asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the progress of the latest sanctions taken against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future of sanctions against Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken within the framework of the efforts of the United Nations and Commonwealth countries to implement comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest assessment he has made of the effect of sanctions on the Rhodesian economy and on Rhodesian domestic politics.

I would refer the hon. Members to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by myself on 27th March, 1968.

Can the Commonwealth Secretary give any indication how soon it will be when sanctions are extended and along what lines they are likely to be extended? Are we in touch with the United Nations Secretariat about sanction-busting, as one or two countries should know better?

We are of course in touch with the United Nations Secretariat, and in the United Nations itself consultations are going on about a possible resolution. I should not like to anticipate the results of those consultations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be the utmost resistance on this side of the House to any extension of these sanctions, which have strengthened Mr. Smith?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Witness the lifting of the censorship. If the object is to induce negotiations, will the right hon. Gentleman take up the offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)?

I cannot agree with the hon. Member. The question of extension of sanctions is of course something that is designed to indicate to the régime that, however long it seeks to go along this road, it is a road which leads to economic stagnation. I think that enjoys very general support at the United Nations as well as very considerable support in this House.

On Question No. 27, could the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in fact the political position of Mr. Smith in Rhodesia today is stronger than ever before? Is it not now quite clear that sanctions is a policy which is far more hurtful to this country than it is in promoting the cause which the Government seek to promote?

No, Sir. I cannot accept that at all. I think the hon. Member must know very well that at the moment, for example, Rhodesia has cut herself off from her traditional sources of outside development capital and is using her internal resources for wasteful stockpiling of unexportable commodities like tobacco. Since the African population of Rhodesia is increasing very rapidly, the real economic state in Rhodesia is one of decline.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unless the sanctions policy is made effective, there is a danger that the Commonwealth will not survive? Will he therefore consider listing the individual foreign companies which are violating sanctions so that measures can be taken against them at the United Nations?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the future of the Commonwealth is very much at stake in making sanctions as effective as possible. The suggestion my hon. Friend makes is one of a number of suggestions that are under consideration at the United Nations at the moment.

The Secretary of State did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), which was simply this. Is it not a fact that the political position of Mr. Smith is now stronger than ever?

I am increasingly depressed by the degree to which hon. Members, and now right hon. Members, opposite rush in to suggest how strong Mr. Smith is. These great and serious moral international issues must be seen in a much longer time scale than the temporary popularity of an individual over a month or two.

That is not good enough. The point simply is that the House should know whether sanctions are working. Have not sanctions in fact strengthened the position of Mr. Smith?

In the short run sanctions are bound to have the effect that the right hon. Gentleman is describing. Is he drawing the implication from that, that in the short run we should surrender? I certainly do not draw that implication.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs which countries are, and which are not, now applying United Nations mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia; what representations have been made in this regard; and with what result.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Eveyn King) on 25th January, 1968. As the hon. Member will be aware, exchanges between Governments are confidential.—[Vol. 757, c. 173.]

Since when there has been no change. Is not the Secretary of State aware that one of the consequences of this futile farce is that other members of the United Nations—competitors of ours—are merely taking our trade? When will the Government face facts and bind up these self-inflicted wounds?

If the hon. Gentleman feels that way, why does he resist the proposal for comprehensive mandatory sanctions which would put those people who are, as he says, taking our trade on an equal footing with British traders?

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest recommendations of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee.

No, Sir. The Committee's proceedings are confidential.

Notwithstanding that, could the Government, in consultation with our Commonwealth colleagues, use every possible pressure—for instance, on Portugal—whether it be through N.A.T.O., E.F.T.A. or any other medium, to ensure that there is proper policing of sanctions on the Mozambique border?

I assure my hon. Friend that the discussions now going on at the United Nations are designed to fulfil the purposes he has in mind.

We welcome the Secretary of State back from his recent very long journey. Did he obtain from Commonwealth Governments in Asia a very great deal of support for his sanctions policy?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what information he now has regarding the number of men under sentence of death in Rhodesia as the result of guerilla activity; whether next of kin have been informed; and whether the names of all those thus sentenced are now known.

