asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest position in Rhodesia.

I have as yet nothing to add to the statement which I made on 14th November.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the cost of the present sanctions policy in the context of our present economic situation, and in view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Rhodesia as reflected in the pernicious racialist legislation introduced there now, there is urgent need to make the sanctions policy more effective? And is he aware that he will have all possible support in this House for anything he does in that respect?

Her Majesty's Government are with great urgency studying all aspects of the problem in the light of the report I brought back from Salisbury.

In view of the vast cost of sanctions—whether or not the figures given to me by the Prime Minister last week are right, and whatever may be the rights and wrongs of this policy—is it not time, in view of our financial situation, that we stopped imposing on ourselves the vast cost of these sanctions?

We are aware of the sacrifices that the British economy is making as a result of sanctions. I think that, simply on the economic front, one has to bear in mind that if we were to depart from the principles laid down there would be a very considerable economic cost on the other side.

Is the Minister aware that reinforcing failure is generally bad generalship, and that if our economic policy is to succeed it involves an increase of at least £200 million in our South African trade, and that we shall certainly not get it while we persist in this foolishness?

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that I recognise the source, in today's Daily Telegraph, of his phrase "reinforcing failure"? Is he further aware that to depart from principles is very often bad politics?

Is the Secretary of State not aware that, in their 25th month, sanctions are now totally abortive, most largely because none of our foreign competitors observe them? Why is he continuing to give trade to the Japanese, to the French, to the Italians, and the remainder, as the expense of Britain?

The hon. Gentleman is either ignorant of or is ignoring the operations of the sanctions resolution. There are further Questions on the Order Paper which I do not want to anticipate, but I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that sanctions are not having an effect in Rhodesia.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are talking of economic considerations, military intervention would be a damned sight cheaper than the prolongation of sanctions?

No, Sir. I do not agree.

asked the Secretary of Stae for Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for imposing further restrictions on individual Southern Rhodesians to bring home to them the illegal nature of the Smith régime.

Means of making the sanctions policy more effective are constantly under review. The Commonwealth Sanctions Committee set up a Working Party on 28th September for this purpose. I cannot forecast at this stage what further measures Her Majesty's Government may take.

Is it not strange that the individual citizens of an illegal régime are able to visit this country without let or hindrance? Will not my right hon. Friend consider stopping such travel unless it is made on compassionate grounds?

Travel is one of the matters that is under study by the Working Party of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee. I do not want to prejudge the decisions that that body may come to on where the balance of advantage lies, nor when the decision is taken could I undertake in advance to tell the House about it, because the effectiveness of sanctions lies in their surprise value.

Does the Secretary of State recall telling the House when he came back from Salisbury that he was not seeking to slam the door but was interested in making progress and that both sides had agreed to reflect on the situation before taking further steps? Would he not agree that at a time when, if I may quote the Daily Telegraph— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

The hon. Gentleman may not quote at Question Time.

Would not the Secretary of State agree that at a time when the deadlock is bleeding both countries suggestions such as that made in the Question are most unhelpful and seem calculated to destroy the possibility of a settlement?

No, I really cannot accept that the position is as the hon. Member has stated it. We are at present considering my report as a result of my discussions in Salisbury and in other African capitals. Sanctions are already in operation as a result of U.N. resolutions and the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee had been considering this matter for some months before I ever set off to Africa. One cannot expect these considerations to be held up indefinitely. We have got to keep the two things in step, but I will make a statement to the House on these matters as soon as I can.

Further to the original question, cannot we at least withdraw recognising the validity of Rhodesian passports.

I have answered that question. This is being considered by the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, and I do not want to prejudge the Committee's decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of the increasing effect of sanctions in producing economic and political changes within Rhodesia.

While sanctions have not yet led to a situation in which there is a return to constitutional rule, I am satisfied that they are having a significant effect on Rhodesia.

That Answer reflects more hope than realism. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that the political strength of Mr. Ian Smith within Rhodesia has been diminished since the onset of sanctions?

I should not like to make an estimate on that question, and I have been doing my best directly with Mr. Ian Smith in recent weeks to see whether we can come to an honourable and just settlement. The hon. Gentleman asks about the effect of sanctions. There is no doubt about the effect they are having on the Rhodesian economy. I take only one figure at random: Rhodesia's export earnings fell by well over one-third in the first year after the I.D.I.

Is it not about time this stalemate was ended, not by removing sanctions and thereby condoning what Mr. Ian Smith has done but by firmer and stricter measures against Rhodesia?

There are several stalemates in various parts of the world which I, as an overseas Minister, would very much like to see resolved. But we can only struggle on to try to bring about a settlement in accordance with the principles in which we believe.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of developed and developing countries within the Commonwealth on the present position of Great Britain in relationship to the European Economic Community.

