hong Kong's trade with this country amounting to about 45 per cent. unless special terms are obtained for Hong Kong in the final Common Market negotiations? Would that swing not be very damaging to the position of the West in that part of the world?

Of course, I am well aware of the congestion problem created by this steady flow of refugees from China across the border. As regards the negotiations in Brussels, I do not think I can say mare than that we are very well aware of the quite exceptional importance of exports for Hong Kong, which really has no other means of livelihood.

Since the Common Market countries appear to have agreed yesterday that Singapore, whose economic problems are similar to those of Hong Kong, should have the same sort of rights for exports and manufactured goods as proposed for India, Pakistan and other Asian countries, cam the right hon. Gentleman at least say whether Her Majesty's Government are requesting these rights for Hang Kong and, if so, what is the attitude of the Common Market countries towards that request?

I do not think that I can go into the details about exactly what is going on in Brussels in reply to a supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grants the Colony of Hong Kong received from the United Kingdom, during 1961 and 1962; and how these compared with grants to other Colonial Territories.

In 1961 and 1962 three new colonial development and welfare schemes providing for a total grant of £238,125 have been approved and contributions totalling £12,369 have been made on account of epidemic and national disaster. Details of grants to other territories are contained in the Annual C.D. & W. White Paper and in the annual estimates; but any comparison of grants would also have to compare available local resources.

Since Hong Kong has received so little financial assistance from this country and is almost self-sustaining through her own efforts, is not our moral obligation to protect her interests redoubled and would not failure to do this be very damaging to the export position of Hong Kong?

Hong Kong has considerable problems, but it also has a buoyant revenue and substantial reserves and we must allocate the available development and welfare funds where they are most needed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many new multi-storey housing blocks have been opened in Hong Kong since 1st January, 1962; and what is the present rate at which housing is being constructed in the Colony.

This year, under Government schemes, 43 blocks have been opened, housing 86,000 people. It is planned to provide accommodation for 168,000 in the next twelve months. On the average, one block is going up every nine days.

In view of the incredible development in rehousing Hong Kong's homeless people over the years, on which both the Hong Kong Government and my right hon. Friend are congratulated, would my hon. Friend take the opportunity, if it is possible, to make available to hon. Members any films there may be of redevelopment of this type in Hong Kong, so that hon. Members themselves may see what magnificent efforts are being made?

I will certainly look at that suggestion, and I thank my hon. Friend for his compliment.

Could arrangements be made for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to go to Hong Kong to see these developments?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the percentage increase in wages paid in the Colony of Hong Kong since 1957.

Information is not available for a direct comparison with wages in 1957 owing to changes in the basis of statistics. It is, however, possible to say that during 1960 wages generally increased by about 15 per cent.

May I again ask my hon. Friend to do his best to ensure that these increases in the living standard—increased in spite of the steady flow of refugees—are not imperilled in the Brussels negotiations?

We shall do our best, of course. I should further point out that the retail price index has been steady throughout 1960, the year to which I referred, and that therefore the wage increases represent a real improvement in the general standard of living.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sum is being paid annually by Hong Kong as a contribution to the United Kingdom's defence budget.

The Colony's annual defence contribution is £1½ million.

Will this large sum be endangered if satisfactory safeguards for the Colony's industries are not obtained in the Brussels negotiations?

I think that the contribution which the Colony makes is well within its economic resources at the present time, and I hope that that position will continue.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to alleviate unemployment in Fiji.

The numbers of registered unemployed have fallen in recent months, but there is certainly a need to expand employment opportunities for the rapidly increasing numbers of school leavers. The main step being taken is the development of the land, as recommended by the Burns Report. This will provide employment directly, and also through the growth of related industries.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is great deal of feeling in the whole of the community about the difficulties that are being experienced? It has, of course, been suggested that a little more democracy might be shown to trade union leaders. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the possibility of instituting some public works to alleviate the unemployment in Fiji?

