asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions he has had with the Government of Fiji on the subject of independence.

None, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the New Commonwealth reported him recently as having said in Fiji that the United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism was interfering with the affairs of Fiji, and that he, the Minister, said that Britain was in no way bound to honour the Committee's Resolutions? Is that a true report or is it not? If it is true, does it not apply equally to Gibraltar as well as to Fiji?

I cannot answer on whether I was correctly reported, but I certainly believe that whilst we are in charge of British Colonies we will make decisions which are binding upon us all. Our policies, as I have said many times, are that if Fiji or any other Colony wants independence, and can sustain it, we shall see that she gets it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman proceed very cautiously and very slowly in this matter raised by his hon. Friend, because, as he knows, there arc perhaps partially genuine fears by the Fijians of Indian domination if we go too quickly here?

I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was replying on the principle of our colonial policy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a new Constitution has just been brought into being for Fiji. They recently had an election upon it. It gave universal suffrage, and I think that we should now allow Fiji to go ahead with the new Constitution and work its way through.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his latest visit to Hong Kong.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong.

On my second visit to Hong Kong, I reached an understanding that the colony would pay an increased contribution over the next four years towards the costs of British troops stationed there. This will now amount to £4·525 million a year towards the recurrent and capital costs. Hong Kong will also undertake some responsibilities for military works which will raise the total of their assistance to defence costs to £5 million a year.

These arrangements are acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. It has not been easy for Hong Kong with their great social problems to increase their defence contribution. We are grateful for the understanding they have shown of our problems. We have recognised their difficulties and I think we have reached a fair settlement.

Is my right hon. Friend convinced that the expenditure of this money is justified in view of the fact that these troops have little military value, but have only a civilian potential, as has been shown already in Hong Kong? Does he think that it is really necessary, as the United States maintains in the harbour of Hong Kong the most powerful naval presence in the Far East?

Certainly it is the opinion of the Hong Kong Government and Her Majesty's Government that these troops are necessary, and in my discussions with a great many people in Hong Kong they all seemed to think so too.

In case it may be suggested from some quarters that Hong Kong should contribute even more than the £5 million mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, will the Secretary of State confirm that in contrast with most colonies and with many Commonwealth countries. Hong Kong receives and has for some time received no grant-in-aid from Her Majesty's Government?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much Hong Kong is contributing towards the upkeep of the garrison, apart from direct payments and building programmes?

This is the total that the Hong Kong Government have agreed to pay towards British troops there. They have, of course, their own battalion as well, as the hon. Gentleman knows. This is an increase from £1·5 million a year which they agreed to pay in 1958. They also agreed to pay £6 million over six years for work costs and so on, which is about £1 million a year. All this is now commuted into the £5 million which I have mentioned.

I was in Hong Kong on the occasion of the Secretary of State's first visit. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these money-raising visits of his, which seem to be the only object of any Minister of this Government visiting Hong Kong, are producing increasing cynicism? Does he not think that, although this is an important matter, he might make a third visit to see that there is representation for those whom he is seeking to tax?

I do not wish at this stage to enter into a constitutional argument about Hong Kong. I think the hon. Gentleman knows one or two of the slight problems which are involved in that.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of these answers, I shall try to pursue the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has taken over the recent kidnapping off the Chinese coast of Hong Kong fishermen licensed to fish in those waters; and what have been the results.

During October, 10 men working on oyster beds off the New Territories were picked up by junks and removed to China. Since representations were made, six of these men have returned to Hong Kong and the Chinese authorities have informed us that the other four men wish to remain in China.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with that reply from the Chinese Government? We hear a good deal about Gibraltar and Spain at the moment. Does not this make us think sometimes that, if we keep on giving in to China with regard to people being kidnapped and also with regard to the graveyards in Peking, we may let ourselves in for the same sort of trouble over Hong Kong?

I understand that the four men have, in fact, returned to their families in China.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inquire and report into the reasons which led to the dismissal of Chung Hon Loong from employment at the East Asia Textile Mills in Hong Kong, which action had precipitated a strike of those employed at the Mills; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Chung has been dismissed on two occasions: the first on 4th November, when he walked out of the factory after his request for a day's sick leave had been refused; the second on 13th November after an assault on a foreman.

