asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations have been held with the Government of Malawi about the impact on Malawi of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Tembo, the Minister of Finance for Malawi, had discusions on this subject with the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations on 7th December, with myself on 15th December, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16th December. The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations and certain officials had further discussions with Dr. Banda on 18th December in Zomba. Discussions at official level are continuing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are over 100,000 citizens of Malawi employed in Rhodesia?

This matter was brought to our attention and is being considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made with the review of the overseas students welfare expansion programme announced last year; and what conclusions have been reached regarding the special difficulties of married students from overseas.

As the £3 million provided by the Government in 1961 for this programme is now fully committed, the Government have decided to make available another £2½ million for hostel projects so that the scheme may continue for the next few years at approximately its present rate of progress.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is satisfied with the progress that is being made? Would he care to say what type of married accommodation is being provided?

Yes, Sir. At the beginning of January, 1966, a total of 88 projects were approved comprising 3,858 places of which 2,017 are in London. Another nine schemes now under consideration are likely to provide a further 369 places. If all these projects are completed the total beds provided will amount to 4,227 at a cost of £2,893,278. These will include 988 places for married students and their wives. The number of places actually available is 2,456 of which 850 are for married students, and the total grants paid amount to £1,561,130.

That answer was a little long in reply to a supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps have been taken to implement the decisions arrived at during the meeting of law officers and other representatives of Commonwealth Governments after the Commonwealth Law Conference in Sydney in August.

The hon. Member is doubtless referring to certain matters discussed at the meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers held at Canberra on 2/3 September. Her Majesty's Government have made arrangements to consult other Commonwealth Governments on these.

Can the Minister say what is happening to this idea of a Commonwealth Court of Appeal and what view do the Australian and New Zealand Governments take?

Her Majesty's Government take a very forthcoming view on this, but the fact is that there was no unanimity at Canberra. The Law Ministers agreed that they would ascertain the attitudes of their respective Governments and we are taking steps to obtain the considered views of other Governments of the Commonwealth.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the critical stage through which the Commonwealth is passing, many countries in the Commonwealth, including the West Indies, Singapore and Malaysia, still show an active interest in the idea of setting up a Commonwealth Court of Appeal to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? What steps are the Government taking to harness this interest?

I appreciate fully what the hon. and learned Member has said, but what we are doing is obtaining the considered views of other Commonwealth countries on this matter to see whether there is a basis from which we can make some progress.

Was not the subject of the Fugitive Offenders Act discussed at Canberra? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when we are likely to have proposals to deal with that?

That is also under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations which Commonwealth countries have established special trading relations with the European Economic Community since the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations for British membership.

So far as my information goes no Commonwealth country has yet established a special trading relationship with the European Economic Community.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that, although no official arrangements have been arrived at, at least five Commonwealth countries have opened negotiations with the Six, one of whom is prepared to accept terms detrimental to British interests?

The position is that the Nigerian Government and the European Economic Community have agreed in principle to the content of an association agreement, but I cannot say when a formal agreement is likely to be signed or implemented. As to the general principle, we would welcome greater trading opportunities for Commonwealth countries in the market of the European Economic Community, but it remains our view that developing countries should not be required to give preferential advantages in their markets in return for concessions given to them by other countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will invite Mr. Arnold Smith to have the memorandum on Commonwealth and sterling area trade and payments prepared and submitted to the Commonwealth trade officials' meeting by the Commonwealth Industries Association circulated within the Commonwealth Secretariat and thence to other Commonwealth Governments.

No, Sir. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14th December, 1965, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton f Mr. Turton).

Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion say that the memorandum was not in suitable form? Would the Government consider suggesting in what form it should best be presented and circulated?

This is a document which has been circulated to Commonwealth Governments by the Commonwealth Industries Association, and each one will consider their own view on the matter and make representations in due course to the Secretariat, should that be necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps are being taken to establish a Commonwealth Consultative Assembly.

No steps are being taken at present.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would be a very good thing for the state of mind of the Commonwealth, particularly at the present time, if there were opportunities, such as exist at Strasbourg, for delegates from the various Commonwealth Parliaments to meet to exchange views?