There is nothing that I can at present add to the Answer which was given to my hon. Friend on 12th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 262.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that sentence for any of the freedom fighters in what amounts to a civil war situation is utterly indefensible, and that they should be assured of prisoner-of-war status? If we are not in a position to guarantee that ourselves, will my hon. Friend initiate discussions with the Red Cross?

The names of all those who have been sentenced cannot be known because some have been withheld for security reasons. Moreover, the names of those whom the régime has announced its intention of not hanging have not been disclosed. It would therefore be very difficult to find out by any means who are the people involved.

Is it Her Majesty's Government's position that it is all right for Mr. Dupont, the Officer Administering the Government, as he is called, to exercise or usurp the Royal prerogative of mercy and reprieve persons sentenced to death in Rhodesia?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will state Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the maintenance of law and order in Rhodesia.

Her Majesty's Government would deplore a breakdown of law and order in Rhodesia. Their policy is to promote a return to constitutional rule and they do not believe that this will be achieved by violence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of sanctions is designed to cause a crisis of confidence and of government in Salisbury? Is not the very success of the sanctions policy to be measured, at least to some extent, by a steady weakening of the internal forces of law, order and racialist repression?

I do not agree with that. The policy of sanctions is designed precisely in order to try to produce a peaceful solution without all the suffering to people of all races that would result from the use of force and violence.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Southern Rhodesia.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I said in the debate on Rhodesia on 27th March.

Bearing in mind certain remarks from hon. Members opposite today, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the State of Mr. Smith is a police State? Is there any evidence either in education or housing that Mr. Smith's régime has moved any way towards a multiracial society?

On education and housing, I am afraid that the sad evidence is that the Smith régime have been moving in a more segregationist direction. We of course welcome the lifting of the censorship by the régime inside Rhodesia, although I am bound to say that I would feel more optimistic about the future if the régime were to go ahead and lift some of the more oppressive features of the police State.

Does it remain the position of the Government that they are not prepared to have any negotiations with the present régime of Mr. Smith?

The immediate question is to see what comes out of the consultations at present going on in the Security Council. This is the immediate scene of future action in relation to Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will remove the word British from the title of the British South Africa Police, in view of the fact that they are now fighting for the Rhodesian illegal régime against loyal British subjects in Rhodesia.

This would serve no useful purpose.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the casualties suffered by white rebels in Rhodesia have been created by bombing by the Royal Rhodesian Air Force? Will he advise Her Majesty to remove the title "royal" from this traitorous and inaccurate organisation?

That is an entirely different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the situation of those United Kingdom citizens isolated in Biafra; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure the safety of United Kingdom citizens in Biafra; and if he will make a statement.

Since the reply given on 12th February to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), a number of our nationals who decided to leave have been able to do so and are now back in this country. We have still no direct means of keeping in touch with those who, despite our advice to leave in the past, have chosen to remain, but there is an International Red Cross team working in the area.

Precisely how many British citizens are still isolated in Biafra? Has any consideration been given to the offer which I made orally to the Minister of State on behalf of Caledonian Airways to send in an aircraft, if approved by the Government, to take out the British citizens stranded there?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive offer of help. I do not think that this is the real problem. There are about 110 British nationals still in Eastern Nigeria. Most of these are missionaries, and our opinion is that they do not at present wish to leave. Indeed, some of the 110 have gone out to Biafra only recently.

I am sure that the Secretary of State realises the deep interest which there is in Scotland in what goes on in Biafra, on account of the work of the Church of Scotland there over very many years. What are the Government doing to prevent the bombing of Scottish mission hospitals and missions schools, particularly in view of what happened recently at the Mary Slessor Hospital at Itu?

I appreciate the concern there is in Scotland and throughout Britain about the tragic civil war in Nigeria. On the latter point, a civil war brings some very ugly incidents on both sides and the right thing to do is to direct all one's energies to trying to bring it to an end. There are other Questions on the Order Paper about this, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all we can about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his discussions with other Commonwealth Governments on the question of the admission of Asian immigrants from Kenya who hold passports of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and whether he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend stated in his reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on 28th March, we are maintaining close contact with the Commonwealth Governments principally concerned with arrangements for the admission of United Kingdom passports holders of Asian origin from Kenya.

