asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to stop mercenaries being recruited in Great Britain for service in Nigeria.

I am not aware of any recruitment of this sort.

Can my hon. Friend say whether he has had information that certain premises in London have been used for recruiting purposes by people like Major Wicks and Colonel Peters? Would he not agree that the sort of mercenary build-up which appears to be taking place on both sides is the worst possible thing that can happen, because it can only prolong the conflict?

While accepting the latter part of my hon. Friend's statement, I have no information on the earlier part of it. If he will supply me with information, I will gladly look into it.

Will the hon. Gentleman consult with our Commonwealth friends and our allies in Europe to make it as difficult as possible to recruit mercenaries for this senseless civil war?

The Government share the feeling, which is evident on both sides of the House, that the recruiting of mercenaries for this civil war is something to be deplored.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the supply of arms to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Our policy on the supply of arms from this country to Nigeria was carefully reconsidered when the war in Nigeria broke out. It was decided that we would continue to authorise the export of reasonable quantities of arms and ammunition of broadly the same kind as supplied in the past to the Federal Government. This remains our policy. Supplies have all been on a normal commercial basis.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the supply of arms to either side, by anyone, is another factor which can only serve to prolong this war, and is not the effect of present British policy to give the impression that Britain is more interested in seeing a Federal victory than the earliest possible cessation of hostilities?

Our over-riding aim is to see the end of hostilities, because we, like everyone else in the House, have high hopes for Nigeria, but the traditional supply of arms to the Federal Government could not have been stopped without our being far from neutral, and, in fact, taking sides.

Did not the Government's decision on the supply of arms to South Africa indicate that there are considerations other than commercial ones in the supply of arms? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the very deep concern of people returning from Eastern Nigeria, particularly Church of Scotland Mission personnel, about the continued supply of arms, which is allowing what is in fact a war of genocide to go on in parts of Biafra?

I am deeply conscious of the feeling among the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, and others. Yesterday, I met a deputation, including representatives of the Church of Scotland and of the World Council of Churches, on the question of the civil war in Nigeria. All our efforts are to bring this business to a speedy conclusion.

Would my hon. Friend say when it is traditional to supply arms to African countries when they are at civil war?

My hon. Friend asks if it is right to supply arms to a country which is at civil war——

My hon. Friend said that it was traditional.

There is not a tradition of civil war but when these circumstances arose I believe that Her Majesty's Government were right to continue their policy.

Considering that the Commission of Information of Biafra continues to spread rumours that British troops are about to take part in the civil war, would the hon. Gentleman affirm that on no account will any British troops take part?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I gave the House a categorical denial of a recent rumour that 1,000 troops had left this country to fight in Nigeria. I now renew the assurance, and I hope that the Biafrans will accept what I say. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, no mercenaries have gone or, that we know, are going from these shores to participate in that struggle.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further requests he has now received for assistance in reconciliation in Nigeria; and what reply he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's endeavours to help end the conflict in Nigeria.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken or are taking in response to requests to use their good offices in effecting reconciliation in Nigeria.

We have stated that we are prepared to help the Nigerians in any way we can which would bring peace nearer. We would regard it as a tragedy if their great country fell apart. But we respect their independence, and up till now there has been no request from the Nigerians themselves for our Kelp in settling their differences. We still t relieve that a settlement by negotiation I; possible, and I repeat our offer to do all we can to meet any request from Nigeria in the cause of peace.

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no sign of a settlement at present, and that the war is simply getting worse? Would he not take the initiative or consider asking a third party to do so?

There are difficulties about a British initiative, certainly a British public initiative, because of our own very close association with Nigeria in the past, but we remain in the closest touch with all the people concerned about this, and a good deal happens behind the scenes which it would not be wise to talk about publicly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his reply suggests passivity? Can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government are trying to mediate or to secure mediation through the Commonwealth or in some other way?

My reply reveals, I hope, a suitable prudence and discretion publicly about what is said privately, but not passivity. I do not think that the exercise of the time and energies of my hon. Friend and myself at the Commonwealth office can be better employed than they are in trying to contribute towards peace in Nigeria.