There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend has said. As he knows, it was hoped that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association might extend its work in the direction desired by those in favour of the Consultative Assembly, but very little thought seems to have been given to this possibility at the recent C.P.A. Annual Conference in Wellington. However, I understand that it was arranged in Wellington that the C.P.A. should experiment with the committee system at its next Annual Conference in Ottawa, but there was no pressure for the establishment of a Consultative Assembly as such.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that there was no enthusiasm for this idea among the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at their last Conference? Would he give an assurance that the Government will not take any initiative in this direction, except through the medium of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association?

It was always intended that any initiative should be taken in full consultation with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the nature of the executive function the Commonwealth Secretariat will acquire; and if he will make a statement.

The functions of the Commonwealth Secretariat were laid down in Part III of the Memorandum agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in June, 1965, and presented to Parliament in July as a White paper (Cmnd. 2713). As indicated in the Memorandum, it is not intended that the Secretariat should have executive functions.

I welcome the establishment of the Secretariat as a symbol of the spirit of co-operation which should always animate the Commonwealth. Can the Secretary of State confirm that paragraph 13 of Cmnd. 2713 does not mean that the Secretariat will have executive powers to determine the constitutional advance of territories for which this House now ultimately has responsibility?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretariat has no executive functions at all.

Is a legal section of the Secretariat to be established? I understand that this was one of the matters which was agreed at the Law Conference at Sydney. What progress is being made with that?

I am not in a position to say what progress has been made. This matter has been referred to the Secretariat.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) what instructions have been given to the United Kingdom representatives in the United Nations with regard to debates on the future of Kashmir; and if he will make a statement; and

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my speech in this House on 22nd December, 1965.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that since I put this Question down Russian leadership at Tashkent has greatly reduced the tension between India and Pakistan? Will not the right hon. Gentleman now exert initiative through British leadership in trying to solve the problem of Kashmir?

Through British initiative we are most anxious that the parties concerned should get together—through the initiative of the previous Government and the present Government, for this is not a party matter. In these respects we shall, therefore, continue to play a part in the Commonwealth and the United Nations, which is the only way to get the two parties together to settle their differences.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the cost to date of the supply lift to Zambia; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) what is the cost per aircraft per flight of the Zambian oil lift; and what is the value of oil off-loaded per flight; and

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what quantities of oil have been conveyed to Zambia from Angola via the Benguela Railway since the recent oil-lift started; and what is the comparable figure for oil flown there from Dar-es-Salaam.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what was the weekly rate of delivery of petroleum products in tons to Zambia since the beginning of 1966.

The airlift of oil to Zambia, which began on the 19th December, 1965, cost £100,000 up to 31st December, the latest date for which precise figures are available. I regret that it is not possible for me at this stage to reveal any details as to the costs of the British airlift since that date or to its capacity, except that I can assure the House that with the help of the airlift Zambia's oil requirements are now being met and stocks are being replenished. The airlift at the start was carried out wholly by the R.A.F., and I should like to take advantage of hon. Members' Questions to pay tribute to the officials, officers and men who went to work with such speed and effectiveness. The first supplies of oil were flown into Zambia by R.A.F. Britannias within 48 hours of the announcement of the oil embargo.

Will the Government come to their senses and lift this heavy burden upon the British and Zambian peoples resulting from their policy of sanctions? Should not the Commonwealth Relations Office be concerned with trying to restore full co-operative relations between the inter-dependent States of Rhodesia, Malawi and Zambia rather than with pursuing this disastrous policy?

The hon. Member speaks, of course, for himself as always. The fact is fiat the three parties in this House are committed to bringing this rebellion in Rhodesia to an end and the airlift is part of that operation.

Is not this a ridiculous waste of the nation's valuable resources? Is it not time, instead of the Prime Minister carrying on his personal vendetta, that the Government got down to the serious job of negotiating a settlement of this vital problem?

The British taxpayer had to pay some pretty formidable bills when the party opposite was in power for much less worthy causes than this one.

Is not the total of the cost of this airlift to date about one-third of the lowest prize issued on the pools?

On a point of order—

Order. If the point of order has anything to do with giving notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the hon. Member should not raise it now.

On a point of order. Question No. 25, which the hon. Gentleman purported to answer with others, is on quite different lines.

