asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the action of an Indonesian gunboat in attacking a kumpit in North Borneo territorial waters near Tawau recently.

On 28th December an Indonesian gunboat intercepted a kumpit sailing off Tawau in North Borneo, arrested the crew and took it in tow. The kumpit was later abandoned as a wreck. On receiving a report of the incident H.M.S. "Barrosa" chased the gunboat; and the commanding officer, together with a police officer, went on board on the high seas. The members of the arrested crew of the kumpit were found to be Indonesian and, as the national status of the kumpit could not be established or that it had been stopped inside North Borneo territorial waters, the "Barrosa" withdrew.

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend and the Admiralty on having one of our latest vessels available on the spot, but, in view of similar incidents in the past, can my hon. Friend say whether representations have been made to the Indonesian Government to stop similar incidents in the future?

Yes, the Governor of North Borneo made an immediate protest to the Indonesian consul. As my hon. Friend knows, the main difficulty in these cases is to establish identification. The people who were found on the Indonesian vessel were, in fact, of Indonesian nationality, and it was not established until later that the boat was owned by North Borneo Chinese.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the medical supplies and drugs which were delivered to St. Helena by United States aircraft and ships following the bus accident which occurred there on 24th December.

As the reply is rather long I will, with permission, arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I should like to take this opportunity of saying how grateful we are to the United States authorities for the valuable help which they gave in this matter in arranging both for an extra doctor to get quickly to the island and for the transport of medical supplies which were urgently needed.

While associating, myself with the thanks which the hon. Gentleman has just given, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State why these necessary drugs are not available on St. Helena to meet emergencies of this kind? I think that he should explain to the House why there is this constant lack of necessary drugs on this remote island. Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that there are now sufficient necessary drugs on St. Helena to meet any emergency which may occur now or in the future?

Yes, there are sufficient drugs there now. There was a shortage of drugs on the island as some of the drugs ordered were not dispatched on a boat arriving on 23rd December owing to shipping and other difficulties at a time when, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there was an actual shortage of food supplies on the island. The main effort was concentrated on them and I am afraid that the drugs, for which there would have been room on the ship, were omitted on that occasion.

May I ask why it is that, although we are said to have a large number of ships and aircraft, we should not be able to provide either but have to rely on the Americans to send these things?

Actually, the Navy offered to lay on a frigate, but it was quicker to send help by way of American aircraft.

Had we no aircraft?

We had a Shackleton available, but there was bad weather here. It would not in any case have got there any quicker than the American aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, how the proposed expenditure of £76,000 in St. Helena in 1963 will be divided between the proposed projects.

The budget provides £12,000 for the subsidising of essential foodstuffs, £2,000 for relief of the poor, £13,000 for unemployment relief, £17,000 for public works, £23,000 for agricultural improvements and £9,000 for subsidising the production of flax.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether the amount allocated is that which was asked for by the Governor of St. Helena? Can he explain to me why the Secretary of State for the Colonies has, apparently, most unfortunately neglected this important little island? Is he aware that I am extremely angry at the way in which this affair has been handled?

I am not aware of any neglect of St. Helena by my right hon. Friend, nor do I know of any request by the Governor for larger funds than those which I have stated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to send a surgeon to St. Helena for permanent duty.

The island's Senior Medical Officer is a medical practitioner fully capable of major surgery. A second doctor with surgical experience will leave for the island the day after tomorrow.

But if the doctor is capable of major surgery, why was it necessary to obtain the services of a surgeon from this country to perform the operations after the accident?

It was rather an exceptional accident. There were nine people with very serious injuries, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it was thought advisable to send reinforcements, but the doctor is, in fact, capable of major surgery and does carry it out in the hospital there.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what would be the cost of building and maintaining an airport of international standard on the Seychelles.

The cost of building a suitable airfield has been estimated at a little over £2 million, and the cost of operating it at over £25,000 per annum. It has for long been recognised that air service would bring economic advantages to the Seychelles but I am not satisfied that these would be such as to justify so large an investment. In the meantime the available funds for development are urgently needed for other schemes in the territory.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he look into the strategic value of an airport and the possible earnings from international airlines and estimate the amount of the £2 million which would be paid to the local population? Having done so, would not he find that the expenditure was fully justified?