Since we formally presented our application for membership of the European Economic Community on 11th May, consultations have been held in London at ministerial or official level with representatives of New Zealand; Australia; India; Commonwealth coun- tries in the Caribbean; Commonwealth sugar-producing countries; Canada; and Hong Kong. We have also held consultations through our High Commissioners in Rawalpindi and Singapore with Pakistan and Singapore officials.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that, whether it is justified or not, the image is increasingly one of Britain wanting to enter the Common Market at any price and this is giving ground for widespread concern in the Commonwealth, particularly in developing countries? Is there not an urgent need for round-table consultations, particularly on problems of the newer Commonwealth countries?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. We have said that we will safeguard essential Commonwealth interests in our negotiations with the Six, and that we intend to do.

How can the Govern-men safeguard the interests of developing countries when in the last three years the terms of trade have turned 6 per cent. in our favour and given us £300 million a year at the expense of those developing countries? Is not this the sort of aid they want? Why not give it to them?

We are giving a great deal of aid to developing countries and this is a matter on which there is a great deal of consultation internationally at the moment.

Will my hon. Friend say how many Commonwealth countries have already applied for association with the E.E.C. under the Treaty of Yaounde and how many have indicated that they will do so if Britain enters the Common Market?

Those which have not already done so will think of doing so in the light of discussions we may have with the Six.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will now give an assurance that consultation with the sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth will take place before negotiations to enter the European communities reach a conclusion on the matter of sugar imports to this country.

Yes Sir. We intend to maintain the fullest measure of consultation with all Commonwealth Governments, including those of sugar-producing countries, both before and during negotiations.

If I may assume for the purposes of this question that meaningful negotiations are still possible, may we infer from that reply that a permanent solution satisfactory to the sugar-producing countries is an essential pre-condition to be reached before entering?

We have said that we will attempt to negotiate such an agreement, and in the negotiations which will take place round this we shall maintain full consultation with the sugar-producing countries.

Have not the Government indicated that they accept the terms of the Treaty of Rome in full, even if it breaches the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement?

No, Sir. We have made it quite clear to the Six that we intend to try to safeguard essential Commonwealth interests, and that quite clearly includes the interests of the countries which produce sugar within the Commonwealth.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to safeguard British interests resulting from the civil war in Nigeria.

I would refer the hon. Member to what I told the House on 24th October. British interests, like Nigerian interests, will best be served by the early restoration of peace in Nigeria.—[Vol. 751, c. 1486–7.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we and the Commonwealth, because of our historic links with Nigeria, and also our big material interests there, have a responsibility to help the O.A.U. or any mission to achieve some solution to this awful civil war, which is likely to ruin Nigeria?

Yes, I accept that and I assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government are doing every- thing they can to help the O.A.U. or anyone else who has a contribution to make to bringing people from the battlefield to the conference table.

Would my right hon. Friend agree to a peace mission headed by himself to go to Nigeria?

I should like to consider that suggestion very carefully. Every effort is being made at the moment to try to bring peace in this civil war in Nigeria. I think the House will understand that in the special circumstances of any civil war, and particularly this one, perhaps the most effective efforts are made behind the scenes.

In that connection, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any consultations thus far with the O.A.U.? Do the Government contemplate having any consultations with the O.A.U.?

The O.A.U. mission finally arrived in Lagos a few days ago. A distinguished member of the mission is head of State of Ghana, General Ankrah. We are in touch with General Ankrah about the possibilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has had for help in ensuring an equitable and peaceful settlement in Nigeria; and what reply he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has now received to assist in promoting peace talks between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Biafra.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received for assistance from the Federal Government of Nigeria or the Biafran authorities to provide auspices for talks to end the fighting in that area; and what reply he has sent.

The answer to each Question is "None, Sir".

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt in this country for the possible fate of the Ibo people, and is he aware, also, of the growing concern for many Nigerians, on both sides in the civil war, who are in this country and experiencing mounting difficulties? Is it not possible for him to take an initiative himself in order to resolve the conflict there and restore the Nigerian economy?

I am aware of the concern on both sides of the House about the sufferings of all sections of the Nigerian people. As I said in answer to an earlier Question, we are daily seeking any practicable means of promoting a peace settlement, but this can be best done privately rather than publicly at this stage.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we are unlikely to be asked to intervene in this affair because of the loss of face involved for the side making the request? But is not Britain in a unique position to take an initiative herself to try to end the present stalemate?