That is not a point of order and it is wasting Question time.

Surely what the Minister said is a tissue of evasions. What we want to know is whether Zambia is getting requisite supplies of oil. He said that she is getting all she requires. Will lie then explain why there is almost no petrol in large areas of Zambia at the moment? What does he mean? Will he tell us?

Zambia is getting an adequate supply of oil by air and surface routes, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, to the extent that rationing in Zambia is being relaxed.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what decisions have been made about financing the Javelin squadron and the Royal Air Force Régiment in Zambia; and if he will make a statement.

The main costs of stationing these Royal Air Force units in Zambia will be borne by Her Majesty's Government. The question of a Zambian contribution towards local costs is under discussion between the two Governments.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the satisfactory solution which has been reached on this problem?

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations were held between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Zambia before the latter announced its decision to abolish Commonwealth preference; and if he will make a statement.

The Zambian Government informed us of their decision to introduce a single column tariff which removed our preferences. They maintained this position despite repeated representations.

In the course of the consultations which apparently took place before the decision was announced by the Zambian Government, did Her Majesty's Government put forward any practical counter-proposals—for example, for improving Commonwealth trade links—of a kind which might discourage the Zambian Government from taking this step?

Yes, Sir. I myself saw the Minister of Finance about the proposed changes and suggested to him ways in which we might make improvements in the trade between both countries. This is still being considered.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he and his colleagues are really making themselves ridiculous by getting into the position where they are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of British money on helping Zambia and getting kicked in the teeth for their trouble?

What we want to try to do is to bring about the most happy relationships between the two countries. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour, as usual, suggests that he is trying to stop that.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps have been taken to ensure the security of the recently constructed radio transmitter in Bechuanaland.

Because of the limited resources of the Bechuanaland police, it was arranged that the battalion of the Gloucestershire Régiment in Swaziland should provide a detachment of troops for guard purposes. Routine precautions such as the provision of security fencing etc. have, of course, also been taken.

Why was it thought necessary to take those steps in the first instance? Do the Bechuanaland Government approve of and support these steps? Is the transmitter doing the job for which it was established in the first instance?

The troops sent to Francistown are there purely for the purpose of guard duties at the relay station and for no other purpose. They were sent there with the full agreement of the Prime Minister of Bechuanaland, Mr. Seretse Khama.

Is the Minister of State aware, as I am from personal experience of trying to listen to it, that this radio is totally inaudible and is a complete waste of money?

My right hon. Friend will be answering a Question on that point shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what plans he has for visiting India and Pakistan.

None at present, Sir. I regret that the pressure of business in connection with Rhodesia has not permitted me to visit other Commonwealth countries as I should much have liked to do.

Whilst accepting my right hon. Friend's statement at the moment, may I ask whether he will not agree that it is urgently desirable for a Minister from the Commonwealth Relations Office to visit India to discuss possible measures for further assistance to the Government in connection with famine conditions now existing?

My hon. Friend will be aware that I made a statement a short time ago in which I said that we would do all that was possible in giving assistance in famine relief.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on recent events in Nigeria in so far as British interests are affected; and if all British people there are safe.

There are approximately 18,500 United Kingdom citizens in Nigeria. The British High Commissioner in Lagos has been in continuous touch with me about their welfare. I have also received helpful reports from British business firms active in Nigeria. I can assure the House that, apart from one incident in Western Nigeria in the course of which a British citizen was slightly injured, no incidents involving our community have taken place. British citizens wherever they are working are reported to be in good heart. Nothing that has occurred during the past week suggests that British lives or property are endangered. But we are naturally keeping a very close watch on developments.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman, in common with all sides of the House, deplore the death of the Nigerian Prime Minister who dedicated many years of his life to his country? Does the right hon. Gentleman not regard it as a major blow to African government? Supposing that the present Nigerian Government should prove more unstable than expected, would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that British lives would be protected?

On the latter part of the supplementary question the answer is, "Certainly". As to the late Prime Minister of Nigeria, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that on behalf of the Government and the country I have expressed our great sorrow at the loss of a Commonwealth statesman.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what official requests he has received for assistance from Nigeria following the defeat of the military coup there.