I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air about the strategic aspect. As my hon. Friend knows, unemployment is one of the major problems in the Seychelles. Tourism and airports do not provide as much employment as agriculture, and were this sort of money available I should prefer to spend it on improving agricultural schemes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of local support for this proposition? Can he assure the House that this is not a case of an artificially high figure being quoted in order to discourage a project which might be carried out more economically? With the dwindling in the number of Colonial Territories, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is of importance that the rather forgotten islands of the world, including the Seychelles, should get special attention?

I have no reason to suppose that the figure is inflated. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for his support.

Although the question relates to all the islands, can my hon. Friend say whether the cost of constructing an airport and running it relates only to the Mahé group?

Yes, this relates to the main islands of Mahé.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the appointment and promotion of expatriate officers to posts in the Seychelles.

Expatriates are appointed when no suitably qualified Seychellois are available to fill vacancies. Once appointed, all officers in the service of the Seychelles Government whether expatriate or local are equally considered for promotion.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the very widespread concern that has been felt in the Seychelles at the recent appointment of an expatriate director of medical services while there were two perfectly qualified candidates, born in the Seychelles, who could have taken the post?

I cannot comment on the particular case, because I do not actually know about it; but I think that if one gives preference to local people on appointment it is fair to consider everybody on his merits when it comes to promotion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on the reply he has sent to the petition of the Malta Labour Party against the Broadcasting Ordinance in Malta.

My right hon. Friend has asked the Governor to inform Mr. Mintoff that he cannot agree to his proposals and that, if he wishes to secure amendment of the Ordinance, his proper course is to introduce a Motion in the Legislative Assembly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is quite unsatisfactory? Is it not a fact that the provision in the Ordinance preventing broadcasts which offend against religious sentiment is drawn so wide that it is used to censor political comments by the Maltese Labour Party which in no way violate the Constitution? As, under Section 121 of the Blood Constitution, Her Majesty's Government in Council may repeal or amend any part of it, will not the hon. Gentleman take advantage of that section and thus restore true democratic rights to the Maltese Labour Party?

I think that the hon. Lady is under a misapprehension. We did not reserve power to amend the Ordinance but only to prevent undesirable amendments to it. In other words, we have a negative and not a positive power. To resume the power of amendment at the present stage of Malta's development, even if there were thought to be a good case for doing so, would be a retrograde step which would be deeply resented by Dr. Borg Olivier and his Government, especially at a time when Malta is approaching independence.

Is not it a fact that it is a hopeless proposition for Mr. Mintoff to try to get this unfair Ordinance amended in the Legislative Council, because the Ordinance is being used to the advantage of the majority party there, which will certainly not extend democratic rights to the Maltese Labour Party?

That is not correct. Mr. Mintoff was offered his share of broadcasting time, exactly the same amount as was offered to Dr. Borg Olivier's party. There was complete parity of time allotted. But Mr. Mintoff wanted to attack the Church and this the Ordinance does not permit. He therefore refused to take part in any further discussion and would not take up the time offered to him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many working days were lost due to industrial disputes at Bailey (Malta) Ltd. from the time this company took over the dockyard at Malta in 1959 until the present time.

I understand that the total number of working days lost up to the time when the Council of Administration took over was nine.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that those figures are a remarkable tribute to the industrial relations that were established by the company, considering that a few days before it took over there were riots taking place in the dockyard involving arson, destruction of Government property and physical assault on the admiral superintendent, involving actual bodily harm?

I should add that the number of working days lost is not the only criterion. Industrial disputes have led the union to impose a ban on overtime and that effectively prevents any commercial ships going into the dockyard while the ban is on. I should say that a good record of industrial relations would not of itself be any justification for the kind of financial transactions criticised in the Muirie Report.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the first three months' ban on overtime was entirely a pre-election move by the Malta General Workers Union and the present six weeks' ban on overtime, in spite of what the Government promised, is still going on?

We cannot go on about this. It almost amounts to a speech.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in appointing Mr. Muirie to submit a report on Bailey (Malta) Limited, he instructed him not to take political factors into account.

No, Sir. Mr. Muirie was appointed under Clause 8 of the Financial Agreement with the company to inspect its books, and political factors were therefore irrelevant.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that, considering the exceptional conditions under which the company was working and the vital necessity of not decreasing the labour force at all in the dockyard, any report which ignored the political factors would be of very limited value?

No, I do not think so. We were concerned about the financial transactions of this company. That is why we employed an accountant to look at the books. It was a strictly limited inquiry with that purpose alone. It is for the Government to consider political considerations, not Mr. Muirie.

Would my hon. Friend explain why in the report Mr. Muirie made a point of the fact that he did not have to deal with political matters?