Has my hon. Friend made it clear that, while Britain accepts the major responsibility, if the Commonwealth means anything this is just the kind of question on which responsibility should be shared by other Commonwealth members?

It would be very helpful if other countries accepted these immigrants from Kenya. This is a matter for Commonwealth Governments themselves, and they would not need to refer to Her Majesty's Government.

If large numbers of Kenyan Asians arrive this summer from India, what is the Government's policy to be? Will they admit them, in which case it makes nonsense of the recent Act of Parliament, or will they reject them, in which case what is to become of these people? Are they to be in perpetual orbit between England and India or India and Kenya?

We shall have to face that situation when it comes, but the Government of India have already admitted several hundred Kenyans for a temporary period. All the indications are at the moment that those ready to leave Kenya left in the panic exodus before the recent Act was introduced. The expected cancellation of residence permits has not yet reached significant proportions.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that this is quite intolerable since his statement leaves in doubt and uncertainty large numbers of British subjects in Kenya? If he cannot give a clear answer now, will he undertake that a clear answer on this subject will be given?

There is every reason to hope that the Kenyan immigrant legislation which the House recently passed will be administered in such a way as to cause no difficulty.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Uganda concerning the violent assault recently made on Mr. Wilfred Cooksey, a citizen of the United Kingdom; and whether he will make a statement.

Our High Commissioner in Kampala has made repeated inquiries of the Uganda authorities about the outcome of their investigations into an incident on 31st August, 1967 when Mr. Cooksey was assaulted and his car damaged by gunfire. We had also taken up the matter in London. The Uganda Government have now replied to our inquiries and offered to pay for the damage done to Mr. Cooksey's car.

When was that reply received from the Uganda Government? What explanation was given for the quite disgraceful delay which occurred in the Uganda Government giving their reply to the representations of Her Majesty's Government?

The reply was received quite recently. We have been pressing this for some time. There is nothing now to prevent Mr. Cooksey, if he wishes, from instituting a civil suit.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he will consider granting to the people of the Falkland Islands United Kingdom passports comparable to those issued to Channel Islanders and Manx-men;

If by a comparable passport is meant one which exempts the holder from control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, the answer is, "No".

As there is considerable tear felt by people in both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar about their future, should not something be done by Her Majesty's Government to enable the citizens of both territories to feel that they qualify for passports similar to those which we have?

Although the Commonwealth Immigrants Act exempts Channel Islanders and Manxmen from immigration control, it does not similarly exempt from control persons belonging to dependent territories, and it would be wrong for me to defeat the purpose of the Act by providing such persons with exempting passports.

That was, no doubt, a good legal answer, but these are people who have a claim on the interest of this House. Why is it not possible to do what is suggested here to help these people, who are very worried about their future?

I think that the people of the Falkland Islands are in a totally different category from the people of the Channel Islands. They are 8,000 miles away and, while they are British, to admit them in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests would defeat the purpose of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since certain people who depended on this House have just had their basic right to come to this country taken from them, many of us find it nauseating hypocrisy on the part of the other side now to suggest that we should give this right to certain other people?

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about a future constitution for Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now able to announce the date, venue and composition of the Gibraltar constitutional conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning plans for a future constitution for Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether, having regard to the express wish of the Gibraltarians to retain their link with Great Britain, he will now convene the proposed constitutional conference.

We are having further discussions with Gibraltarian Ministers at the beginning of May. Subject to those discussions, we aim to have the constitutional talks in June.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Gibraltar Constitutional Commission recommended strengthening the tie with this country, more power for the Gibraltar Council and the ending of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act? What will the Government do about these proposals? Does he realise that the Gibraltarians want their status recognised and their future guaranteed by this country?

Yes, Sir; and Her Majesty's Government have given the people of Gibraltar very substantial guarantees indeed. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would feel that the dates I have now announced show that we are making good progress on this matter. The other questions which he raises will be the subject of these discussions.

Will the Secretary of State accept from me—I returned from Gibraltar only this morning—that his intimation of dates, though welcome, is much overdue and that the riots which took place over the weekend were not, as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said yesterday, caused by just a few hooligans but, in fact, represented the widespread feeling in Gibraltar that it is about time that Her Majesty's Government got on with talks with Gibraltar and not with Spain?