While we would all accept that the right hon. Gentleman has been doing all he can behind the scenes, is there not a danger of our seeming to stand aloof? Would he not agree that fear is the great corrupter in this situation, and that, since large numbers of Ibos have been massacred in the past, there is a desperate readiness to go on fighting to the bitter end? In this situation, is there not the strongest possible case for our coming out, precisely because we have a close connection with all the peoples of Nigeria, and offering mediation and arrangements, if necessary, for a Commonwealth peace-keeping force?

The hon. Member is absolutely right about fear being an important element here. Some guarantee might be of great importance to the people of Iboland in connection with any settlement, and I have said before that if any idea of a Commonwealth peace force were put forward by the Government of Nigeria, it would certainly be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in the context of his replies to this Question, it is important to preserve a neutrality which is not best served by exporting arms to the Federal Government?

That point has been very fully answered by my hon. Friend.

In the meantime, how can the position possibly be helped by supplying arms to both sides? How can the right hon. Gentleman say that it is morally equitable that we should continue to supply arms to both sides in Nigeria for Africans to shoot one another, whereas he refuses to supply arms to South Africa for external defence?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting that in, but he is, with respect, asking a supplementary question which he sought to ask on the previous Question, when he was not called, and which has already been fully answered by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how much damage has been done to British property in Port Harcourt and elsewhere in Nigeria as a result of the disorders which have arisen from unfounded local fears that United Kingdom forces were about to intervene in the civil war on the side of the Federal Government.

I have nothing to add to my statement in the House on 19th January about the unjustified attack on British property in Port Harcourt. There have been no reports of damage to British property elsewhere as a result of the completely unfounded—and, indeed, fantastic —story that British troops were being sent to fight in Nigeria.

Is a record being kept of all damage to British property caused by this civil war? Have both sides been warned that they will be expected to make good that damage in due course?

We have no official representation in the eastern part, but we are, of course, closely watching the question of British property involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the renewed negotiations with Mr. Smith's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he has studied Mr. Ian Smith's comments upon the last official statement of Government policy on Rhodesia; and whether he will now make a further statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent moves by the Rhodesian Constitutional Association to enlist support among moderate Rhodesians for a negotiated settlement with Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any progress towards a settlement of the Rhodesian problem.

I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25th January to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). We have noted with interest, the moves to which the hon. Member for Bromley refers.

Now that the judges have declared that Mr. Smith's Government are in fact the de facto Government of Rhodesia, is it not becoming increasingly clear that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has failed? Do they really intend to take no new initiative to try to reach a compromise before it is too late?

I congratulate the hon. Member on having mastered the 197 pages of text of the Rhodesian judgment so quickly. His interpretation of it is certainly not mine. Nothing that has taken place so far makes it necessary for Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their attitude towards the validity of current Rhodesian legislation or the status of the illegal régime. I may add that it is to be noted that, although the judges gave rather differing judgments, none of them argued that the régime should be given recognition outside Rhodesia, whether de facto or de jure.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Smith in his statement at the end of December said that the difference between the Governments was not one of principle but of degree? Lord Alport in another place last Thursday said that there was scope for agreement and compromise. The Minister of State in another place said that the door was not closed. Has not the time come for the right hon. Gentleman to take the initiative and try to seek a satisfactory solution to this problem?

The door is certainly not closed as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, but I had understood that it was the general feeling on both sides of the House that the changed position that Mr. Smith took up when I met him in Salisbury represented a change of principle and not of degree. I read Lord Alport's speech with great interest. He was courteous enough to consult me and tell me that he was making it, though I am not in any way committed to what he said. But I also noted that the illegal régime in Rhodesia did everything it could to prevent the people of Rhodesia hearing what Lord Alport said.

As one who has consistently opposed the Smith régime, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what specific and positive encouragement the Government are now giving to the forces of moderation in Rhodesia? Is it not a fact that a major impediment to the work of bodies such as the Rhodesia Constitutional Association is the insistence upon Nibmar, which is regarded by moderate opinion both inside and outside Rhodesia as totally unreasonable and unrealistic?