I think that Britain is in a unique position, but it cuts both ways. We have a unique position of influence with, I believe, all sections of the Nigerian people because of our past association, but there are also special difficulties associated with any public initiative by Her Majesty's Government because we are, after all, the former colonial Power. I sometimes think that many people who are deeply concerned—I recognise their sincerity—about what is happening in Nigeria still feel that we are living in an imperialist age when Britain can order these things about much more than is, in fact, the case.

As the Federal Government cannot come to talks based upon a prior granting of the right of secession to Biafra, will my right hon. Friend offer to arrange talks without this prior condition being made, realising that the first priority must be to stop the fighting in Nigeria?

Certainly, our priority is to try to contribute in any way we can to the stopping of the fighting, but I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that, in common with every other country in the world, we recognise the Federal Government as the Government of the whole of Nigeria, and it follows from that that we cannot do anything which would recognise the fragmentation of Nigeria.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what reply has been received from the Government of Zambia to the request made by Her Majesty's Government for clarification of further derogatory remarks made by Mr. Simbule, while acting as High Commissioner, on 12th and 13th August in London and Nairobi, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 24th October.

Why this delay? Is it not a simple matter, if the reports are wrong, for the High Commissioner to deny them and add that he confirms his original apology? If they are right, is it not quite intolerable that a High Commissioner of the United Kingdom should insult a country to which he has been appointed? When are we to have a new one?

I ought in frankness to tell the hon. Member that I have no reason to believe that the reports themselves were inaccurate. I repeat to the House that the gentleman concerned has not been back in this country as a resident since he made the remarks now complained of. The best way to get results is to leave the matter to be resolved through diplomatic channels, although I am aware that I am testing the patience of the House on this.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he is yet in a position to make a further statement on the relationship between Anguilla and St. Kitts.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in St. Kitts.

Anguilla is part of the unitary State of St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla. Responsibility for the internal government of this associated State, including the arrangements for the administration of its constituent parts, lies with the State authorities and not with Her Majesty's Government.

Is the Secretary of State aware that five men were acquitted on a trumped-up charge of trying to overthrow the Government, that Mr. Bradshaw rushed through an emergency meeting of the Assembly and passed a resolution of no confidence in the island's administration of justice? Is he further aware that the Chief Justice of the Caribbean Association of States accused the St. Kitts Government of contempt of court, prejudicing fair trial, and impeaching the trial judge? Is it any wonder that Anguilla does not wish to be associated with St. Kitts at this moment?

Yes, I am aware of all the very serious matters the hon. Member has just described. They do not, however, come within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. What we are seeking to do to assist in this matter is sending out a small all-party Parliamentary delegation which I think owes something to the hon. Members encouragement and inspiration. That small delegation has now reached the Caribbean and the right thing to do at the moment is to give it a chance of getting down to work.

Nevertheless, as St. Kitts is an associated State, have the Government made a statement on this really disgusting treatment of the judges—a moral protest even—to the Government of St. Kitts? When the mission returns, will the Government consider the question of associating, perhaps in some temporary way, Anguilla with the British Virgin Islands?

I think the right thing to do is to allow the Parliamentary delegation to get there and to see what it can do on the ground and then to come back to report to the House.

As a British subject was released by order of the Government and then rearrested and deported, surely the right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility? Could not the Parliamentary delegation going into Anguilla discuss with the Prime Minister of St. Kitts matters affecting this country and British subjects?

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can rely on the Parliamentary delegation to discuss all these matters, including matters which are causing concern in this country. In regard to the personal case of the gentleman who has just been mentioned, I understand that he has started legal proceedings so it would be improper for me to comment on the merits of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position in Hong Kong and the task of maintaining peaceful conditions there.

So far as the internal situation is concerned, there is little change from the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, on 6th November to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Can the Secretary of State assure the House that further cases of kidnapping on the Chinese frontier in the new territories are not likely to occur? Can he tell us whether Communist activities in Hong Kong are separated from the designs and policies of the Government in Peking?

I should not like to commit myself to any prophecy about the future course of events in Hong Kong. I am very happy that the exchanges I have mentioned have resulted in the return to Hong Kong of the two police constables who had been abducted and, as the House knows, the police inspector had earlier made his escape. On the second Question I think events inside Hong Kong, although always a reflection of events on the mainland of China, are not necessarily bound up with them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, while the stormy conditions continue in Hong Kong and on the borders, there will be no question of a rundown of our forces, either current or proposed, in the basic garrisons of Hong Kong?

We shall do everything necessary to give support to the Hong Kong Government in maintenance of law and order and security.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Bill just passed meant to keep order in Hong Kong contains a Clause borrowed from the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia which we regard as having an illegal Government?

I am not aware of the particular details my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I think he has a detailed Question on that matter on the Order Paper.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the economic situation in Hong Kong? What has been the effect on prices as a result of the recent devaluation and revaluation of the Hong Kong dollar?