Following the first dismissal a dispute arose in the factory as to the terms of his reinstatement. This culminated in a strike being called on 11th November. Subsequently nine other workers were discharged for their part in the dispute.

On 22nd November the men's union and the management agreed to conciliation by the Labour Department. Since then there have been ten meetings between the two sides. The most recent of them took place this morning. I have no news of the outcome.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the conditions against which Mr. Chung and other textile workers are protesting were described by the secretary of the International Federation of Textile and Garment Workers as sufficient to make him feel ashamed that he was an Englishman? Does my right hon. Friend take cognisance of that fact and other matters in connection with this strike when he seeks to put the blame on Mr. Chung and his fellow workers?

I was not aware that I tried to put any blame on Mr. Chung. As I have said, 10 meetings have taken place. One, which took place the day before yesterday, got very near to settlement and I am hoping that the one which took place this morning will actually achieve that aim.

Would not the Minister agree that the conditions of textile workers in many of the factories in Hong Kong are of as high a standard as anywhere in the world? Will he also agree that this was a private industrial matter and not one in which the Government could intervene?

It goes beyond that. When I was in Hong Kong, I discussed the matter with the Labour Commissioner. As I have said in my Answer, they are doing everything possible to be of assistance in this matter. In one or two respects I would like to see more progress in Hong 'Kong, especially in the provisions for 'women and young people.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will appoint an electoral boundary commission for Bermuda; and what will be its composition.

The boundary commission will be appointed by the Governor. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on 22nd November, its chairman will be appointed from outside Bermuda and one of its members will be a person who holds or has held high judicial office within the Commonwealth. These two will be appointed by the Governor in his discretion. Two members will be appointed on the advice of the leader of the majority party and one on the advice of the leader of the Opposition.

I welcome that answer, but is it not a fact that eight working-class constituencies with about 24,000 coloured voters will have 16 Members whereas 12 white constituencies with something under 20,000 voters will have 24 Members? Is it 'impossible to have 40 single-Member constituencies on a more equitable basis?

The arrangements we arrived at at the conference have brought about a situation in which there will be far and away greater equality in voting than there has even been before, and, I would venture to say, far greater equality than there is in Britain at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the renewed disturbances in Mauritius since September last, culminating in the arrest of 150 persons at Curepipe on 29th October.

At the end of October over 100 persons, refused an offer of work on sugar estates, alleging political discrimination. They sat peacefully for three days and three nights at various places between Mahebourg and Curepipe and 105 persons were arrested at Curepipe on 29th October for obstructing the highway. They were remanded in prison until 4th November when they pleaded guilty to obstructing the police. Taking into account that they were first offenders and had spent six days in prison on remand, they were discharged.

As it is now admitted that over a hundred persons were clamped in gaol for a few days, why was I given such a soothing and soporific Answer on 8th November, by which time cables and newspaper reports about these incidents must have come to the Minister's office?

I repeat what I said on 8th November, which is as true now as it was then. There have been demonstrations by groups of unemployed but none of these demonstrations has resulted in any damage to life or property. I have no reason to change the form of my reply on that.

Since my hon. Friend has mentioned the unemployed, can he say, in view of the very high degree of chronic unemployment in Mauritius, whether some special arrangements can be made comparable with those for Malta?

Yes, Sir; we are examining various ways by which the economy can be diversified. As my hon. Friend knows, the economy is almost completely dependent on sugar, and there are extreme problems in arranging for any new industrial development. These questions are being examined.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to announce the date for the holding of a general election in Mauritius.

It is most desirable that elections should be held at the earliest practicable time. The completion of the electoral rolls which is expected in the near future will enable the election to be held in 1967, and during recent discussions the Premier of Mauritius confirmed that he would wish the elections to be held during next year.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at the Constitutional Conference held some time ago now in Mauritius it was agreed that continuing political uncertainty would be damaging to the island, and he himself, I think, on a subsequent visit to the island, gave an undertaking that elections would be held as soon as physically possible. May we have an assurance that these elections will be held in the earlier rather than the later part of 1967?

There have been delays because there were disputes about the electoral system, which I had to investigate in June and July last. Following that, a team of observers for the compilation of the rolls had to be appointed and sent out to Mauritius. All that resulted in considerable delay, but I certainly hope that the election will be held within the next few months.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has now taken to give financial assistance to Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the outcome of his financial talks last week with the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar.