There are matters like Nibmar and other serious problems, but it is impossible to begin considering them so long as the régime takes up the kind of position of principle that it adopted during my talks. I have been studying with interest, as I am sure every hon. and right hon. Gentleman has, the recent developments inside Rhodesia, but it would not be helpful for me to make any comment on these developments.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government has failed or not, it seems to have reached a position of stop without any go? Can my right hon. Friend ignore, as he seems to be doing, the position as outlined in another place that there is very little real disagreement, and in fact a considerable chance of agreement that might settle this problem? Should he now not consider whether he can open the door a little wider—he said he was not going to slam it—because where there is a will there is a way?

I think my right hon. Friend's remarks ought to be directed to Mr. Smith in Salisbury and not me. If he studies seriously and objectively the report that I gave to the House after I came back, he will discover that it is Mr. Smith who has begun to close the door, not me.

As the position of the chiefs appears to be of extreme importance and as they are elected by their own people, would the Secretary of State make clear the grounds on which the Government affirm that the chiefs cannot be regarded as representative of their people for constitutional purposes, and also what changes could be made in their position to meet this problem?

The objection to the chiefs for this purpose is not that they ale not Africans, as is sometimes said, but that they are not legitimate political representatives for the purpose of forming a blocking mechanism. Indeed, our objection to the chiefs in this rôle is the same as the objection of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the previous Government to the chiefs forming an indaba as a test of acceptance.

The right hon. Gentleman did not make the position clear. He said that they are not acceptable political representatives. But precisely why not? They are elected by the people they represent.

The right hon. Gentleman knows why.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is as familiar as I am with the facts. The chiefs themselves are appointed by the régime in Rhodesia, they are paid by the régime, and can be dismissed by the régime.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many on this side of the House feel that he and his colleagues have taken enough initiative towards the rebels in Rhodesia, and, if there is some movement towards the kind of agreement indicated from the opposite side of the House, it is now up to Mr. Smith to suggest that Southern Rhodesia return to constitutional rule and not for us to make further concessions?

Yes. I think I agree basically with my hon. Friend's comments. Mr. Smith's New Year message gave no indication that he might be ready to depart from the position he took up with me during our talks. As I said, I understood that the change in Mr. Smith's position at that time was something that was recognised by both sides of the House as erecting formidable obstacles to progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has now given to the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee about firms involved in breaking sanctions against Rhodesia and the countries in which they are based;

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has made to the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee on tightening sanctions against Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made in the tightening up of sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

As the proceedings of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee are confidential, I cannot disclose what proposals have been made, or what information has been given, to it.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we should pass on to Commonwealth Governments full information about the way in which France—and in particular firms like Total—is deliberately undermining sanctions, so that they can assist us in bringing effective pressure to bear? Would not my right hon. Friend also agree that it is only through the internationalisation of sanctions provisions that we can make effective what, for Britain, is a very expensive operation?

Without commenting on the particular incident mentioned by my hon. Friend, I think that there is room for other Commonwealth countries to follow up as effectively as we do allegations of particular breaches of sanctions, and of course the United Nations Organisation is also assisting in this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the incidents referred to by the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) are evidence that sanctions are beginning to work? Will he take heart from this and propose to our Commonwealth colleagues real, effective sanctions on oil?

The test which I have always sought to apply to any particular sanctions measure is not whether it is punitive, but whether it is effective in producing a change of attitude in Rhodesia. I think that some of the changes that one sees in Rhodesia are evidence that there is an increasing awareness there that the present path on which the illegal régime has led Rhodesia is sterile.

Will my right hon. Friend say what direct representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the French Government about this deliberate flouting of United Nations' decisions on the import of oil into Rhodesia?

That is another question, and one for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

The right hon. Gentleman said that there was evidence in Rhodesia of the effectiveness of sanctions. Can he say whether any study has been made by his Department of the effect on British firms which are observing sanctions, and if not, why not?

They are not complaining; only the hon. Gentleman is.

All aspects of sanctions are under continuous study by my Department, and other Departments of the Government.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is within the power of the United Nations to make further sanctions against communications with Rhodesia, and will he recommend action which will enable a United Nations presence to be established on roads and railways leading from Mozambique to Rhodesia to check what is going in, and who is sending it?

I think that that suggestion comes under the heading that I used in my main Answer, that it is not feasible to give details of any particular propositions that may be in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an assessment of the political and economic consequences of sanctions against Rhodesia based on the latest evidence available.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 5th December, 1967.—[Vol. 755, c. 1108–9.]