As the House knows the Hong Kong Government first devalued entirely in line with Her Majesty's Government, and, after seeing which other countries had decided to devalue, they took the decision to revalue the currency by 10 per cent. This resulted in a net devaluation in Hong Kong of 5·7 per cent. All the evidence so far is that the response to devaluation in Hong Kong, like the response to the emergency over recent months, has been a very positive one and a good one. There is no sign of business confidence being affected.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if, when the phased reduction takes place in maximum working hours for women and young persons employed in the garment and other industries in Hong Kong, he will take steps to avoid a reduction in their weekly earnings by an increase in wage rates.

The reduction of maximum hours of work for women and young persons has been phased over five stages primarily for the purpose of avoiding a serious reduction in total earnings, in that it provides time for adjustment. The temporary permitted increase of overtime will further assist in the process of adjustment.

Will my hon. Friend greatly strengthen his Labour Department in Hong Kong so as to overcome the almost absolute power of the employers and to ensure that the reduction below 60 hours a week does not result in a reduction in the present appallingly low wages?

The Commissioner of Labour in Hong Kong, speaking in the Legislative Council, has already offered the Government's help and guidance to labour and management alike in carrying out the changes. My hon. Friend may rest assured that this will be closely watched. He will be aware that the overall wages paid in Hong Kong are higher than in most Asian countries. They have more than doubled in the past nine years and more than kept pace with the increase in the cost of living in that time. There is every prospect that there will be a steady upward trend in the level of wages.

Does the Minister realise that anything which increases the costs of Hong Kong will greatly please my constituents, but that at the same time, if he overloads the costs in Hong Kong, only Korea, Taiwan and Japan can benefit?

I am aware of those difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent plans by Her Majesty's Government for constitutional progress in Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs on what date a constitutional conference on Gibraltar's political future relationship with the United Kingdom will be held; what will be its terms of reference; on what basis the composition of Gibraltar's representatives at such a conference will be arranged; and whether constitutional advisers to the various Gibraltar representational groups or individuals will be permitted.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet decided if the Indian Merchants' Association and Indian community generally in Gibraltar will be represented at the forthcoming talks on the Gibraltar Constitution.

As already announced, we expect to start discussions about the constitution early in the new year. I am still in consultation with the Governor about procedure, and am not yet in a position to add to the replies I gave to various hon. Members on 23rd, 24th and 25th October.—[Vol. 751, c. 373, 1480, 1481 and 514.]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there has been very considerable dissatisfaction in Gibraltar because it was announced that Her Majesty's Government wished to have talks with the Spanish Government directly after the overwhelming vote in the referendum and before it was decided to have talks between the people of Gibraltar and the British Government?

Yes, Sir; I am aware that some Gibraltarians have expressed this concern. I should have thought that the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government, first in promoting the referendum as a very special case in colonial administration, and secondly in the very robust position we have taken up at the United Nations on behalf of Gibraltar, would have completely reassured the people of Gibraltar that in any talks that take place with the Government of Spain their interests will be fully safeguarded.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the need to make a definite statement soon about the date when these constitutional talks will be held? This announcement was promised before 10th September, and, as the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) has said, since then it has been found possible to make an announcement about Anglo-Spanish talks which apparently will not preclude the political future of the Rock? Can he at least give a definite assurance today that these talks will not cover the political future of the Rock at least until the talks with Gibraltar directly have taken place?

I think that the nature of the proposed talks with Spain, which have now been postponed by the Spanish Government until the new year, has been made plain on a number of occasions by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am aware of the impatience in the House about the need to get ahead with the constitutional discussions in Gibraltar, which are my responsibility. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar and one of his senior colleagues are at present in New York at the United Nations representing the interests of Gibraltar there. This is one reason for a certain amount of delay. I hope to be able to announce further details shortly when my consultations with the Governor are completed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that I asked him about the Indian question many weeks ago and he said that he would look into it? Does he realise that the Indians were not allowed to vote in the Gibraltar referendum and they are getting very worried about what their position is? Can he not give some clue as to what he feels about their position now?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before. I am sorry that my consultations with the Governor are not complete on this aspect, as on other procedural aspects of the forthcoming discussion.

Would it not be better to defer the talks with Spain until after the constitutional talks? Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Gibraltar, who have been under blockade for the past two years, are very concerned that the British Government, in their handling of the passport issue, of the air space issue, and of the currency regulations matter, have been wet and weak towards a Fascist régime which is threatening very loyal British subjects?