That is exactly the point of what I have been saying: he did not have to do so.

Is it not the fact that the matters raised in the Muirie Report are to be the subject of litigation between Her Majesty's Government and Bailey's? Is it not a good thing to suspend judgment upon them until the facts as decided by the courts are known?

It is perfectly true that this is a subject of litigation. No one is making any judgments about it. The House knows the contents of the Muirie Report and can make its own judgment on them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he first decided to meet the chairman and vice-chairman of Bailey (Malta) Ltd.; and why, in view of the seriousness of the dockyard problem to Malta and the fact that it was then a reserved subject to the British Government, he did not meet these directors immediately after the receipt of the Muirie Report.

My right hon. Friend decided last December to see the chairman and vice-chairman as soon as possible after his return from the Caribbean in January. The vice-chairman was so informed on the 14th December. As to the second part of the Question, the period between the date of receipt of the report and the meeting with the chairman and vice-chairman was largely taken up with the consideration of the grave matters raised in the report and the important issues arising out of them.

Was it not a great pity that the Secretary of State did not meet these gentlemen earlier so that a lot of confusion and a great deal of misunderstanding might have been avoided?

It may be so, but there were a number of difficulties in arranging the meeting, including my right hon. Friend's illness—which the House will remember occurred in November—his visits to India and Pakistan and to the Caribbean in December and January. Subsequently, there was a certain amount of difficulty in arranging a mutually convenient appointment, which was not really our fault.

From the Minister's earlier Answer, are we to understand that in September it was arranged to have this meeting in January, which was before the Secretary of State was ill, and is it not a pity that it could not have been held rather sooner?

No. There was never any suggestion that the meeting should be held in September because, in fact, the Bailey company did not receive the Report until November.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in April last year three of the Government-appointed directors resigned, so why was not some action taken in April of last year instead of waiting until December?

Action was taken. As soon as those directors resigned we arranged for Mr. Muirie to investigate the books of the company. It was because of their resignation that we did that.

Apart from the the Secretary of State's illness, is not the long delay a reflection of the difficulties we are having with a Joint Secretary of State for two Departments, with many obligations to go abroad for quite long periods for constitutional talks?

That is another matter, and I do not think that it arises on this Question. In any case, it is not one for me. I can assure the hon. Member that no one works harder or more thoroughly than my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Muirie Report on Bailey's Dockyard, Malta, was presented to the Colonial Office and when it was passed on to Bailey Ltd. and to the Prime Minister of Malta; why Bailey (Malta) Ltd. were only allowed about a fortnight to reply to the charges made; and how long this period was extended at the request of the Prime Minister of Malta.

The hon. Member's Question suggests that he is under a number of misapprehensions as to the facts. In the circumstances the reply is necessarily rather long and I am circulating it with the Official Report.

I realise that my hon. Friend may think that I am in the wrong, but is it not true that it was four months after the Report was originally produced before it reached either the Bailey company or the Prime Minister of Malta and that they were then given a fortnight in which to reply? Was this really a satisfactory and fair attitude to take when dealing with a company which had ben asked to try to save the situation in Malta?

No. The period for receiving the company's comments on the Muirie Report was extended first to 19th December, then to 9th January, then to 21st January, and finally, to 31st January. The company was given four extensions of time in which to comment, covering a total period of more than two months and not two weeks. The requests for the extensions came from the company and not from the Prime Minister of Malta.

Is it not a fact that the present difficulties are being increased because it is now proving impossible to find the books relating to the company?

My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Messrs. Bailey saw fit to destroy or remove all the documents and records before the Council of Administration came into operation in March.

Why?

In view of the rather unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the first phase of the change in the Malta dockyard to commercial work has been completed; and when he expects the change to be completed.

It is estimated that about 30 per cent. of phase one of the plan for the conversion of the dockyard has been completed. Of the remainder, I understand that the main contract, placed jointly with George Wimpey & Co., Ltd., and the Royal Netherlands Harbour Company in February, 1962, as likely to be completed early in 1964. As regards the other works and services included in phase one, it may be possible to give a more definite estimate when the position has been reviewed by the new Council of Administration but the present estimate is that these works are not likely to be completed before the end of 1965.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that we had a definite assurance two years ago that the first phase in the reorganisation of the dockyard in Malta would be completed this year? What is the cause of the delay? So far only one phase has been completed.