During the talks with the Governor of Gibraltar, the Chief Minister and his Deputy, which took place in London last week, I informed them that Her Majesty's Government agreed, subject to Parliamentary approval, to provide a special grant-in-aid of £100,000 to the budget of Gibraltar in 1967. As to capital finance, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 3rd November, 1966. [Vol. 735, c. 160.]

Owing to the foolish weakness of the Foreign Secretary in saying that we would continue negotiations with Spain while the present restrictions continue in respect of Gibraltar, is it not necessary to make a big effort to develop Gibraltar's great asset of tourism? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman come forward with a major proposal to make use of this piece of sterling sunshine?

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is forgetting the points I made in the reply to which I referred. When I was in Gibraltar, we made the necessary arrangements for the economy of Gibraltar to be redirected, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, towards tourism rather than dependence on Spain. We pointed out then that we would support the Gibraltar Government in that effort, and we made an initial donation of £600,000.

In view of the Spanish Government's rejection of the reference to the International Court, in itself a public admission of the weakness of Spain's case, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is likely now to be a very protracted business and that we must be as generous as possible in helping to rebuild the economy of Gibraltar independently of Spain for the future?

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this is precisely what we have said we will do. We have agreed that the plan which the Gibraltar Government have produced is a workmanlike plan. We know how much it will cost, and we have said that we will support them to the hilt in carrying, it out.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure that he is—that Gibraltarians themselves, and especially the Legislative Council, deeply appreciate the financial aid which has been offered to them and, more especially, the promise made by the Foreign Secretary that we will continue to sustain them as and when required? Is he further aware that what the Gibraltarians really want to do is to become economically self-sufficient as a result of the aid we give them?

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. The spirit of the people of Gibraltar is very fine indeed. I could not find anyone who is not utterly and completely devoted to the idea of remaining British, and we shall do everything we possibly can to sustain them in it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, following the refusal of the Spanish Government to submit their claim to Gibraltar to the World Court, Her Majesty's Government will reaffirm their pledge of full support to the people of Gibraltar in their wish to determine their own future.

We will continue to recognise the principle that the interests of the people of Gibraltar are paramount.

Cannot the Secretary of State be a little more categorical? Is it not extraordinary that when, ever since the Durham Report, this House of Commons has supported the principle of self-determination for peoples within the Commonwealth, the right hon. Gentleman finds it so difficult to say this explicitly in the House?

We have to take into account what is happening at the United Nations. I believe that so far the method by which Her Majesty's Government have decided to conduct this matter has not been unsuccessful. The fact that Spain decided not to avail herself of our invitation speaks for itself.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if right hon. and hon. Members who have been questioning him this afternoon about Gibraltar were to attend the report-back meeting of the recent delegation, they might receive even more enlightenment than has been imparted to them already?

Why cannot our delegation at the United Nations say more about the pressure which is being exerted on Gibraltarians at the frontier and the hardship which they are suffering? Why cannot this be mentioned?

I hope that the hon. Member will read the latest reports of what went on. I should have thought that Lord Caradon and his colleagues were to be congratulated on a very fine job of work.

Cannot the Secretary of State make it quite clear this afternoon on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that there can be no question whatever of any transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar?

I cannot go further than I have gone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—really, this is quite unreasonable. We have now reached a situation in which, I would have thought, there was greater knowledge at the United Nations of our side of the case than ever before. I hope that hon. Members will not try to destroy it.

This is a very simple, clear question. Will the Secretary of State, or will he not, confirm that Her Majesty's Government are not contemplating transferring the sovereignty of Gibraltar against the wishes of Gibraltar's inhabitants?

If we were contemplating transferring that sovereignty, we would have had no need to go all through this formula in the first place.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about his recent conversations with the Leader of the Bahamas Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take in the light of complaints concerning affairs in the Bahamas officially made to him by Mr. Lynden Pindling.

Mr. Pindling raised matters relating to the internal affairs of the Bahamas on which I have also had representations from other sources. I asked the Governor to come to London so that I could have the benefit of his personal advice; he arrived this morning. He has told me that the Premier of the Bahamas welcomes an authoritative investigation by outside experts into the allegations concerning the administration of casino gambling in the Bahamas.