I cannot accept that for a moment. Her Majesty's Government have just completed the very exceptional process of holding a referendum in Gibraltar in order to show Spain and the rest of the world exactly where the people of Gibraltar feel that their true interests lie. The House can be assured that Her Majesty's Government will continue to represent these true interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what approaches have been made to him by the Gibraltar Government, or other representative ye bodies in Gibraltar, to remove from Gibraltarians those restrictions on immigration which are placed on them by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act; and how many Gibraltarians, on an average, apply each year to enter the United Kingdom to work.

Representations have been received on several occasions from Gibraltar Ministers and from the Integration with Britain Party in favour of either the amendment of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act or alteration of the administrative procedure thereunder so as to reduce or remove difficulties over the immigration of Gibraltarians to Britain.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the place is only about the size of Hyde Park and that from its people, as Sir Joshua Hassan tells me, at the most only about 200 apply to come here in any one year? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the other hand, there were 10,000 applications last year from Spain, Gibraltar's next-door neighbour, and just under 10,000 of these applications were agreed to, whereas only 57 Gibraltarians asked to come—I think that is the figure—and only 19 applications were granted? Ought not something to be done for our own people?

I feel great sympathy for the position of the Gibraltarians in this matter, and I recognise that we face not so much a large-scale desire for immigration into this country as a deep sense of claustrophobia. We are carefully examining the whole question at the moment. I have the personal difficulty that I must represent the interests of a number of dependent territories as well as of independent Commonwealth countries to Her Majesty's Government and there are difficulties about singling out any one territory. But I understand the general question and shall do my best.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has to report on his representations to the Zambian Government for compensation to British subjects who have been deported from Zambia.

Our High Commissioner in Lusaka has forwarded claims from seven United Kingdom citizens to the Zambian authorities, and is awaiting their reply. He will continue to press the matter.

Is it not a scandal that a so-called friendly Commonwealth country can behave in this manner without giving any reasons whatever for its action? Will the Secretary of State consider withholding part at least of the generous grant Her Majesty's Government make to Zambia in order that a certain amount of compensation may be paid to those who have suffered?

Her Majesty's Government, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, have supported these claims on behalf of British citizens because we consider that the claimants were illegally ordered to leave Zambia at unacceptably short notice. The amounts of the claims are a private matter for the claimants. We will certainly do everything we can to support their claims. I never think that it is wise to link directly these individual cases with the general question of the provision of aid to another country.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what estimate has been given to him by the Australian Government of the expected annual decline in our export trade to Australia as a result of the United Kingdom joining the Common Market.

All our discussions with the Australian Government about our application for membership of the E.E.C. are confidential and I cannot, therefore, enter into details.

I am not very grateful for that reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the newspapers carried a full and detailed report of the Paper which the Australian Minister for Trade submitted to Her Majesty's Government in the spring of this year, which indicated that it would cost this country in lost export trade to Australia £160 million per annum? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that figure and, in that event, say whether he feels that it is altogether too high a price to pay?

I do not wish to be drawn into public discussion of satements made by Ministers of other Commonwealth Governments. Obviously, any figures must be largely a matter of speculation, but I should be very surprised if our exports to Australia fell by as much as the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

If the Government intend to abandon the Commonwealth, why not do it in a decent and straightforward fashion instead of by the method of making futile application to join the Common Market?

We are not abandoning the Commonwealth, and the reasons for our application to join the E.E.C. are well understood in Commonwealth countries.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that all of us, on both sides of the House, greatly value our traditional ties with Australia? What positive steps are the Government taking, or proposing to take, to promote greater trade and investment in Australia's expanding markets, irrespective of whether we go into the Common Market or not?

Every effort is being made to expand our trade with Australia. Obviously, our exports to Australia are a valuable part of our export trade, and every attempt is being made to increase them.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now announce the date of a referendum in British Honduras to enable the inhabitants freely to decide their own political future.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the constitutional future of British Honduras.

The position on constitutional development remains as stated by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Adjournment debate on 12th August, 1966.—[Vol. 733, c. 2056.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman today confirm the universality of his dedication to the principles of self-determination by reaffirming positively that the wishes of the people of British Honduras will be respected when this question does arise, as consultation by itself is not of decisive importance to this House?

Yes, Sir, the wishes of British Honduras, after consultations have taken place, will be respected by Her Majesty's Government.

Leaving aside the question whether there ought to be mediation at all, will the right hon. Gentleman say that it is the people as distinct from the Government of British Honduras whose wishes will be consulted and that their worries about the possibility of a sell-out to Guatemala will be dissipated as fast as possible?

The form of consultation is something one would need to look at at the time it takes place; but British Honduras, in common with other dependent British territories, has a democratically elected Government and it is appropriate, therefore, that consultation in the first instance should be through that Government.

Is my right hon. Friend giving the House an absolute assurance that, in the event of any arrangements whatever being made which give Guatemala any rights and powers over British Honduras policy in any field there will first be consultation with all parties and all opinions in British Honduras?