There are, perhaps, conflicting views about the origin of the troubles in Gibraltar, but I think there is agreement that the actual violence was the work of an unrepresentative group of young hooligans.

While disregarding any conflicting views about recent events, will my right hon. Friend remember the opinion of the people of Gibraltar expressed in the referendum last year? May we have a guarantee that, when the constitutional talks do take place, they will, in their detailed expression, represent a closer move by the people of Gibraltar to this country in a political context?

Her Majesty's Government are determined to play their part in fulfilling the view which the Gibraltarians expressed in the referendum as to their own interest. We shall do everything we can to see that that is fulfilled.

Whatever view the Secretary of State may take about last week's incidents, will he agree that these were a reflection of the frustration felt by all Gibraltarians about the continued delay in coming to any agreement about their future? Why are there to be constitutional talks at all, since the people of Gibraltar have emphatically declared their desire to remain British?

Unusually for him, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of these talks. The referendum gave a plain statement of where the Gibraltar people regarded their interest as lying, and I have said that we stand by that. The constitutional talks are designed to bring about further advances and improvements in the internal constitution of Gibraltar. These are matters which require careful consideration. I hoped that the dates which I have announced would, after some delay, satisfy the House that we are making progress.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the feeling in Gibraltar is that we have wasted far too much time discussing extraneous matters with Spain instead of discussing with the people of Gibraltar how they can be tied more closely to Britain, which is what they want? Will he give a pledge that there will be no more discussions with Spain until a satisfactory solution between the Gibraltarians and ourselves has been arrived at?

Questions about the discussions with Spain are still questions for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no connection whatever between any talks which may have taken place with Spain in the past and the timing of these constitutional discussions. The only consideration in regard to the constitutional discussions has been the need to do the work of preparation adequately and to settle a timetable related to the interests of the Gibraltarians.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what machinery he will establish to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands on the status of those islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will afford an early opportunity for the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands to give official expression of their views on the future of the territory.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has had from representative bodies in the Falkland Islands for any change in the territory's status; and what steps he now proposes to take to ascertain the wishes of the population in regard to any proposal for the transfer of sovereignty.

The position of Her Majesty's Government on all these points has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on the Consolidated Fund on 26th March and in reply to Questions on 1st April—[Vol. 762, c. 3–5.]—and by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the Adjournment debate on 28th March—[Vol. 761, c. 1868–76.]

A few minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that substantial guarantees have been given to the people of Gibraltar about their position. Will he assure the House that guarantees of no less force are available for the people of the Falkland Islands, and that any effort to ascertain their views will be on the basis of direct franchise rather than on some basis of indirect franchise thought up by Her Majesty's Government?

As I understand it, the people of the Falkland Islands have direct franchise at present. There will be the fullest consultation with their elected representatives in the Legislative Council and the Executive Council. In answer to the main point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave these substantial guarantees in the speeches to which I referred. For example, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), he said:

"…the wishes of the islanders are an absolute condition ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 5.]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that a direct referendum such as took place in Gibraltar is necessary here, will he confirm that that is so because he knows in advance what the answer would be? Second, will he remove from the record of what was said by one of his right hon. Friends in another place the one unfortunate word "immediate", when it was said that there will be no immediate transfer of sovereignty without the consent of the Falkland Islanders? Will he once and for all expunge the word "immediate"?

As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there has been a great misunderstanding that some fundamental change was imminent here. Nothing of the sort has ever been the case. As regards how the people of the Falkland Islands will be consulted, it is too early to prejudge that question because, first of all, we must have something to consult them about, and we have not reached that stage yet.

In view of his use of the word "imminent", will the Common wealth Secretary expand upon the clarity with which he said his right hon. Friend had dealt with this matter and give an absolute assurance that there will be no change in the status of the Falkland Islands at any time without the consent of the people of the Falkland Islands?

That was exactly what I sought to do in answer to the original Question. I thought that it might have saved time.

In his answer to my original Question, did the right hon. Gentleman mean that he had had no representations whatever from any bodies in the Falkland Islands? If so, since there is no support for cession in the Falkland Islands, will he make early arrangements to ascertain the wishes of the islanders?