Allegations have also been made against certain members of the Bahamas Government and Administration. Since, I understand, these are to be the subject of legal action for libel, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us have felt deep concern at suggestions in the American and British Press that American gangsters are present in the Bahamas operating gambling rackets and that members of the Bahamas Executive Council are concerned, and that we are grateful for his statement today?

While welcoming the Secretary of State's statement, may I ask what form the investigation will take? Will it be in the form of a Royal Commission, as has been suggested to the right hon. Gentleman?

I am having further discussions with the Governor and I can then report back to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any progress to report in the provision of family planning instruction and facilities in the Seychelles and Mauritius.

In Mauritius, the number of family planning clinics has been increased from 98 to 124 and the programme is very successful.

In view of the importance of controlling the population problem in Seychelles I am urgently considering ways and means of expanding the family planning programme which was started in 1965 with one clinic in Victoria and which now has a second clinic in Praslin.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept my sincere congratulations on his significant success in this work, which I tried to get launched when I occupied the position which he now holds and which I believe to be of real importance to these territories?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when labour legislation will be implemented in the New Hebrides.

In discussions with the French authorities a large measure of agreement has already been reached. The final agreement should not take long.

Will the hon. Gentleman do everything he possibly can to expedite these conversations? They have been going on for far too long and the conditions are intolerable.

We are going ahead with them as quickly as we can, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the issues are very complicated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made in land reform in the New Hebrides; and if he will make a statement.

We have been examining with the French authorities a number of matters concerning land in the New Hebrides, including the possibility of setting up a joint working party to go into questions concerning title and the establishment of a land code. I hope that it will soon be possible to reach agreement on the appropriate action.

Will the hon. Gentleman institute conversations with the missions to try to persuade them to disgorge the enormous holdings of land which they have in the New Hebrides.

I will certainly examine that suggestion.

asked the Prime Minister what action he is taking to halt the supply of oil to Rhodesia from Portuguese territory in Africa.

asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have, in enforcing oil sanctions against Rhodesia, for preventing oil being sent to Rhodesia from Mozambique.

As hon. Members will know, the Security Council have adopted a Resolution calling for oil sanctions. The Resolution is binding on all member States, of which of course Portugal is one.

Since most of the oil flowing into Rhodesia comes from Portuguese East Africa, would my right hon. Friend consider applying diplomatic pressure on Portugal and on the Total Oil Company which supplies the oil and, if that is not successful, would he consider sealing the frontier by taking physical action to destroy the rail link which allows for the transportation of oil into Rhodesia?

This is entirely hypothetical, because the Resolution has been passed, and it would be quite wrong for the House to assume that Portugal will not abide by it. The question of what action will be taken in those circumstances is a separate one which was not covered by the Resolution passed last week.

Is it not a fact that, in the past, until the matter was referred to the United Nations, the Portuguese authorities were undermining the conduct of the British Government's policy with regard to economic sanctions against Rhodesia?

It is certainly a fact that a considerable flow of oil was going in from Mozambique to Rhodesia—considerably more over the greater part of the time than was going from South Africa. From my own personal knowledge in recent weeks, the Portuguese Government were helpful in trying to create conditions in which we could get a settlement at the time of my meeting with Mr. Smith.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Rhodesia and, in particular, on his discussions with Commonwealth Governments and with the United Nations.

asked the Prime Minister what further proposals he will make to the United Nations concerning the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress towards the fulfilment of the terms of the Commonwealth Conference Communiqué on Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is now Her Majesty's Government's policy that independence should not be granted to Southern Rhodesia until majority rule has been achieved.

Following the approval by the Security Council of a resolution providing for effective and selective mandatory economic sanctions against Rhodesia, Her Majesty's Government's policy is now as set out in paragraph 10 of the Communiqué which was issued at the end of the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in September and endorsed by a clear majority vote in this House on 8th December.

The objective of that policy is, as hitherto, to secure a settlement of the Rhodesian problem which is just and fair, and Her Majesty's Government remain willing to reach such a settlement through discussion and subsequent negotiation with a legal Government in Rhodesia.

Does that reply mean that the full terms of the Communiqué are now effective, and in particular the withdrawal of all previous British offers to Rhodesia? Has the Prime Minister finally slammed the door?