The lapse of time since that Answer was given surely indicates that sanctions are continuing to fail, other than to consolidate rather than diminish the domestic political strength of Mr. Lin Smith. In these circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman recommend to his right hon. Friends that the policy of sanctions should be discontinued because it is becoming a tragic farce, with considerable harm to our national self-interest?

No, Sir.

Is it not the case that while European standards of living in Rhodesia remain higher than ours, the main victims of sanctions are Africans whose prospects of advancement are being retarded by a bigoted policy which is bad for Britain, and which has no hope of success?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the independence constitution of Swaziland; and the assistance offered before and after independence, by the United Kingdom.

Any constitutional changes required will be considered at the Swaziland Independence Conference next month. The level of assistance for 1968–69 has recently been discussed with the Minister of Finance, and decisions will be taken shortly. The question of further assistance after independence will be one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development and the Swaziland Government have already been informed that he will in due course be pleased to discuss this with them.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this constitutional conference will take place in Britain or in Swaziland, and whether the financial talks will be simultaneous with it or will come later?

I believe I am right in suing that the talks will be in London. The question of aid is not usually discussed at the same time as the constitutional talks.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that, in this area of excessive racial tension, Britain should do everything possible financially to help the African majority government in Swaziland, as indeed in Botswana, to make a go of it?

As a country we have a very honourable record for helping African governments. I think we can look the world in the face and say that no one does better.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the visit of the Parliamentary delegation to St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the visit of the delegation of Members of Parliament to St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

As a result of the Parliamentary delegation's discussions with the Premier of St. Kitts/Nevis/ Anguilla on the one hand and leading representatives of the community in Anguilla on the other, Her Majesty's Government have made available a senior British civil servant to assist with the administration of Anguilla during an interim period of up to 12 months and with the object of working towards an agreed long-term solution. This has been done in response to invitations from the St. Kitts Government and the representatives of the Anguillans, both of whom have confirmed their understanding that the people of each island would refrain from hostile actions against individuals or property of the other during the interim period, and that efforts would be made in good faith to restore friendship and harmony. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) for their good offices. Their dedication and industry have made an outstanding contribution to helping towards the solution of this intractable problem.

May I congratulate our two colleagues on the patience and skill with which they have carried out this mission?

I think that we have made some progress towards finding a solution to this difficult problem. I think in some ways the less I say about some of the details the better, but the legal position remains as laid down by Parliament in the West Indies Act, 1967.

Will it be within the functions of the senior civil servant to advise on the maintenance of the rule of law in St. Kitts and on the undesirability of the interference by the Executive with the procedures of justice?

The official's functions will be to assist in the administration of Anguilla and to work for a long-term solution acceptable to all concerned. It will, therefore, be open to him to make recommendations to Her Majesty's Government and also to the Government of St. Kitts on the many problems associated with this situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the six principles will be the criteria on which Her Majesty's Government grants independence to British Honduras.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question of 14th December, 1967.—[Vol. 756, c. 216.]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I am putting the Question again, and in another form, only because his previous Answer was profoundly unsatisfactory? Will he tell the House whether, out of the six principles, self-determination will be the guiding principle on which the British Honduras problem is settled?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that I fully understood his reason for putting down the Question again. I knew that the Answer would be unsatisfactory today. The voice of the people of Honduras will, of course, be fully taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, what answer he has sent to the representations in favour of a referendum on the lines of that held in Gibraltar to ascertain the wishes of the people of British Honduras on their future allegiance, which he has received from Members of the Opposition in British Honduras and from other organisations and individuals connected with the territory.

My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary confirmed the statement in regard to independence made by my hon. Friend in the Adjournment debate on the 12th August, 1966 and drew attention to the announcement in British Honduras on 16th August, 1967, of an agreement between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition about the procedure for consultation when proposals are put forward by the mediator.—[Vol. 733, c. 2056.]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that that was not even an Answer to the Question? Will he say quite definitely what are the reasons which seem to prevent the Government giving an assurance about a referendum among the people of British Honduras on whether they wish to go to British Guatemala or stay British, as the Government did in the case of Gibraltar?