I am afraid that the cause of the delay is that the contract was not placed soon enough. It was placed only in February, 1962, which was due almost entirely to procrastination by the firm then in charge of the dockyard.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take in the present circumstances in Malta to maintain a steady flow of both Admiralty and civil ship repairing in the dockyard to prevent any further increase in unemployment in the island.

It is primarily a matter for the Council of Administration to secure commercial work for the Dockyard. I can assure the hon. Member that they are well aware of the needs of the situation. As was announced on the 14th February, the First Lord proposes, subject to satisfactory contract arrangements, to send H.M.S. "Troubridge" to Malta for a major refit in the near future. There will of course also be other Admiralty work for the dockyard.

Now that the dockyard has been taken over by the Admiralty again, will the Minister give a definite assurance that there will be no unemployment among the men working in these yards?

The Admiralty has not taken over the running of the dockyard, which will depend in the future very largely upon commercial work, so I can give no such guarantee.

Can the Minister give the House an assurance that active steps will be taken to maintain employment in the dockyard? Is he aware that the present mess that has been created there is due to the lack of judgment of the Government in relation to the contractors they made the arrangements with? Therefore, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the deteriorating serious unemployment situation in Malta is not made very greatly worse as a result of this.

We certainly recognise responsibility for employment in Malta. The new Council of Administration hopes to maintain the level of employment in the dockyard. Whether it is able to do so or not depends to an extent on what work it can get, and on this the Council cannot express an opinion at the moment. After all, it has been in existence for only 11 days.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a contribution from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund towards the cost of a new hospital in St. Kitts.

This has already been agreed in principle and a detailed scheme is now being considered.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how much is to be devoted to this purpose? Can he say what will be the total cost? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he will consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation to see whether it would be possible to secure the secondment of a sister tutor, for which I understand there is great need?

I have not heard this, but I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation. The total cost of the hospital will be 1,700,000 British West Indian dollars. I cannot say what will be our contribution from C.D. and W. funds until the receipt of the finalised proposals which we have not yet had. I hope that the contribution will be substantial.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "substantial"?

I do not think that I can reveal a figure at the moment, because I have not been into the matter and have not received the scheme itself.

Following the breakdown of the Federation, can the Minister say whether grants from C.D. and W. lie directly between Her Majesty's Government and individual islands or whether they pass through some internal machinery?

So far as I know, they lie directly between us and the smaller islands.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the recent floods in North Borneo and Sarawak and the resultant loss of life and damage.

I apologise for the length of this reply. The floods in many areas in both territories were the worst on record. I regret to say that at least 21 people are believed to have lost their lives. One British Service man was drowned.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the widespread nature of the flooding and the gravity of the situation, may I ask whether it would be thought appropriate to launch a national appeal in this country so that these territories may be assisted should the local assistance from their own flood relief funds not be sufficient? Will Her Majesty's Government pay particular attention to those kampongs which have done so much in self-help, by the building of roads and other facilities, to assist in the development of these territories?

So far, I have received no requests for further assistance. Flood relief funds have been set up locally, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows, and contributions from private people and institutions are being received and are very welcome. I understand that there is also a students' fund in this country. I will consider whether a major scheme should be launched, but it is rather a long time after the event for that to be done.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Sultanate of Haushabe is to be included in the British Protectorate States federated with Aden Colony.

Yes, Sir.

Will the code of human rights, which I understand will be incorporated in the Constitution for Aden, be extended to this particular area? If a slave escapes from this area and gets to Aden, is he liable to be apprehended by the agents of the Sultan?

I am sorry, but I must ask the hon. Member for notice of those points because, frankly, I do not know the answer to them.

Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman will get the information for me if I send particulars by letter?

Yes, I certainly will.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was on his authority that the Aden Police broke into Ihsan's House where the ladies were in purdah.

As I informed the right hon. Gentleman when he wrote to me on this matter last month, the allegation that the Aden police broke into a purdah house is unfounded.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is relying on information from the High Commissioner while I am relying on information from Ihsan, and Al Asneg, the president of the People's Socialist Party, and I have as good reason for supposing the allegation to be true as he has for supposing that it is wrong? May I ask whether the police had a warrant or not?

Yes, certainly the police inspector's action was in accordance with notice issued by the commissioner of police under the appropriate Ordinance, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The police acted perfectly properly and the facts, I assure the right hon. Member, are correct. On 8th January a police inspector went to Miss Ihsan's house and knocked at the door, which was opened by her sister who was not in purdah. Miss Ihsan was not in the house and the policeman saw no other lady, whether in purdah or not, at the time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has received from the High Commissioner in Aden about the intentions of the Aden Government in regard to revising the franchise and holding elections in Aden Colony.

