asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made, as a result of initiatives by Great Britain, to end the civil war in Nigeria; and what was the outcome of Her Majesty's Government's discussions with the representative of the Nigerian Federal Government about the supply of arms.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what represenations he has received concerning the supply of arms to Nigeria; and what reply he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the initiatives he is taking to promote peace talks between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Biafra.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made, as a result of the initiative of the Commonwealth Secretariat, in bringing about the end of military hostilities in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of the peace talks proposed by both sides, he will now review Her Majesty's Government's policy on the supply of arms to Nigeria.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further peace moves he is contemplating with a view to helping to end the civil war in Nigeria.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the assistance given by Her Majesty's Government towards the promotion of peace talks between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Biafra.

Direct contacts in London between the two sides have led to agreement to meet for peace talks in Kampala. We have received no recent represenations from the Federal Government about arms supplies. We have kept our policy under constant review and will continue to do so. If in the course of the peace talks which are about to start both sides were able to agree on a suspension of arms deliveries, we should be very ready to co-operate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Britain would like to see all foreign arms supplies to Nigeria cut off, including arms from this country? Have the Federal Government been told clearly that the feeling in Britain is that the destruction and killing should stop, and that negotiations should decide the future of Nigeria and Biafra?

Yes, Sir. The Federal Commissioner for External Affairs, Dr. Arikpo, was in London a week or two ago and he had talks with both the Prime Minister and myself. We represented to him strongly how concerned public opinion was in this country, and how we have always held the view that this was a civil war which must end in a political settlement. We are therefore very happy that as a result of the events of the last few days the two sides have agreed to come together in Kampala.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that it was not the representations from the Nigerian Federal Government which some of us had in mind? Does my right hon. Friend also accept the recent disturbing reports that the arms which we acknowledge we are supplying to the Federal Government are now in the hands of a rabble which it appears the Federal Government are no longer in control of? Does not that make some difference to the kind of policy that we are pursuing?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, who on this matter is being less than his usual fair self. There is no evidence that Britain's arms policy has hindered peace talks and a great deal of evidence that it has enabled us to play a. part in bringing the two sides together round the table.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that some Members on both sides of the House remain convinced that the original decision to allow arms supplies to Nigeria to continue was wrong? Will he now use the influence, which he has told us many times he has in Lagos, in both word and deed to bring home to those concerned that this is a problem which is not capable of a military solution?

I understand the deep feeling of my hon. Friend, and of hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the question of arms in relation to the Nigerian civil war, but I can only repeat that we have used our influence all the time in the direction of bringing about the peace talks which are about to take place. These talks are of fateful importance to the future of one of the greatest African nations, and I should not like anything that I say at this Box at this critical time to make the talks more difficult.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most effective steps that he can take towards making the impending peace talks successful is to prevail on the Nigerian authorities to stop the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, and the massacre of women and children in particular? Will he address his mind to that, and create the proper climate for a peaceful reunification of this war-torn country?

Without accepting the assumptions behind my hon. Friend's question, I think we all agree that a civil war of this character leads to cruel civilian casualties on both sides and that the only way to end those casualties is to bring about a complete cease-fire. I notice that the Federal authorities have repeated their orders against civil targets being attacked.

Is not my right hon. Friend being a little disingenuous in hoping for an appeal from both sides to suspend arms sales when one side, namely, the Federal Republic, is receiving arms officially from countries all over the world, including this one, and the other side, Biafra, is receiving no official supplies of arms? Does not he think that it is a shameful position that arms from this country should be used by people indiscriminately to attack civilians and others in what is a civil disturbance in another country?

I have repeated the reasons—I believe that they are on the side of peace—which led us to continue our traditional policy of providing limited quantities of conventional arms to Nigeria, and I need not, I hope, add that the statement that we have provided either bombs or the aircraft to drop them is utterly untrue. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that those who would demand neutrality on our part between the Federal Government and Biafra—and this in effect is what he is urging—should recognise that they are asking the British Government to support a rebellion in a friendly Commonwealth country.

Can we have an up-to-date report on the war? Has Port Harcourt fallen? Did Zambia consult Her Majesty's Government before recognising Biafra?

Zambia had no consultations with us on that issue. Nor would we have expected her to. Our information is that Port Harcourt is now in the hands of the Federal Government.

Is there any chance that in the peace talks the right hon. Gentleman may be able to obtain speedy information about their children for the Biafran parents who are resident in this country and who have had no information about their children since May, 1967?