As I said, the unemployment figures have, in fact, fallen rather steeply. There were only 110 people —not very many—registered as unemployed in October, but I admit that this may conceal a certain amount of unemployment due to people not registering. As the hon. Member will know, many projects are being undertaken at present. I do not know whether he would like a list of all these public works—it is rather a long list.

Will the hon. Gentleman look closely into prospective unemployment among school leavers on his visit to this part of the world during the Christmas Recess?

Yes, I will, indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has given to the petition from the Parliamentary Labour Party in Malta requesting amendment of the Broadcasting Ordinance.

My right hon. Friend has mentioned this matter to the Prime Minister of Malta, who is looking into it and will let him have his considered views.

Does the Under-Secretary consider that in this case "mentioning" is the appropriate action? Does he not think it scandalous that the main political party is refused facilities for broadcasting its political point of view, whilst other parties not representative of the people of Malta have full facilities? Where is this democracy to which we pay so much lip-service? Does he not think it about time that something was done?

Perhaps I should have said that my right hon. Friend has discussed this matter with the Prime Minister of Malta and not merely mentioned it to him. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Mintoff has put forward this petition. We have, naturally, sent it to the Prime Minister of Malta for his observations, and we are now expecting his detailed comments very shortly.

But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Malta Labour Party has been at some disadvantage in broadcasting during elections in Malta because of the way in which this Ordinance has been interpreted by the local courts? Is it not the fact that the Secretary of State still has the ultimate authority in this matter? And can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that when a reply is finally given to Mr. Mintoff's petition it will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT SO that the House may know what it is?

Certainly, but the Malta Labour Party's proposal is to amend the Broadasting Ordinance in Malta without it going before the Legislative Assembly, and that the Ordinance should be amended to delete the reference to religious sentiment, so I do not think that we have yet come into the matter. We have had no representation on the subject from the Government of Malta, and no legislation has been brought forward in Malta.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what authority the Governor of Malta enacted the Broadcasting Ordinance of 28th July 1961.

The Ordinance was enacted under powers given to the Governor in Section 22 of the Malta (Constitution) Order in Council, 1959.

The Under-Secretary is well aware that the Broadcasting Ordinance contains in Section 7 (1, a) the statement that nothing is to be included in programmes which offends against religious sentiment. Is he aware that, unlike any other part of the Commonwealth, as far as I know, it offends against "religious sentiment" in Malta to vote Labour, or to be a member of the Labour Party? Does he think it right that people should be refused absolution if they vote Labour, which is what happens in Malta today? Does he think it right that they should be refused the rites of the Church if they vote Labour? Does he think it right that a country that operates such a system should be allowed to have a Broadcasting Ordinance based/on what is called "offence against religious sentiment"?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's definition of religious sentiment as being entirely political would not find general acceptance in Malta.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will report on the recent sentences of caning in the Aden prison, details of which have been sent to him by the honourable Member for Dundee, East; and what action he proposes to take.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on whose instructions the trade union prisoners in Aden jail were caned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further inquiries he has made into the caning of trade union prisoners in Aden; and what action he proposes to take.

On the authority of the Superintendent of Prisons, five prisoners were caned on 12th November, and four on 13th November for acts of concerted insubordination. The regulations were duly observed except for the fact that, in the case of the first five, the Superintendent regrettably overlooked the rule that there should be an interval of 24 hours before such sentences are carried out.

I welcome the changes made in that respect in the prison regulations, but is the Minister aware that, as these people were imprisoned for political offences, this was a very serious breach of regulations? Is he further aware that the four men caned on the second day were caned after having been on hunger strike for 24 hours? In those circumstances, will not he institute an inquiry into the administration of the prison and, if necessary, take disciplinary action against those responsible?