Yes, Sir. It means precisely what the hon. Gentleman has said. It means that the offers made to the illegal régime, which have been persistently rejected by the illegal régime, are no longer on offer to the illegal régime, and, despite my belief, which not all hon. Members share, that Mr. Smith wanted a settlement on the lines of the "Tiger" agreement, it is now clear that he is a prisoner of some very racialist and Fascist-minded people, and that they forbade him to enter into this agreement. [Interruption.] I know what happened on the ship as well as what happened after he went back. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about the berth?"] He was in a berth of his own choosing. I know what happened when he got his orders from the racialist régime there, and I know what happened after he went back and the complete falsification of the agreement put out by them, including now Mr. Smith's statement, no doubt under orders, that he does not accept even the constitutional settlement, for example, on cross voting.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals to take this to the United Nations have the overwhelming support of the electorate of this country, and will he also note that any further action which he intends to take against the illegal régime will be strongly supported on these benches?

I am well aware of what the House voted on 8th December, and of the decision of the House, and I believe that it is the decision of the country.

In view of the fact that the Governments of both Zambia and New Zealand appear to have the gravest doubts about these mandatory sanctions, is not the Prime Minister automatically released now from the commitment into which he entered when he so unwisely signed the Commonwealth Communiqué, and as he is bound sooner or later to negotiate again, why does he not minimise the danger and do it now?

Because, as I have explained to the House, for several months they had every chance to negotiate. They had a chance on the ship, and subsequently, to settle, but they rejected that settlement and were supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite in doing so.

With regard to the second part of that question, the real difference between us is that we on this side were not prepared to break up the Commonwealth in the interests of a very small minority, including a minority now which has been successful in exerting its will over Mr. Smith himself.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even though many of us have been rather anxious about certain compromises over Rhodesian policy which appeared to be taking place over a period of time, we welcome his categorical statement that there will be no independence for Rhodesia without majority rule, particularly bearing in mind that had that agreement been accepted on the "Tiger" there might not have been independence with majority rule for the rest of this century?

The agreement worked out on the "Tiger" involved—if it was fully honoured, and that is why we had internal and external guarantees—a trend towards majority rule at roughly the programme set out in the 1961 Agreement, if it had been honoured. It is clear that some of those who forced the rejection have no intention at all of honouring anything like the timetable set out in the 1961 Constitution, which was itself not an independence Constitution.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that his reply will be bitterly regretted by many outside, and will he, looking back to the success of the constitutional talks on the "Tiger", even now reopen negotiations on the method of arriving at that proposal? The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Smith had rejected the constitutional proposals. Will he give his evidence for that statement?

The agreement reached on the constitutional provisions, which Mr. Smith never doubted at all, or suggested that he doubted, included as an absolute paramount condition the retention of cross voting, which was in the 1961 Constitution, for which the right hon. Gentleman had a great deal of responsibility. We were prepared to make the very generous offer which we made about 15 reserved European seats, which were not in the 1961 Constitution, only on condition that cross voting would continue in relation to the enlarged B roll franchise. Mr. Smith two days ago exempted from his acceptance of the constitutional settlement the cross voting provisions. He wanted all along to drop cross voting. There is no doubt that his hand has been forced. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there will be bitterness, but there are a lot of people who are very bitter also about the fact that we have been trying, and have gone to the limit in concessions to get this agreement, some would feel beyond the limit, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition himself on television appealed to Mr. Smith to accept it the day after he voted against it himself in this House. Some of the responsibility for not getting an agreement which I believe we could have got has been the encouragement given by many hon. Members opposite to the illegal régime, and this has caused some of the bitterness.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what success the Foreign Secretary has had in persuading the United Nations to share some of the burdens of the cost of maintaining the blockade against Rhodesia?

That point was made in the debate. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, while we were loyally abiding by the sanctions agreed to by this House there were businessmen from other countries who were getting in and scooping up markets. This now makes the sanctions binding on all countries.

Are the Government now firmly committed to the disastrous policy of no independence before majority rule?