I understand from the High Commissioner that the Aden Government has the revision of the franchise under consideration and hopes to formulate proposals in the next few weeks.

Will the Minister bear in mind that this is still the responsibility of the House of Commons and the British Government? Can he give the House an assurance that there will be a revision of the franchise and that elections will be held before the present year is out?

Yes. The position is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that we have to hold elections in Aden by the end of this year. There is no intention of bringing in a delaying Order in Council or anything of that sort. However, the terms of the franchise are within the competence of the Aden State Government. Under the Aden Constitution the High Commissioner is bound to act on the advice of the Aden Council of Ministers, so we have not a very direct interest at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the incursion into Aden Federal Territory of troops of the Yemen Republics; and what steps he is taking to secure a peaceful solution.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Yemeni Republican invaders of Aden Federal Territory have now been expelled or interned; and if he will make a further statement.

As the Answer is rather long I will with permission answer this Question and No. 27 together in the form of a statement at the end of Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that on 15th February police officers in the Colony of Aden raided the premises of the following organisations, namely, the Aden Trade Union Congress, the Itthad-el-Yameni, headquarters of the People's Socialist Party, the Al-Bath Printing Press, and the Arab Reform Club, causing inconvenience to the members of the organisations concerned; and what were the reasons for these actions.

Yes, Sir. This search was carried out to collect evidence concerning a pamphlet considered to be seditious.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these raids were carried out during a religious period in Aden and that they upset the whole of the Moslem community? Is he also aware that operating in Aden is the Yemeni Royalist movement which is recruiting guerrillas to fight against the Yemeni Republican Government, yet no action is taken against organisations of that nature?

I think that the latter part of that supplementary question had very little to do with the original Question. This search was carried out to try to identify the authors of this seditious pamphlet, many copies of which were found. It was carried out with proper authority issued by a magistrate, and I have no further comments to make about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports he has received from the Government of Hong Kong concerning the dispatch from Formosa to Hong Kong of large numbers of Kuo Min-Tang agents and supplies of explosives and napalm; how many of these agents have recently been detected and detained by the Hong Kong police; and what quantities of explosive and napalm the Hong Kong police have discovered.

The Governor of Hong Kong has reported the detention this year of 21 Kuo Min-Tang agents and the seizure of 147 lb. of explosives and 7½ lb. of napalm.

Is it not a fact that all the activities of the Kuo Min-Tang are in fact financed by the United States Government and maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency? Will the Under-Secretary ask the Foreign Secretary to insist with the United States Government that this illegal and intolerable use of Hong Kong shall cease?

No, I think it quite untrue that this is financed by or done with the knowledge or complicity of the United States Government. At any rate it is absolute news to me if it is so and I have no information of that kind at all. We deplore these activities and, of course, we have made representations through such channels as are available to us to Formosa.

Is it not a matter of common knowledge that Marshal Chiang Kai-shek and his Government are financed by the United States Government and that their troops are trained by United States officers? Are we not entitled to ask that an ally shall insist that this illegal use of British-ruled territory shall come to an end?

Whatever arrangements there may be about the finances of Formosa, this does not relate directly to the employment of these agents who, if they have government authority, must have only Formosan Government authority, not United States Government authority.

Reverting to the former answer to my right hon. Friend, did I understand the Under-Secretary to say, in the first place, that what my right hon. Friend said was untrue and, in the later part of his answer, that he had no knowledge of it? Are we to infer from that answer that anything of which he has no knowledge is quite untrue? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the main conclusions of the committee set up by the Governor of Hong Kong to consider the future of the electricity supply in the territory.

The Commission recommended compulsory purchase of the two private undertakings which at present provide the supply and their replacement by an independent public authority.

As the Committee reported more than three years ago, can the Under-Secretary tell us why no action has been taken? Will he give an assurance that this is not because of narrow, doctrinaire, partisan reasons?

No. We have sent no instructions on this matter. I understand that there is a considerable section of public opinion in Hong Kong which is opposed to nationalisation, as indeed there is in this country.

Would the Under-Secretary also agree that there is a very considerable and much larger proportion of the Colony which is very much in favour of it?

I do not know about that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the future of the Tati Company in Bechuanaland.