None, Sir.

Can the Minister say whether he considers the policy of the new military régime in Nigeria will be one likely to be friendly towards Britain and the Commonwealth?

This statement has been made by General Ironsi himself and there is no reason to doubt his word.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he has yet completed the review of the future of the Kenya Settlers' Compassionate Trust Fund and if he will make a statement.

I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this, but at present there is nothing more I can add.

Does the Minister appreciate that it is over a year now since the Government's initial contribution to this fund was exceeded, that it is very nearly six months since I was told that the matter was being reviewed in the Ministry for Overseas Development and that it is six weeks since I was told that it was still being reviewed in his own Department? In view of the fact that there are deserving cases still awaiting payment, would the Minister kindly seek to expedite this matter?

I am well aware of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in this matter and his concern about a particular case, but, as he is aware, the whole matter is not without its complications. I can assure him that it is being given the most urgent consideration and I hope that there will be finality very soon.

asked the Minister of Power why, having sent the pay claim of clerical workers in the gas industry to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, he did not himself adjudicate on this claim, following the refusal of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to deal with it.

This claim was not referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, nor did the Board refuse to deal with it. I have no power to adjudicate on wage claims in the gas or any other industry.

Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal to be said for the Government dealing with pay claims within their own sector where they have responsibility rather than passing the matter on to these overburdened members of the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Answer.

I must press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer on this subject. Even if he thinks that his own intervention would be wrong, he surely ought to apply the same doctrines to the tiresome and noisome interventions of the First Secretary.

It is the job of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary to interview the claimants in these cases and if agreement cannot be reached he decides whether they should go to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. In the instance referred to by the hon. Gentleman, as my right hon. Friend was not available I met the parties to the dispute.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give the terms of the agreements giving options to the National Coal Board to participate in the exploitation of the North Sea.

No, Sir; these are commercial arrangements which it would not be appropriate for me to disclose.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is incontestably in the national interest that rapid progress should be made here and that if there should be delay to make even a short-term agreement it will be a serious discouragement to the exploitation of what we all hope is a most important national asset?

I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I have no reason to suppose that there will be any delay.

asked the Minister of Power if, as the circumstances at the time of nationalisation will, following its postponement, be different from those envisaged in the White Paper, he will reconsider the compensation terms so that they do not result in £120 millions being paid to the steel owners in excess of the Stock Exchange valuations of the shares at the date of publication of the White Paper.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) on 21st December, 1965.

As share price movements have shown that these terms wildly exceeded the expectations even of the shareholders themselves, will the Minister consider, in the new circumstances, laying a less onerous burden on the industry?

The Government have already said that they regarded the compensation terms proposed as absolutely fair. They had been taken over a period of about five years. If, of course, there is any change in circumstances within the industry, this will necessitate looking at them again.

Is my right hon. Friend saying that there has been no rethinking on this matter in the light of the reactions of the market since the White Paper was published? Did he read the comment of one City editor the other day that, as the prospect of nationalisation recedes, shareholders have to fall back for their expectations on the results of the companies? Does not that mean anything to him?

I know that the methods by which we determine values in this country are somewhat peculiar, but if one takes a period, not only as regards the economics of the steel industry but as regards questions of the Gallup Poll, one finds that values change sometimes by a considerable amount. We, therefore, took as a basis the whole of a 61-month period which included the cycle of the economics of the industry as well as of political forecasts.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether it is intended to continue providing financial and other economic aid to Tanzania; and what facilities now exist for the administration and supervision of such aid by his Department in that country.

My predecessor informed the House on 22nd December that we were prepared to continue our technical assistance to Tanzania and to meet existing commitments of financial aid, provided the necessary administrative arrangements could be made.