I said in my Answer that the regulations relating to medical examination had been carried out—or, if I did not say that, I said that all the regulations had been carried out, and they include medical examination. As for disciplinary action, the only person who might be considered in that connection would be the Superintendent. The Governor has decided that no further action is required in this case. He has gone fully into the matter. After visiting the prison myself—I took the opportunity when I was at Aden the other day —and speaking to the Superintendent, I am satisfied that that decision is entirely correct.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he cannot just say that it is entirely the fault of the Superintendent? Is he aware that the announcement of the first lot of callings was made over the radio and that the Governor can have no excuse that he knew nothing about them? Is he aware that the second lot of callings did not occur until 24 hours afterwards and that the Governor did nothing whatever to stop the second lot, and that, if anybody is to blame, the Governor is as much to blame as the Superintendent?

No breach of regulations took place in regard to the second canings. It was only on the first ones where the delay of 24 hours prescribed by the regulations was not observed. The second canings were carried out fully in conformity with the regulations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman go further into the question of the medical examination in this case? Is he aware that on a recent visit to Aden I was informed by some of the men who were caned that five of them on the first day had been declared fit for punishment but that five had been declared unfit and that the five declared unfit were subsequently caned 22 hours later, despite the fact that they had had no food in the interval? Is not this prima facie scandalous? If they were unfit on the first occasion, then surely after a day without food they were unfit on the second occasion. Can the right hon. Gentleman feel satisfied that the second decision was taken on purely medical grounds and that no other authorities had intervened in the meantime?

It is no good my expressing a view about the fitness of people who were examined some weeks ago in Aden, but I have no reason whatsoever to suppose that the doctor did not act in strict conformity with the high principles of his profession.

As my right hon. Friend has since seen this prison and the conditions himself, does he not now agree that the Governor is responsible for the prison and his Administration are solely and absolutely to blame fl or what occurred?

Answer.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the caning of political prisoners for going on hunger strike as a protest against what they believe to be the refusal of the prison administration to have one of their number given dental attention is a clear example of political intimidation? In view of the fact that the Governor of Aden should have known about these callings, or at least the second series, for the first series was announced on the radio before the second series took place, is there not a clear dereliction of duty? Will the right hon. Gentleman not take some stops to inform the Governor of Aden that the people of this country are most concerned that such a violation of justice should be committed in their name? [An HON. MEMBER: "Express regret."]

The hon. Member is making a great deal of a very simple breach of the regulations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The breach was that in the case of five out of the nine prisoners the delay imposed by the regulations of 24 hours before the caning was not observed. That is the extent of the complaint. As for talking about political prisoners, these people were serving a sentence imposed by the court for an offence against the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "A demonstration."] The offence which they committed in the prison was not just a hunger strike. It was also refusal to do work in the prison which all other prisoners are required to do.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what economic aid, in grant or loan, is being offered to British Guiana, as a result of the breakdown of independence talks and the present financial problems of the Colony.

We are already providing some £12¾ million towards the current development programme, which covers the period 1960–64. By the end of this year it is expected that something of the order of £4 million will still remain to be drawn.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that very serious financial difficulties have arisen in British Guiana, particularly as a result of delay in the coming of independence? Does not this call for some extra aid from Her Majesty's Government?

I do not think that any particular extra difficulties have arisen out of the delay on independence, which certainly was not the fault of Her Majesty's Government in any case; it was the fault of the two parties, who completely failed to agree on almost every single thing that we discussed. As for the economic situation, probably the root cause of the whole trouble there is the contraction of trade due to the loss of political confidence. That is something about which we cannot do anything here.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions, of which Her Majesty's Government were informed, took place during the British Guiana Conference between the Government Party and the Opposition Parties on the future of the Colony; what proposals were put forward by the British Guiana Government during these discussions; and if he will make a statement.