My original Answer did not mean that there had been no representations. We have had a distinguished Member of the Legislative Council of the Falkland Islands in this country.

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will not place the fate of this country in the hands of the Falkland Islanders?

My hon. Friend, who is an old and doughty fighter for the right of self-determination, will agree with me that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, an absolute condition. At the same time, it would clearly be much in the interests of the Falkland Islanders if they were to feel that there was an acceptable modus vivendi arrived at with their neighbours on the mainland of Latin America 200 miles away.

Does not the Minister realise that the Falkland Islands are British, and will he terminate immediately any negotiations with the Argentine about them?

No, Sir. For the reasons I have just given, I do not think that that would be in the interests of the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will launch a British peace initiative to end the Nigerian conflict as suggested by Colonel Ojukwu in his letter dated 12th March to certain hon. Members, a copy of which has been sent to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further action he will now take to effect a peaceful settlement between Biafra and the Nigerian Federal Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of the continuation of the war in Nigeria and the danger of genocide there, what steps he will now take to bring both sides together.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the report he has received on the outcome of the approach made by the head of the Commonwealth Secretariat to the Nigerian Federal Government, in the light of the latest developments.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further initiative Her Majesty's Government propose to take to bring about mediation in the civil war in Nigeria.

We have repeatedly expressed our hopes for a negotiated settlement and an end to the fighting. We have also made it clear that we are ready to consider taking any action which we believe might be helpful in leading to that end. We must of course bear in mind the responsibilities of the Federal Military Government as the government of an independent sovereign state. Moreover there are already a number of peace moves going on, for example by the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the O.A.U. We must be careful not to impede these efforts by well disposed parties which command our ready sympathy. But if the Biafran authorities have any specific proposal which they would like to put to Her Majesty's Government in writing with a view to its being passed on to the Federal authorities, we should be ready to receive it.

Will my right hon. Friend use the influence he undoubtedly has in Lagos to encourage the Federal Government to move closer to the negotiating position now taken up by Colonel Ojukwu? Does he agree that there must be a limit to the amount of human suffering that the establishment of the 12 States is worth?

We certainly feel as deeply as my hon. Friend and, I know from the evidence of the Questions, hon. Members on both sides of the House feel about the need to end the suffering in the Nigerian civil war. We have constantly pressed on both sides in it the need to get round the table and negotiate a peaceful settlement, and we are continuing to do so.

What specific action are Her Majesty's Government taking to use whatever influence they have with anybody to end this very lamentable state of affairs? Can we stand helplessly by and just see these Africans killing themselves?

We are not standing helplessly by. I assure my hon. Friend that when the history of this tragic episode in Nigeria is written, he will not feel that we have not seized every opportunity to try to bring the fighting to an end.

Would not the most productive move be for Britain to press for a Commonwealth representative, preferably an African, to get both sides together, particularly as the Biafrans are ready to negotiate unconditionally?

My hon. Friend seems to overlook the fact that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, with our complete support, has for months been trying to do exactly that.

Will the Minister confirm that we would be prepared to co-operate in a Commonwealth peace-keeping force, so that the Ibos would not fear further massacres should they lay down their arms?

I have said in the House on previous occasions that if there were a general desire from Nigeria for a Commonwealth force as part of the settlement of the civil war, we would be ready to consider very carefully whether we could participate in it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that nationalism is the force least subject to reason and argument, that it is causing bloodshed all over the world, and that it is very difficult to have reason applied to it with a view to bringing about a settlement?

I agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will convene a conference in London with the representatives of British Honduras, in order to bring about the independence of British Honduras within the Commonwealth.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement upon future constitutional advance in the territory of British Honduras.

I would refer to the reply by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of State on 3rd April to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton).—[Vol. 762, c. 112–13.]

If the right hon. Gentleman receives a request from the Premier of British Honduras for an independence conference in London later this year will he accede to it without waiting for the result of the American mediation over Guatemala, which is quite a separate matter and in any case has taken a very long time?

I am happy to give that assurance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole territory is in a state of ferment over the danger of a forced amalgamation or a putsch to join Guatemala? Can he give the House a pledge that there will be elections in the territory before we ever get near the stage of final independence?