Is it not rather absurd that we should continue to provide aid to a country which has broken relations with us when so many other countries which recognise us are in need of aid? Second, is it not deplorable that we should provide technical aid to Tanzania and have to operate through representatives of other countries because we are not recognised and cannot, therefore, intervene in the administration of the aid?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest. There are really two aspects to this matter. First, as regards technical assistance, there is no doubt that the, withdrawal of technical assistance might well create administrative and economic difficulties in that country which would not be in the interests of ourselves, of Tanzania's neighbours or of the community as a whole. Second, if development aid is to be effective, it must be on a planned and continuing basis. If administrative delays flow from the breach of diplomatic relations, which we hope will be temporary, this is certainly not our fault.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Southern Rhodesia Stock 4 per cent. 1972–74 has trustee security status.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Financial Secretary explain how that can be so as no interest is being paid? Does he realise that this is causing tremendous con- cern among trustees in this country holding Rhodesian stock, as it is the first time when there has been default on a Commonwealth Stock?

Non-payment of interest does not disqualify the stock as a trustee investment [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Those are the provisions of the Act. The Trustee Investment Act 1961 requires trustees to take advice before investing in this stock.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now propose to the United Nations Security Council that the economic sanctions already being applied and those recommended in the Security Council resolution be made mandatory under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, that an oil embargo committee of the chief oil-producing countries be set up to apply this sanction, and that measures be concerted under Articles 49 and 50 of the Charter to help Zambia and Malawi to cope with the economic consequences to themselves of joining in United Nations sanctions against Rhodesia.

No, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend believe that it would be easier to get co-operation from the members of the United Nations if it became their duty under the Charter to give that co-operation?

It has been the desire of all of us in the House, I think, to see that this very difficult problem should continue to he handled by the British Government. There have been some very difficult moments when it looked as though that might not be possible, but my hon. Friend's suggestion would not contribute to what we have in mind.

asked the Prime Minister what communications he has had with the Governor of Rhodesia about opening discussions with a view to reaching a settlement; and what has been the outcome.

I feel sure that, in the present situation, the House will not expect me to disclose any consultations with the Governor of Rhodesia. I shall be making a statement on the question of a settlement of the Rhodesian problem after Questions.

asked the Prime Minister if he will deprive United Kingdom subjects serving in the police, army and air force of Rhodesia of their service pensions and warn them that if they continue to serve after one month's notice they will be liable to be tried for treason, whereas if they return home their pensions will be restored, they will be compensated for loss of property, and they will be assisted to find suitable employment.

No, Sir.

Is it not a fact that one-third of the Rhodesian Army and Air Force officers and almost all the police officers are United Kingdom subjects, and so long as they draw Service pensions they do not believe that there is any real conflict of loyalties, whereas if the measure proposed in the Question were taken, would it not bring home to the waverers—there are many of them—that there really is a conflict of loyalties and compel them to choose?

The question of the conflict of loyalties is most difficult—we have debated it many times so far as Rhodesia's public servants, not only the police but others, are concerned. The answer that we have given is the most realistic way of dealing with the question. This was fully dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14th December. It would be wrong to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to consultations between corporations and companies and the trade unions representing their employees.

The Government's policy is to encourage consultation between employers and trade unions.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the statement made in the Standing Committee by the—

Order. It is not in order for an hon. Member to refer in a question to debates in the current Session of Parliament.

I am much obliged for your correction, Mr. Speaker. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that it has been said in at least one responsible quarter—

In the context of the hon. Gentleman's previous remark, that is exactly the same thing.

May I try again to behave myself, Sir? Would my right hon. Friend approve of any suggestion made, if it were made, that managements in public corporations and companies should consult about their decisions with trade union representatives only after those decisions have been made?

If such a statement did come to be made, and if it were in order for me to say that I had seen it, if it had been made, I should take the view that such a statement, if made, should be interpreted as meaning that the public corporation itself, whichever it be, has the duty to decide the main line of its policy—it must do that before it can enter into consultation on most things—but, having taken consultations, it should then reach its final decision when it knows the view of the trade union concerned.

asked the Prime Minister if, following his meeting with President Johnson, he will state Her Majesty's Government's present policies in respect of nuclear weapons.

asked the Prime Minister what progress he has made since the beginning of December in the sharing of Great Britain's nuclear deterrent.

Our policy is unchanged from that stated in this House on many occasions. Progress in internationalising the deterrent is being sought through the special committee of defence Ministers set up in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

As some of the statements to which my right hon. Friend refers are a little obscure, could he say simply, for the benefit of a simple mind like mine, what, if anything, remains of the policy of giving up the independent British nuclear deterrent on which he and I and all of us on this side of the House fought the last election?