The agreed report on the proceedings of the Conference was presented to the House on 6th November as Command Paper 1870. I have not been informed of any discussion between the parties or of any proposals which they may have made to one another outside the ambit of the Conference.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my Question was put on the Order Paper before the issue of the White Paper. May I ask him, therefore, whether it is not a fact, arising from the White Paper, that the negotiations broke down on three questions only and that on each of these three questions Dr. Jagan had been prepared to compromise? Does not this seem to show that there might have been greater insistence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman himself on keeping the parties together so that independence would be achieved? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there seems to be some feeling in certain quarters that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to bring about the downfall of Dr. Jagan at any cost?

The last suggestion, of course, is completely without foundation. As for the other point, I can assure the House that I did my utmost to try to bring the parties together, but anybody who studies the Report will see that even at the formal opening meeting in public, in front of the Press and the television cameras, when it was intended that the delegations should confine themselves to an exchange of courtesies, they already began to speak in a most inimical way about one another. That atmosphere, I am afraid, continued throughout the whole Conference, and more so when we were in private session. Of course, various proposals were made on both sides, but in all cases they went so little towards the point of view of the other party that they did not offer any basis for a compromise solution.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the manner in which he attempted to get the parties together in this Conference, may I ask whether he will bear three important facts in mind before granting independence to British Guiana. First, that Dr. Jagan, the Prime Minister of British Guiana, has declared himself to be a Communist with Communist ambitions; secondly, that the majority of the people, if given the opportunity in British Guiana, would now vote him out of office primarily because of that fact: and, thirdly, that the holding of a general election is an essential stage before any agreement on independence can be reached?

I have noted my hon. Friend's opinions, but I am sure he will understand that if I am to have any chances as a mediator in these matters it would not help if I were to comment on what he has said.

While recognising that this really is a most difficult problem and that there are genuine fears among the various communities in British Guiana, may I ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take to try to encourage a rapprochement between the two leading parties? Would he not agree that Dr. Jagan has already agreed to hold elections before independence, although there is still disagreement between the parties about the system under which the elections will be held? In view of the fact that both sides, as the right hon. Gentleman has confessed, have made certain proposals for compromise, will he not use his own effort to try to see that compromise is finally achieved?

As for the holding of elections, I think I am right in saying that Dr. Jagan, certainly at the Conference— I do not know what he has said since, I have not noticed anything—did not say that he was prepared to hold elections before independence. That was one of the issues at stake. As for future action, I think that the next step is for the Governor to discuss the position arising out of the Conference as soon as the leaders of the three parties have returned to British Guiana. Then, in the light of the Governor's report, I will have to decide about the question of reconvening the Conference.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Official Secrets Act with a view to preventing the disclosure, in written OT other farm, of any actions or operations carried out by members or former members of the British Secret Intelligence Service or other secret Government services.

The provisions of the Official Secrets Acts are already adequate for their purpose; and, in general, they work satisfactorily.

If my right hon. Friend considers that the Act is adequate for its purpose, will he agree that it has not been enforced? For instance, does he agree that the recent publication of the book, "The Quiet Canadian", discloses the most flagrant breaches of the Official Secrets Act by one or mare people, showing that the Act is not being enforced in the way it was after the First World War? If no action is taken under the Act as a result of the publication of this book, will it not be impossible to prevent other secret agents exploiting their own experiences for money and, moreover, impossible to prosecute them if they do?

I am informed that this book, "The Quiet Canadian", did not in fact prejudice current security in any way. I am informed also that any breach was inadvertent and due to a misunderstanding. In general, the requirements of the Act are widely understood and are well observed.

In view of my right hon. Friend's rather surprising statement about what is in "The Quiet Canadian", will he say whether the book was submitted by Mr. Montgomery Hyde to the usual authorities far passing or whether Mr. Montgomery Hyde got some other individuals to look at the book? It is most important, in the interest of preserving the secrets which are essential to our security, to know exactly what happened in the procedure relating to this book.