I have already answered that question. I have said that we have now withdrawn all the offers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] When I was asked the question I gave the answer, "Yes", which I hope is clear to the right hon. Gentleman. He was very unclear a fortnight ago. I gave the answer, "Yes", but it was not to a question which included the word "disastrous". The question was put by my hon. Friend. It was quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman can look it up tomorrow.

The Prime Minister's memory is a little faulty. The question he was asked was about the withdrawal of previous offers. That is a different point from the one I have just raised. My question asked about the withdrawal of previous offers under paragraph 10(a) and whether the Government will not contemplate in future any proposition for independence before majority rule. It is a different point.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has studied this matter so much in recent weeks, will take the same view. The answer was given in my answer to the original question, which I hope the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) understood. I said that Her Majesty's Government's policy is now as set out in paragraph 10 of the Communiqué Strange as it may seem to the right hon. Gentleman, paragraph 10 contains subparagraph 10(a) as well as 10(b). Therefore, he has had his answer. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his broadcast after the evasive performance that night by Mr. Smith, when he appealed to Mr. Smith to accept the whole of the "Tiger" agreement although the Conservative Party, almost to a man, had voted that Smith was right to reject it.

In the circumstances which the Prime Minister has now described, can he tell the House how he proposes to bring about the settlement with Rhodesia of which he spoke in his Answer?

Yes. I am hoping that we shall have a little more support from hon. Members opposite, and that we shall have no more pressure from this country on the régime to stand out for tougher terms than this House could agree to. I now say that anybody at all—anyone in Rhodesia now—on becoming the legal Government—which the Smith régime could do tomorrow if it wished—is free to negotiate with us for a return to the 1961 Constitution, with the end of sanctions and with the long-term progress towards majority rule as set out in the 1961 Constitution. This will be a legal Constitution and will involve the full restoration of self-government to Rhodesia on the basis that they have always had it. They could have had all this and independence, too, if they had not, a fortnight ago, overwhelmed Mr. Smith and his obvious desire—which was dear to me on the ship—for a settlement, and to do this because there were men in his so-called Cabinet who were not prepared to have majority rule in their lifetime.

Does my right hon. Friend's original Answer mean that he has also withdrawn his undertaking never to use force against Rhodesia in any circumstances?

No, Sir, it means nothing of the kind. I dealt with this in questions on the night that the Rhodesian régime rejected the settlement. There has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's position so far as that is concerned. If there was a change, and it became necessitated by events, the House would be informed.

Does the Prime Minister's disastrous decision amount to a decision to fight this out to a finish?

There were some who were prepared unconditionally to surrender at the beginning, including the right hon. Gentleman. We decided that we would do everything in our power to get an agreement and the right hon. Gentleman himself was generous enough to say so a couple of weeks ago. It was no fault of ours that there was no such agreement.

I never said anything of the sort.

If the right hon. Gentleman thought that our offer was not generous enough, that confirms most of what I have been saying about him this year. It was the rejection of that agreement by the overwhelming of Mr. Smith by these men that made it clear that there was no future in negotiating with that group of people any further. They are not Rhodesia. They are not even the Rhodesian Europeans. They never had a mandate to commit illegality, which the right hon. Gentleman treats as such a trivial thing. It is now up to the Rhodesian people to return to the 1961 Constitution, with our help. We would then be prepared to join, as the right hon. Gentleman very helpfully suggested last weekend, not only in economic development, but educational development, which he and I always thought was one of the keys to a solution. As to fighting to the bitter end, that has never been our aim. I thought I had proved that on board H.M.S. "Tiger", with the depth of the concession that we made, and the degree of trust that we were prepared to put not only in Mr. Smith but in a number of men who have been shown to be totally unworthy of that trust or of our confidence.

In view of his reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister—who knows my views on this subject—at least confirm the suggestion put forward by the Commonwealth Secretary in the Rhodesia debate that if the illegal régime in Rhodesia were to give effect to the constitutional proposals agreed to in H.M.S. "Tiger", Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to continue to negotiate on the procedural arrangements to give effect to them?

That is what my right hon. Friend said, but the régime refused to do it, except on a prior assurance by us that they would have their independence anyway, whatever the result. This was totally unacceptable to us and to most hon. Members. They have tried a number of manoeuvres—the latest ended last night—to postpone the issue. They could have had a Commonwealth mission. They rejected it three months ago. They could have had an independence commission, and there were many other offers.