My hon. Friends asks a wide range of hypothetical questions. I repeat to him Her Majesty's Government's position, that the wishes of British Honduras will be consulted when the mediator presents his proposals.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman seized of the deep anxiety felt on both sides of the House? He refers to the wishes of British Honduras or to the Government there when he talks of consultations. Is he not seized of the desire on both sides to be assured that the people of this territory will be consulted about their future?

Yes, Sir, I understand that; but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman would greatly resent it if, in any community in which he was an elected representative, the Government of that community were by-passed. Surely, the democratic Government of a community is the right avenue for making arrangements for consultation.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from developing countries of the Commonwealth to vary agreements made on their achieving independence.

The agreements to which the hon. Member refers could be of a number of kinds and may have been concluded many years ago. I therefore hesitate to give a categorical answer, but if the hon. Member will let me know what type of agreement or particular country he has in mind I will make further inquiries.

Since various agreements covering public servants have been the responsibility of the Minister's predecessors, is he aware of the excessive income tax claim by the Government of Ceylon, the non-payment of pensions by the eastern region of Nigeria, and the claim of the Government of Tanzania for the British Government to be responsible for the pensions of Her Majesty's overseas civil servants? Will he consider taking on that responsibility and reducing aid accordingly?

The question whether the British Government should assume responsibility for pensions for British expatriate officers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. The Tanzanian representations are at present under consideration by the Departments concerned. Although my right hon. Friend naturally has a close interest in the matter, it is primarily one of responsibility for the Minister of Overseas Development.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the dependent territories in which public lotteries have been operated; in how many dependent territories such lotteries continue to be operated; and with what financial result.

I am having inquiries made and will publish the results in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they have been completed.

Will the Minister state that it is the Government's view that these things are not immoral and that they produce money?

We leave it to the territories concerned to make proposals. There are in operation in Hong Kong and Gibraltar two public lotteries which I understand are very successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations between Tanzania and Great Britain.

The break in relations brought about by Tanzania in December, 1965, still remains. The hon. Member will know that I had a talk with President Nyerere on 28th October at Arusha during my recent African tour. I indicated then that we are ready to resume relations if asked to do so.

Is the Minister aware that the British public is a little fed up yith a situation in which the only hands of friendship extended to us are extended with the palm upwards?

I get a bit fed up sometimes, but it is important to have normal relations with a Commonwealth country like Tanzania. But I want to make it clear that this is up to Tanzania.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a Minister responsible for the co-ordination of Government information services in the United Kingdom, and for answering Parliamentary Questions on this subject.

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 8th December, 1966.—[Vol. 737, c. 1571.]

Does the Prime Minister thing that the appointment of only 122 extra P.R.O.s and Press Officers in the Government Departments during the past three years, at a cost of £500,000 a year, is sufficient to improve the Government's popularity? Does not he think that there is a case for a whole lot more?

The appointment of official public relations officers is not related to party functions or Government popularity. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is once again confusing the appoint- ment of Ministers for Tory Party propaganda in the past.

Will the Prime Minister accept that if it was one of the P.R.O.s who yesterday released the good news that the Industrial Expansion Bill is to be shelved he is certainly worth his keep? Will the Prime Minister now confirm that the Bill is to be dropped?

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. The story to which he refers did not come from any Government P.R.O., nor is it true.

Can the Prime Minister then say the source of the report?

No, Sir. I have no idea of the source of the report. The reports I read referred to a quite inaccurate account of the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the C.B.I., but the report could have come neither from him nor from the C.B.I. because the matter was not discussed at that meeting.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now transfer full responsibilty for the development of camping facilities in Great Britain to the Department of Education and Science.

No, Sir. The development of camping facilities has a part to play in the Departmental work of a number of my right hon. Friends and is best handled by them. There is, of course, full co-ordination between the Departments concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are about 2 million campers in this country, and many more who want to come here from overseas and enjoy camping facilities? Could not he do something to ensure that the integration to which he referred leads to better provision of camping sites and facilities, with consequent saving of overseas expenditure and an increase in invisible earnings?

I know that my hon. Friend has taken up with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the importance of camping facilities here for international tourists visiting Britain. I do not think that the right answer is to have one Department responsible. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food mast be responsible on forestry land, and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales have responsibilities. There is also the question of the Countryside Bill. I do not think that it would be right to concentrate everything under one Minister.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures and the Government's plans to deal with the situation.

The seasonally-adjusted number of wholly unemployed, excluding school leavers, decreased by 5,000 in November to 536,000. As to the Government's plans to deal with the situation, I would refer my hon. Friend to the speeches of myself and my right hon. Friends in the recent debate on the economic situation.—[Vol. 754, c. 1140, 1262, 1330 and 1433.]