The Question is a general one to which I gave a general Answer. If my hon. Friend will put dawn a Question about the circumstances of that particular case, I shall answer it.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Goverment and Minister for Welsh Affairs, at a Press conference at Cardiff on 23rd November, about house ownership represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

At the Press conference referred to, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs made no speech or declaration of policy. He was simply replying to questions about a local problem in the City of Cardiff.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister's remarks to the Press, which were widely reported, indicate that the Government's policy is to ignore the plight of the victims of the 1957 Act whose houses are to be demolished yet who will have to continue paying on mortgages for houses which they have not got? Are we to understand that it is the Government's policy to take no steps to help these people who are plainly the victims of the legislation passed in 1957?

I understand that in this particular case, which, I agree, is a very unusual one, the Cardiff City Council granted mortgages on a number of houses which they now propose shall be demolished under slum clearance orders. The clearance orders are still under consideration by my right hon. Friend and, therefore, the matter is still for him to make his decision about.

Will the Prime Minister hold out hope that, when a decision has been taken on these clearance orders, he and the Government will look art the question of protecting people who have to pay under mortgages for houses which no longer exist as a result of an order by a public authority?

This whole problem of clearance orders for the purpose of slum clearance has been dealt with on many occasions in legislation by the House. As I have said, this is rather a special case, and I shall certainly be in touch with my right hon. Friend concerning how it can best be dealt with.

Would it not be dealt with quite simply by the Cardiff City Council, which made loans on these properties and which now proposes to order their demolition, not requiring those to whom they made the loans to continue with mortgage repayments when the houses have been destroyed?

That would certainly be a very satisfactory solution for those who have entered into such agreements.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to ensure that any waiver of pension by any former Lord Chancellor shall in each case be made permanent.

No, Sir.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that the good repute of ex-Lord Chancellors, who normally do not sell themselves in the market place, is even mare gravely prejudiced when, as in the latest case, the pension is drawn for a period, then waived, but with an entitlement nevertheless to draw it again? Why cannot Plessey look after its own employees on their retirement?

The hon. Member has introduced this subject in a rather unnecessarily offensive way, referring to an old colleague of ours who is deeply respected in all parts of the House. It seems to me not unreasonable that he should draw his pension when he is entitled to draw it and renounce it when he is earning from another source.

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that it is now widely thought that he is treating this grave matter rather too flippantly, that there is real concern about it, and that it cannot be brushed off with a flippant answer?

Mine was a courteous reply to a very rude supplementary question.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that it is extremely unsatisfactory that the head of the whole judiciary should go straight from the Woolsack into private industry? Would he not also agree that a large pension was arranged for ex-Lord Chancellors with this very difficulty in view—that they should not he under any temptation, or any necessity, to find their living in another way? Was it not also part of the reasoning behind the pension that they should be available for judicial work in the House of Lords? Is it contemplated that if he gives up his present post with this firm and draws his pension he will return to sit as a judge in the House of Lords?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has got the facts quite right. There has always been a pension for the Lord Chancellor, and I think that in the old days the understanding was that the pension was partly because he could not easily return to his own profession. It was a convention that an ex-Lord Chancellor, while his health allowed it, should sit to add his help in the judicial work of the House of Lords, but that if his health did not allow it he should continue to draw the pension. If he is not drawing the pension, I do not see what grievance arises.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, on his forthcoming visit, he will propose to President Kennedy that, in view of Prime Minister Castro's agreement to a system of investigation on the spot, provided it could be used by Cuba for investigating charges against other countries in the Caribbean as well as by them against Cuba, an international agreement under the auspices of the Security Council should be concluded which provided for such a system, based on the principle of reciprocity;

asked the Prime Minister whether, during his forthcoming visit to the United States of America, he will discuss with President Kennedy the implementation of the United Nations resolution on economic sanctions against South Africa.

As I told the House on 29th November, I expect to discuss with President Kennedy the general international situation in the light of events since our last meeting; but I think these discussions would lack spontaneity if I were to attempt to rehearse them in this House.