The hon. Gentleman is getting excited without cause. I can give the assurance that the voice of the democratic Government of Honduras will be consulted, and is being consulted, about the right avenue for making arrangements for consultation.

This is the formula which the Government used about Gibraltar in the early stages. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is unsatisfactory? Will he give a categorical assurance that the people of this Colony will not be transferred to alien sovereignty against their will?

Answer.

I am about to answer. I have never been shy about answering questions. One cannot answer this question "Yes" or "No". The people of Honduras will be consulted about their future, and they will decide at the end of the day.

May 1 probe a little further on this? My hon. Friend referred to consultations with the democratically elected Government of British Honduras. As he knows, many of us welcome this. Will he confirm that if the constitutional status of British Honduras is to be changed in the interests of Guatemala, all sections of all interests and parties in British Honduras must first be consulted?

I have given the House a full assurance. The people of British Honduras will be consulted about their future.

Perhaps I might seek clarification of the hon. Gentleman's last remark. What does he mean when he says that the people of Honduras will be consulted? Does he mean through their Government, which his earlier statement suggested, or does he mean through a referendum? If so, why cannot he say so?

The Government of Honduras will advise Her Majesty's Government on the best way of consulting the people of British Honduras. It will be a new principle if this House is to decide for another Government how their people should be consulted.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Cyprus regarding the presence of British troops there, following recent developments in Greece and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Can my hon. Friend whether our bases in Cyprus are fully used? If they are not, would not my hon. Friend agree that they might be handed back to the Government of Cyprus now, rather than allow them to become a bargaining point between the Greeks and the Turks?

The use of bases is a question which my hon. Friend should address to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Gibraltar.

There has been no change in the internal situation in Gibraltar. The economy continues in a satisfactory condition despite Spanish restrictions on the frontier and in the air.

Could the right hon. Gentleman give any details of the progress of talks on constitutional development referred to in the Written Answer in December? Who will take part in these?

There is another Written Answer on the subject which I believe is to be given today, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend the Minister of State at the Commonwealth Office is leaving for Gibraltar next week, where he will begin the process of constitutional discussions. This visit will be a preliminary to more formal discussions shortly afterwards.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us—perhaps he will do so in the Written Answer—whom the Minister of State will meet out there? Will it be all parties or only the Government?

One of the reasons for asking my noble Friend to make a preliminary visit in advance of formal constitutional discussions is precisely to enable him to hear the widest possible range of points of view.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, in the interim before the final constitutional talks, there will be no question of any further talks with Spain affecting the future sovereignty of Gibraltar?

That is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but, of course, the sovereignty of Gibraltar, as has been repeatedly said by Her Majesty's Government, is not something which we can allow to be at issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intends to grant associated status to St. Vincent.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 12th December, 1967, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith).—[Vol. 756, c. 107.]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Are there any results yet from these constitutional discussions? Is he aware that many of us would urge great caution before granting associated status to St. Vincent in order to avoid the development of a situation such as we see today in St. Kitts?

The negotiations are still proceeding. We must take into account the fact that the present Government of the territory came to power for the first time only in May last year and they have been greatly occupied with the island's problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the failure to proceed with negotiations about British entry into the European Economic Community, what plans he has for the purpose of reviving trade and political relations with the Commonwealth.

There has been no change in the British Government's policy of maintaining especially close relations in all fields with the other member Governments of the Commonwealth.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that we are getting the worst of both worlds? On the one hand, the old Commonwealth countries are losing confidence in Her Majesty's Government, and on the other, apparently, de Gaulle has little confidence in them, either? Would it not be better to sit down and take a cool look at the problem, recall the five Ministers at present in Strasbourg and revise our policy?

I wish that my hon. Friend had couched his original Question and his supplementary in a less uncharacteristically contentious way, because I was very anxious to assure him of the importance which the Government attach to our Commonwealth relationships, especially economically, and especially in the light of developments in Europe.

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his Answer with the fact that in September the Government failed to renew the Australian Meat Agreement and in November, for the first time for many years, failed to renew the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement?