My hon. Friend's question goes a little wide of the original Questions on the Order Paper. There is no question of any forced amalgamation. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), we are waiting for the elected Government of British Honduras to put before us proposals for a constitutional conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will initiate discussions with Zambia to explore the possibilities of signing a treaty of mutual assistance with that country.

I am not persuaded that this would be a desirable course.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of any formal defence commitment between this country and Zambia the time has now come for an urgent reappraisal of our policy, particularly in the light of possible military adventures across the Zambesi by the Smith régime, or perhaps by its freelance supporters?

We have no reason to believe that there is any possibility of a military incursion across the Zambesi. Although we have in the past received requests from Zambia for defence aid, and the Zambian Government are known to be concerned at their vulnerability to hostile acts from neighbouring countries, they have not raised with us any question of a mutual assistance treaty, and we have no reason to believe that they would wish to discuss one.

But if the Rhodesians decide to add invasion to their treason shall we come to the assistance of the Zambian Government?

As I said, we have no reason to believe that Zambia is likely to be subjected to external attack. If it were the victim of unprovoked aggression Her Majesty's Government would take whatever appropriate and practical action is possible in the circumstances.

What are Her Majesty's Government doing to prevent invasion the other way round, namely, military incursions from Zambia into Rhodesia?

These incursions take place quite unofficially. There is no reason to believe that the Zambians, who are concerned with not provoking retaliation from others, should support these at all. The hon. Gentleman will be perfectly aware that the sheer size and physical nature of the borders make it impossible for the security forces in Zambia constantly to keep an eye on the borders.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to find out how many cases there have been over the last 10 years in territories under British colonial administration, of executions having taken place one year or more after the accused had been condemned to death.

My right hon. Friend is asking the authorities in the Dependent Territories for which he is responsible to provide this information.

Is it not possible that the answer may be rather inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that 18 men sentenced to death in Singapore were executed a year and seven months later, two years and three months after the commission of their offences? Was it not the exception rather than the rule under British colonial administration for a man to be hanged within a year of sentence? Does this situation not give the lie to the hysteria so sedulously cultivated by the Prime Minister in the recent debate on Rhodesia?

We have no information to the effect described by the hon. Gentleman. It has been the long-standing policy of successive Secretaries of State to take into consideration the length of time a prisoner has been under sentence of death when advising the Crown about a reprieve.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the report on incomes and prices in Fiji by Professor H. A. Turner.

The Report of Professor Turner on wages, incomes and prices policy in Fiji is currently under study by the Fiji Labour Advisory Board on which the Fiji Employers Consultative Association and the Fiji Trades Union Congress are represented. This study is not yet complete.

Has the hon. Gentleman noted that, in the Report, attention is drawn to the fact that unemployment has in the last 10 years increased five times? In these circumstances, should he not do something about it?

These are all matters under consideration by the Fiji Government in consultation with representatives of employers and trade unions there. No doubt this point, which was raised in the Report, with all other aspects will receive due weight.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken on the representations made in August, 1966 to the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the Designated Permanent and Pensionable Officers Association of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, about pensions and conditions of service.

The representations of the Association were investigated by a Staffing Mission from the Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Overseas Development in April, 1967. As a result, the level of expatriate officers' emoluments was substantially increased with effect from April, 1967. The Mission also recommended measures to improve conditions of service in the longer term, and these will be discussed with the staff very shortly.

In view of the relatively high number of resignations from the service, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is likely to be a future for officers serving the Solomons?

As I have indicated, substantial improvements in the current emoluments have been introduced and this provides a breathing space while we are working on a scheme which would retain the experienced staff as necessary to keep the administration going, while meeting their reasonable claims for recognition that their career prospects have suffered.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the United States Government proposals for a feasibility study of a possible Atlantic Free Trade Area.

I have nothing to add to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 21st March and 5th March respectively.—[Vol. 761, c. 596; Vol. 760, c. 201.]

Will my hon. Friend not take the opportunity to correct an inadvertently inaccurate statement? United States Ambassador Roth told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on 29th January that his office was studying the project.

As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on the last occasion, the newspaper report of what Mr. Roth told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress was exaggerated and taken out of context. The United States Government have said that they are undertaking no such feasibility studies.