No, Sir. The Tati Company, which is a large landowner in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, has recently disposed of some of its assets, but I am unable to say what its future policy will be.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that that Answer reveals, or at least implies, a dangerous state of ignorance of the present position? Is he aware that the exploitation by this company is heartily disliked in the Francistown area both by Europeans and Africans? Is he further aware that this company owns and operates electricity, water and sanitation undertakings and makes charges to ensure such a high degree of profit that it is preventing development in that area?

I understand that relations between the Bechuanaland authorities and the company have not been very good in the past, but the position has been quite quiet for the last two years. The hon. Member is not correct in what he said about water and electricity undertakings. Previously they were operated by the company, but they are now operated by the recently established Francistown Township Authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what legal steps would have to be taken in Britain and France to end the Condominium over the New Hebrides; and if he will recommend to the French Government that the Condominium should end.

The legal steps would depend mainly on what was to replace the Condominium, but in Britain they would include the revocation of the Orders-in-Council giving the force of the law to the Anglo-French Protocol providing for the Condominium and to its amendments. It is not however my intention to recommend to the French Government the end of the Condominium.

Does my hon. Friend find it very easy to administer this Condominium since the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations?

I do not think that the Brussels negotiations have made any difference at all to the administration of the New Hebrides.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will initiate talks with the French Government about the administration of the New Hebrides; and, in particular, if he will put forward proposals for constitutional advance for the inhabitants.

As I said in my reply on 19th February to my hon. Friend, no proposals for constitutional advance have as yet been formulated. Until they are it would be premature to initiate talks with the French Government.

Does not my hon. Friend have any proposals for the constitutional advance of this Condominium? If not, why not? Can he deny the rumours that in fact President de Gaulle proposes to reside there in due course rather than at St. Helena?

I did form certain impressions during my recent visit to the Pacific Colonies as to the sort of changes which might suitably be contemplated, but they will need a little consideration here and it would then be necessary to discuss them with the French.

Will the hon. Gentleman try to do something for the Old Hebrides while he is at this?

Would this Condominium be protected by the British independent deterrent, by the French independent deterrent, or by both?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in implementing the decision to form a South Arabian Federation; and what political parties have and have not now agreed to co-operate in the working of the new Constitution.

The Federation was inaugurated in 1959 and Aden became the twelfth Member State on 18th January this year. Of the two major political parties in Aden, the United National Party is in favour of the new Constitution, while the People's Socialist Party has denounced it.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that in fact the People's Socialist Party represents a very considerable body of opinion in Aden? What has been done to try to induce this party to cooperate in the formation of a Federation? Has anything been done, for instance, to guarantee a very wide franchise?

I answered a previous Question on the franchise earlier this afternoon. Of course, it is true that the People's Socialist Party represents a large number of people in Aden, but although that party has denounced the new Constitution it is by no means certain that it will refuse to work it or refuse to take part in the next elections in the Colony. Therefore, I think that we should wait and see how the working of the Constitution develops.

Without abandoning in any way our doubts about the present form of association between Aden Colony and the Sheikdoms of the Federation, may I ask the Under-Secretary to assure the House that, in order to promote democratic development in the Sheikdoms, he will be generous in giving them social and economic aid?

That is certainly our objective and we wish to encourage those trends.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the financial arrangements between the Colonial Development Corporation and Courtaulds, in relation to the permission given to the Usuto Pulp Company to utilise the 95,000 acres of pine forest in Swaziland.

The issued ordinary share capital of the company of £5·5 million is held equally by the Colonial Development Corporation and Courtaulds, £150,000 of 7½ per cent. preference shares is held equally by the Corporation, Courtaulds and the Swazi nation. The Corporation has also provided secured loan capital of £5·25 million.

Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that this agreement is fair to Swaziland? Is he aware that the C.D.C. was financially responsible for this man-made forest of 95,000 acres? Could he tell us whether there is going to be any reafforestation of this area and any further afforestation at all in Swaziland? What contribution would the Usuto Pulp Company make towards those two efforts?

It is perfectly well known that it is C.D.C. policy to go into partnership with private enterprise on these sort of ventures if it is possible. It is not really a question of the pulp company having permission to utilise these forests. The company planted the trees and grew the pines and is now proceeding to pulp them.

My hon. Friend did not quite answer the Question asked by the hon. Member for the Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) about reafforestation. Is the continuous existence of these forests to be guaranteed?

I do not know whether it is to be guaranteed. That is why I did not answer the hon. Gentleman, but I will give my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman an answer as soon as I have looked into the point.