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is still countrywide concern at the present unemployment figures and the figures for the coming months, if not the next couple of years, which are so important to our movement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] What is to stop the active participation of State enterprises, particularly in the areas where older industries are to be run down and where it is shown that private enterprise is failing the nation in the export drive?

As to the concern referred to by my hon. Friend, I said in the debate a fortnight ago that all of us regard the present figure as too high. My hon. Friend will be glad to have seen that over the past three months, on a seasonally-adjusted basis, the numbers of wholly unemployed adults fell by 23,000 and unfilled vacancies have risen by over 26,000. The estimate I made even before devaluation was that the expectation was that a year from now unemployment will be considerably less than the present figure.

Since 5 million jobs depend directly on exports, and we cannot compel the foreigner to buy our goods, how can the Prime Minister guarantee those 5 million jobs?

I always agree with what the hon. Geitleman says about the importance of exports to the economy. Now our exporters have a unique opportunity to get the orders. It rests with them. I hope that they will go out and get those orders.

Since we are faced still with one of the highest unemployment figures for the past 27 years, will the right hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to whether there are adequate retraining facilities, albeit with the expected increase, and to whether the Minister of Labour's Department should not be strengthened to keep lists of job vacancies and of workers available to fill them?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the sharp expansion in training facilities, announced successively over the past few months, and also of the additional steps taken to bring work to areas where there is a shortage of work. As I have told the House on a number of occasions, and as I have just substantiated, the figures of the last few months show that the trend of unemployment, apart from the usual winter movement, has turned markedly down.

Why do not the Government step into the development areas and establish industries for export there, as they promised to do before the election?

There has already been very much development of export industries in development areas in the last three years—indeed, at a record level—and we have provided additional facilities and incentives for other export industries to go there.

The right hon Gentleman has provided figures of a seasonally adjusted trend for the last couple of months before devaluation. In these post-devaluation days, how does he foresee the trend of seasonally adjusted figures for the next six months?

The general expectation would be that, as a result of devaluation, particularly with the opportunities in export markets—not all of which, of course, can be seized in a matter of days—and also with the possibilities of import replacement, unemployment a year from now should be much less serious—indeed, for the next six months it should be much less serious—than was previously forecast. We are faced with the inevitable increase on seasonal grounds in the months from November to February but I repeat that, a year from now, it is more likely, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, that we shall be facing problems of pressure upon resources than of unemployment.

Has the Prime Minister formed an estimate of the amount by which home demand must be reduced in order to get an improvement of £500 million in the balance of payments?

I cannot at the moment add to what my right hon. Friend said in the devaluation debate. As my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear, we shall be watching this situation, calculating it right up to the Budget and beyond. We have given priority to all measures to release resources for export in that period to put our balance of payments right.

While we are happy that the Government are showing determination to fill the needs of the development areas in the first place and not returning to the selective full employment we had pre-July, 1966, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that we can undertake this job rapidly enough without a direct State intervention in the form of State industries and factories?

What we have announced about State industries in these areas, and particularly the use of State procurement to get more orders placed in development areas, means that certainly the prospects of the development areas are now improving, and, of course, the boost given by the export opportunities following devaluation should be of great help to the development areas because of the increased incentives and the factory space there waiting for new factory expansion.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek an invitation to attend the Aden independence celebrations.

No, Sir.

Is not that rather a pity? Would not such a visit give the Prime Minister an invaluable opportunity to form a lively impression of the prospects of stability in that area? He might also be able to formulate some criteria of general application upon which independence is granted to other countries.

I am sure that that was meant in a helpful and constructive manner. What I have not heard from the hon. Gentleman or from his right hon. and hon. Friends is any constructive alternative to the action we took in Aden, which, in our view, was right. All of us recognise the difficulties both at the time and for the future. The course we took was right.

While I understand the Prime Minister's Answer, may I ask whether he would agree that, after the six-months' period of aid at the rate of £12 million, we cannot sustain aid at anything like that scale and that aid must come from the Arab neighbours of South Yemen in future?

That is a reasonable approach to the problem. I cannot say whether the independence celebrations, to which I have not sought an invitation, will take place within six months or not. I have nothing to add, on the question of aid, to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said when he specifically related our aid to a period of six months.

Notwithstanding the sad history of Aden and the whole of South Arabia in recent years, will my right hon. Friend accept that most of us on this side wish to see him maintaining the friendliest possible relations with this new country?