Does not the Prime Minister's most welcome statement, accepting in full the commitment contained in the Commonwealth Communiqué, mean that the same principle is now to apply to Rhodesia as was applied to all other British territories, namely, that independence is to be given only when majority rule is established?

We were prepared to make a unique exception, so far as our lifetime is concerned—I know that there was the case of South Africa, but that was before most of us were born—to the rule followed by Governments of every party and we went to extreme lengths to work out a Constitution which would have meant independence before majority rule. This was rejected and, as my right hon. Friend has said, we have carried out what the House has endorsed, our obligation to the Commonwealth. I know that some have said that we should have broken our obligations to the Commonwealth, but we have carried them out.

asked the Prime Minister what instructions he will issue to all Departments to co-operate fully in regional planning and the preparation of contingency plans and to publicise such co-operation.

Departments already co-operate fully in regional planning, Sir. As to publicity the monthly "Progress Report" issued by the Department of Economic Affairs, which circulates widely, covers the work of the regional machinery as a whole and additional information is of course also made available locally as occasion requires.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will issue instructions that whenever a Government Department acts on the advice of an economic planning council the department will announce publicly that it is acting on such advice.

I do not think that a general rule would be appropriate but I can certainly pay tribute to the value of the advice received from the councils.

While these councils undoubtedly have got off to a good start, is it not also important that they should be clearly seen to be taken seriously by the Government if they are to retain the services of able and busy members'?

They are being taken very seriously by the Government, and we have altered our own arrangements considerably to strengthen the Governmental representation at regional level. My hon. Friend will have seen the very fine tributes paid a few days ago as a result of one of the most important reports published by a regional council covering the future of a region.

asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he makes to keep himself informed of increases in Departmental staffs.

Forecasts of changes in staff to be employed during the next Financial Year are to be found in each Department's Estimate. Totals of actual numbers in post are collected and published quarterly in the Monthly Digest of Statistics and in greater detail in the Annual Abstract of Statistics. I am fully aware of major developments of policy in all Departments, and staffing changes are the result of policy decisions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since his Government took office, the number of non-industrial civil servants has increased by an average of a thousand a month but that standards of entry have had to be lowered? How does he equate that with the high standard of managerial economy which he is always preaching to private industry?

As I have said repeatedly in answer to similar Questions, this must depend on policy. The Land Commission will require 2,000 staff. The House has voted on that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who regard these as non-productive civil servants never allow for the very much higher numbers of non-productive people in private industry who are engaged in land speculation. The test of being productive or non-productive must be applied to both cases if hon. Gentlemen want to be logical. In addition, we shall require 2,000 more for social security schemes, approved by this House without a Division, on earnings-related benefits, and 3,000 on non-contributory benefits and the "national assistance" live register. Hon. Gentlemen cannot vote for these things and object to having the staff for them.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that a large part of the non-productive staffs to which he referred in private industry is necessitated by the need to act as unpaid tax collectors for the Government, and to deal with the constant complicated additional tax legislation which is being passed?

There were always a considerable number of people employed in private industry dealing with tax questions, and I would feel that the tax avoidance profession, which was very extensively employed even against Conservative Chancellors, is probably finding a little less scope for its activities today, but it is certainly the case that it has been necessary to have more people employed on taxes—against taxes which were voted by this House.

Does the Prime Minister really believe that only 2,000 people will be needed to make the Land Commission Act work? Will he give a pledge that it will be no more than 2,000, and has he any idea of the thousands of people who will be tied down trying to make sense of it?

The best forecast available is that it will require about 2,000 staff, and this is what I said earlier. So far as land work is concerned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has his own sources of information, but he will find that there were larger numbers involved in speculation in land against the public interest, at very high cost both to the ratepayer and the taxpayer.

Do the Prime Minister's answers mean that, in spite of the Government's avowed policy to get personnel out of the service industries, he is satisfied to see the public service going up at a rate of 1,000 a month?

No, Sir, and the greatest economy will be taken to see that the Civil Service does not expand more than is necessary, but when reference is made to the service industries, I must say what I have been trying to point out for the last few minutes, and now to the right hon. Gentleman, that there were larger numbers employed in spiv occupations who will have far less scope and can therefore go into productive work as a result of legislation passed by this House.