Is not the Prime Minister aware that since 29th November a great deal of public concern has been aroused about the prospect of a conflict between the British Government and the American Government on the issue of General de Gaulle's demand for an independent European nuclear force? Will he give an assurance that he will not pay this price for entering the Common Market?

I think that it is the general view of the House and the country that the President has acted in the Cuban crisis both with great skill and courage and prudence and good sense. It would be a very bad thing in any way to try to oppose his efforts to get this matter resolved in accordance with the undertaking given by the Chairman of the Soviet Republic. As to the hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question, there is no connection between the two matters of the Common Market and a nuclear force.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he has not answered my Question? Is he not aware that on 7th November last the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, calling on all member States to boycott South African goods and to refrain from exporting goods to South Africa, including all arms and ammunition? As member States will have to report what action they have taken under the resolution at the next meeting of the General Assembly, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Britain and the United States, who claim to be supporters of the United Nations, should prove it by co-ordinating their action in support of this resolution?

It is certainly the case that this resolution was passed by a two-thirds majority, but it has the force only of a recommendation. Her Majesty's Government's position was fully explained by our delegation during the debate.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up an independent body to consider and advise upon the rules governing access to State records, particularly Foreign Office Archives and Cabinet Papers.

No, Sir. This is a subject for which the Government of the day must remain fully responsible.

Since it is evident from recent practice that a special privilege in this respect is accorded to Conservative ex-Prime Ministers, does not the Prime Minister think that it is rather invidious for him to suggest that no change in the present arrangements is required?

The hon. Member has made a statement which is not wholly in accordance with the facts. This privilege, if it is a privilege, is that any Minister may refresh his memory by looking again at official papers which he saw when he was in office. That is quite separate from the general rule governing the publication of papers as a whole. Up to now, at any rate, it has been the view that to publish them at an earlier date would make two difficulties: first, it would tend to destroy the collective responsibility of the Cabinet; secondly, it would have the great disadvantage of making public the advice given by officials to Ministers.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the present situation is rather unsatisfactory precisely because a distinction is drawn between the fifty-year rule for historians and former Ministers to whom it now seems to be legitimate to refer to almost anything which happened in any Cabinet before and during the war? Will he consider this matter again and consider whether it is really necessary to maintain the fifty-year rule in its strictest severity in one case and yet not apply it in the other?

I see the difficulty. I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that in a great war such as the last war a certain laxity comes into the practice for the period and perhaps for the period immediately before the war. Personally, I think that the practice is working reasonably well. On the question of Ministers' rights, it would not be unfair to say that they are writing their own accounts and are not posing as impartial historians of the day. The fifty-year rule was reached after a good deal of consideration. One might question whether the matter should be reopened, but I do not feel inclined to do that at the moment, and I do not think that there is any great demand for it.

The Prime Minister said that there was something inaccurate in my original supplementary question. Is it not the case that both the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and Lord Avon, for example, have been given permission to publish much more detail of discussions at Cabinet meetings than has ever been accorded to other Ministers?

I have seen memoirs of that period from other Ministers which seemed to me to be just as detailed.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this matter is complicated in view of the fact that the United States and many other countries publish their documents long before we do? Does not that leave us in a very vulnerable position? We never seem to have a chance to publish our case. American documents have been published very recently regarding the Baltic States, and I should very much like to see our documents on the subject.

Of course, the American system does not enjoy or suffer from—I do not know which is the right term—the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. It is a wholly different system. The President has the responsibility, not a Cabinet. Nor is there anything like the relations between the permanent civil service in that country and Ministers that we have developed in this country.

Why should anybody be afraid of disclosures about what has happened at Cabinet meetings? Is it not desirable that in a free demorcacy the public should be fully informed, apart from matters relating to security, on what has happened at Cabinet meetings as far back as we can go and in recent days?

That opens up a new and fruitful line of thought which I should like to consider.