I recently paid a visit to Australia and the point did not loom as large in the mind of the Australian Government as it apparently does in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I remind him that trading relationships between Britain and the Commonwealth are still a very important part of our total trade and that we recognise them as such.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must accept that we are excluded from the E.E.C. for at least some time in the foreseeable future? Bearing that in mind, what plans has he for initiating talks to increase Commonwealth trade and economic relationships with Commonwealth countries?

The devaluation of the £ offers Britain immense opportunities for an increase in exports, not only to a number of Commonwealth countries but to a whole range of countries. This must be the economic priority for Her Majesty's Government in present circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report he has received on the results of the official tour in Australia of the representatives of the tourist industry in Fiji.

The Question presumably refers to a tour in Australia last September, which was sponsored by the Fiji Visitors Bureau and Qantas to promote tourism in Fiji. This was not an official tour, and I understand that no report will be published.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 22nd June last his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said that if a proposition were put to him about tourism in Fiji, he would be prepared to consider it Would it not be a good idea if the hon. Gentleman had a word with his right hon. Friend, since this might be a proposition worth considering?

The position is unchanged. We would still be prepared to consider it.

asked.he Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent talks in Wellington between members of the British Phosphate Commission.

Yes, Sir. It was lot the British Phosphate Commissioners put officials representing the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom who met in Wellington in September, 1967, to discuss future arrangements for the Ocean Island phosphate industry. They made agreed recommendations, which have been placed in he Library. These have since been approved by the three Governments.

Do the recommendations mean that the taxation of 80 per cent. of the amount that is given to the owners of Ocean Island will, in fact, be continued?

The agreement means that there will be much greater advantage for the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, and I hope also for the Banaban community.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what recent inquiries he has made about the assembly in Zambia of armed terrorist groups trained in Tanzania and intended for aggression against Rhodesia; what representations have been made; and what other action is being taken.

I have nothing to add to the replies which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 5th December and 24th October last.

May we now have an assurance that no further aid will be granted to Zambia until its territory has ceased to be used for staging terrorists trained in Tanzania and intended for aggression against Rhodesia, for which territory Her Majesty's Government claim responsibility?

The hon. Gentleman seems to pursue a vendetta against Zambia. I will not give the assurance for which he asks because such an assurance would be based on a false premise.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that this country should give every possible support to the Government of Zambia and demonstrate our friendship to the Government of that country, rather than the sort of friendship which the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) wishes us to demonstrate to the illegal régime in Rhodesia?

We have often demonstrated our friendship with Zambia.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how many people were killed and injured in the recent disturbances in the island of Mauritius; how many were arrested; on what charges they were tried; how many were convicted, and what sentences were imposed; and if he will make a statement on the present state of law and order there.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Mauritius.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the situation in Mauritius and Rodrigues.

Since my statement to the House on 23rd January, the situation in Mauritus has improved. Although there has been some further violence and intercommunal tension remains, the last two nights have passed off quietly. In Rodrigues the situation is now reported to be calm.

In connection with the last phrase in my Question, is law and order functioning, what is the state of the judiciary there and is the rule of law being observed?

The judiciary is certainly functioning, and extremely well. I wish to pay tribute to those who are working in the present emergency.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, there has been a suggestion in the Press that insufficient forces have been available to contain the communal disorders. Is this so and, if not, is he satisfied that no further troops will he required? Secondly, as he is engaged in constitutional talks with the Mauritius Government—and, therefore, I would not ask him to give a categorical answer now—will he bear in mind the dangers of the island going into independence with a state of emergency and with communal disorders still continuing? Will he, therefore, consider the possibility—[Interruption.]

Order. Questions must he brief.

I think that the best answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that H.M.S. "Euryalus" has now left Mauritius, which is an indication that the forces there are fully adequate to maintain law and order.

Having recently been concerned in St. Kitts and Anguilla—and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the kind remarks he has made about my work there—may I ask whether he will inquire if there is any danger, when Mauritius becomes independent, of Rodrigues, which is only 350 miles away, declaring a similar U.D.I. against Mauritius? If there is that danger, which I hope there is not, will he say what steps can be taken to prevent it in advance?

The disturbances in Rodrigues had, in the first instance, an economic rather than a political origin, although I do not exclude the fact that there were political factors involved. The situation is now calm, and I would not like at this stage to speculate on the future there.