I do not agree with the major premise about the simplicity of my hon. Friend's mind, but on 16th December, 1964, as my hon. Friend knows, I described this in greater length than would be possible at Question Time, and our position is that we are seeking, on terms which will stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to have the so-called independent British deterrent internationalised within the alliance.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in the last foreign affairs debate just before Christmas, he said that the Government accepted a worldwide defence rôle? If this is so—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer in questions to debates in the current Session of Parliament.

If it is the Government's policy that there should now be a worldwide defence rôle for this country, shall we not need our nuclear deterrent in areas outside N.A.T.O., and ought we not, therefore, to keep it independent or at least have the right to withdraw it from N.A.T.O.?

The position about the right of withdrawal from N.A.T.O. was fully stated previously, and there has been no change in that. With regard to the wider defence rôle, the hon. Gentleman must await the statement which will follow the present defence review and the talks in Washington this week. I have said many times that it is our role to internationalise the deterrent in the N.A.T.O. context and in other parts of the world.

Should not the right hon. Gentleman enlighten his hon. Friend by adding that if after the talks in Washington the Government decide to buy the F111 they will be not only maintaining the nuclear delivery capacity of this country but increasing it?

That is a very interesting suggestion. No decision has been taken about the F111, but it is a very interesting suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman that what he considers to be an independent deterrent will be more effective with the F111 than with his TSR2, which this Government had to cancel. We are concerned at the moment with two things. One is the Polaris submarine programme, which we have fully debated and which will be internationalised. The other is the existing bombers, whatever nuclear rôle they have, and, as we have said, these also should and must be internationalised.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear answer, yes or no? If he decides to purchase the F111, will it increase the nuclear delivery capacity of this country or not? In fact, it will.

If the right hon. Gentleman will put a clear question, he will get a clear answer. As to the way in which he has now formulated the question, if there were a purchase of another aircraft which had the power to deliver bombs—we have already got the Canberras, as he knows—if there were such a purchase it would increase the power of delivery, but this is going to be internationalised. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's belief that we have an independent deterrent is, of course, a completely false assumption from the start. What we have will be internationalised with or without any further purchase of aircraft.

asked the Prime Minister what proposals he made to President Johnson at his meeting in December to bring the Vietnam war to a speedy end.

During my visit to Washington and subsequently I offered, and President Johnson accepted, British assistance in the President's efforts to promote negotiations. So far there has been no positive response to the various approaches we have made to this end.

Will my right hon. Friend say, as a result of these negotiations and conversations, what practical steps to bring about peace are planned by President Johnson and the British Government and what steps are being taken and with what result?

When I returned from Washington I made clear that further steps were being considered. There was the Christmas truce, and the bombing truce, which has gone on for a month since it was introduced. The House will be aware of the very widespread system undertaken by the United States Government and the British Government in trying to get a message through to the point where we needed to go—to Hanoi—but so far there has been no response. However, we have played our full part in this operation.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the North Vietnam Government has proposed to the United States of America peace negotiations without demanding the prior withdrawal of United States troops; whether this was one of the subjects he discussed with President Johnson; and with what result.

I know of no such proposal by the North Vietnamese Government. The rest of my hon. Friend's Question does not therefore arise.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent visit to Lagos.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in Lagos.

I would refer hon. Members to the communiqué issued at the end of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in Lagos. Copies are already in the Library, and it will be published as a White Paper later this week.

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on ensuring that responsibility for dealing with Rhodesia still remains primarily with Britain, but is he aware that in Rhodesia itself it is still not sufficiently realised that Britain is resisting yet further pressure from many States in Africa and from the United Nations?

This has been right through one of the most difficult problems. That is why we attach so much importance to keeping the settlement, if we can, in our hands. There might be times—there could still be if we were not seen to be doing all in our power—when the matter would pass out of our hands, and this could lead to very serious consequences, not only in Rhodesia but more widely.

Whatever may have been the corrupt practices of some Nigerian Ministers, would not the right hon. Gentleman deplore what has happened to the Nigerian Prime Minister, who was well known for his selfless devotion to his country, and will he say whether what has happened in Nigeria vitiates any of the decisions made at Lagos?