I am sure that that is the wish of the whole House and, of course, friendly relations involve a two-way attitude—ourselves and them. Some of the most bitter fights for independence, both under right hon. Gentlemen opposite and ourselves, have been followed by the friendliest of relations once independence has become effective.

asked the Prime Minister what discussions he is proposing to have with other Heads of State about internationalising Great Britain's nuclear deterrent.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 11th July to a Question by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker).—[Vol. 750, c. 412.]

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether, as a country, we still have the right to use our strategic nuclear forces if the independence of this country is threatened? Secondly—and we all hope that this is a hypothetical question, as we hope that the deterrent will never have to be used—is it the Government's intention to continue their policy of independent use in the cause of peace?

I think the hon. Gentleman knows our position. Our present nuclear forces, which do not yet include Polaris, are committed to N.A.T.O. We have the right to withdraw them after consultation with N.A.T.O. The future of Polaris is still a matter for negotiation and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the important work of the Nuclear Planning Group in this connection.

Will the Prime Minister work out how much would be saved if the fleet of Polaris submarines was not commissioned but put into mothballs instead? In view of the state of the economy, will he seriously consider this?

I know the deep interest the hon. Gentleman takes in this matter hut I am sorry to say that the saving by mothballing the Polaris fleet when complete would be a great deal less than he probably imagines.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to study the recent report of the Nuclear Weapons Commission of the United Nations, which clearly condemns the continued existence of individual weapons systems such as our own Polaris? Is he aware that one of the co-signatories of the report was the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Solly Zuckerman?

I do not think that the report pinpointed Britain. It called for progress towards general and universal disarmament, for which we have been continuously working, as did our predecessors, from the moment we took office. The most immediate requirement is a non-proliferation agreement to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to States which do not have them.

If my right hon. Friend states that we ourselves will never use nuclear weapons first, how will we be in a position to use them second?

The statement about our use of nuclear weapons represents the view always held by this side of the House and, indeed, by our predecessors. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the matter is not quite as simple as he has in mind.

asked the Prime Minister if he will put forward proposals for establishing a European Development Corporation for the exploitation of fast breeder reactors.

Her Majesty's Government have made clear that we would welcome European co-operation in the development and exploitation of fast reactors and are already in touch with other European countries to this end.

asked the Prime Minister what specific Anglo-American agreement prevents Great Britain sharing with other European countries the technology of partially enriched uranium.

None, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United States Atomic Energy Commission has already started to negotiate with private industry for the sharing of technology, which implies that it does not take a secret agreement very seriously? Can he press the Americans to try to ensure that we can share this technology with our European partners?

In my first Answer, I explained that there is no such, as my hon. Friend put it, "specific" Anglo-American agreement preventing a sharing with European countries of this technology. There are difficult questions about our national and commercial interests if we made this available except as part of something extremely valuable to ourselves. This is why I stressed the importance of co-operation in my speech at Guildhall. We must be dominated in this matter by considerations of national interest but there is no such agreement as envisaged by my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider taking some active steps to bring about a decision from Euratom first of all to continue financing the Dragon project at Winfrith?

That is a specific question and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put it down on the Order Paper. With regard to general relations with Europe, we are only too anxious to enter into bilateral or multilateral nuclear agreements, whether for the provision of reactors or, as in the Question, for the provision on a European and not on an American basis of enriched fuel.

Has not the difficulty always been the extraordinary reluctance of European Powers with atomic inclinations to make use of our vastly superior technology? Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear both the advantages of their doing so to them and the reluctance of the Government to do so except on a mutual basis of advantage?

Yes, Sir. I entirely agree. The difficulty outlined by the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the difficulty all along and it still is. Indeed, in Versailles in June, I dis- cussed this question with President de Gaulle and it is a fact that, despite their great advantage in water power, we are fully competitive, without those advantages in our production of enriched Uranium 235. Of course we shall be glad, on a mutually advantageous basis, and only on such a basis, to work with our French friends or anyone else in making Europe less dependent on outside supplies, both of reactors and fuel.

Has the Prime Minister noted the view of the Select Committee on Science and Technology that internationalisation of our fuel enrichment capability offers an excellent opportunity for collaboration between us and the E.E.C.? Does not this concept fit in well with the ideas he has expressed so enthusiastically for a European technological community?

I have noted that important recommendation by the Select Committee and I fully agree with it. Indeed, this view is the basis of what I said at Guildhall and in recent talks with the Belgian Prime Minister and of all our approaches on the atomic side of technological co-operation with our partners in Europe.

In view of yesterday's statement about non-proliferation, with its European implications, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that nothing will be done under the cloak of international security to deprive Britain of her lead in the civil uses of atomic energy?

I am not quite sure to which statement the hon. Gentleman is referring, but in the matter of civil use of atomic energy we are absolutely free. We intend to use that freedom to work with our partners in Europe and more widely in the promotion of our national interest and in the promotion of exports.