Like the hon. Lady, 1, too, have constituents who come from Biafra and share those anxieties. By far the best way to allow families to be reunited is to see that the peace talks are successful.

What is the latest information about casualities so far in the war?

I do not think that anyone has accurate information about the casualties. In one sense, the scale of the fighting has been limited as compared with some other wars. Our information, however, is that in proportion to the scale of the war the casualties have been tragically heavy.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to aid the people of all parts of Nigeria once the fighting stops between the opposing sides in the present civil war.

It is clear that Nigeria will be faced with a heavy task of post-war relief and reconstruction. The relief of suffering is already an urgent need in areas affected by the fighting. I am glad to be able to announce that it has now been agreed, subject to Parliamentary approval, to make a gift of £20,000 to the British Red Cross Society to assist them with the supply of drugs, medical equipment and special foods. Parliament will be asked in due course to aprove a Supplementary Estimate. In the meantime, an advance will if necessary be sought from the Civil Contingencies Fund.

While I welcome that statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these medical supplies will be available to both sides? Will he also collaborate with our N.A.T.O. allies and others to see whether we could offer a Commonwealth force or some border force to help keep the ring while discussions go on?

On the question of relief, we expect that the Red Cross will continue to provide help where it is most needed, including the Ibo areas. The rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but, as he knows, we have very much in mind the crucial importance of providing security safeguards to the Ibo people as part of any settlement and the Government are ready to consider earnestly how they may contribute towards this end.

It is essential that as much assistance as possible should be given to the stricken areas in the east. What representation has the British High Commission in the Eastern Region?

None.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side warmly welcome the announcement he has made? Rehabilitation will require much more than medical assistance. Has contingency planning on a fairly wide scale already started?

This, of course, is a matter for the Nigerian authorities themselves, but I think that when the time comes they may well think it desirable to ask an international organisation to take the lead. Obviously, a great deal will have to be done, and I hope that many other countries will also contribute.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent constitutional talks with the Government of Gibraltar.

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

During the week of 6th-13th May, my noble Friend the Minister of State and I had a valuable exchange of views with the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar on the situation in Gibraltar, including the constitution. As already announced, I shall be visiting Gibraltar tomorrow to resume the talks.

Whatever may be the ultimate situation, will the right hon. Member agree that what Gibraltarians want is to live in peace with their neighbouring Spaniards to their mutual benefit?

I agree.

What progress has been made in "the constitutional talks?

We began discussions with the Chief Minister when he was here, although there were also the more urgent matters of the recent Spanish restrictions to discuss. I shall be taking the matter further during this week. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is due to go to Gibraltar on 17th June for what will really be the substantive talks on constitutional changes.

Will my right hon. Friend include in the negotiations the recommendations from both sides of the House that we should give financial help to Gibraltarians, particularly to assist in encouraging people from these islands to visit Gibraltar so that the relations between the British and the Gibraltarians can be even more intimate?

These are the very matters I wish to discuss during my visit. It is a good thing that I shall go off on my visit with the views of hon. Members fresh in my ears, but the House will understand if I ration my comments just before going there.

Will the substantive constitutional talks beginning in June be held in Gibraltar or in London? If the former, why are the Government departing from precedent in not holding a constitutional conference in London?

It is proposed at present to hold the talks in Gibraltar because it is felt to be more convenient and more suitable to their success. But I am going to Gibraltar with an open mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the effect of the internal affairs of the Island of Anguilla on the external affairs.

Developments in Anguilla do not alter the position established by the West Indies Act, 1967, under which Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the internal affairs of the Associated State of St. Kitts/Nevis/Anguilla.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of Anguilla wish not to have their link with St. Kitts but to have a more direct link with this country? What action would the Government take under the existing defence agreement if there were an attack by St. Kitts on Anguilla?

Her Majesty's Government's responsibility is, as I have said, for the State as a whole. Any discussions about the possibility of the need for the defence of one of these islands is something we should not undertake in a hypothetical situation. It is hoped that Anguilla will feel able to a large extent to run its own affairs within the constitutional framework of the State, and that is what we have been trying to bring about.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the state of emergency in St. Kitts has been lifted? Will he join with many hon. Members in welcoming this move as a further step towards the restoration of peace in the group of islands?

That information is correct and we do indeed welcome it.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received from Mr. Ian Smith relating to constitutional settlement of the Rhodesian problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest representations he has received from the head of the de facto Government in Rhodesia, with a view to a settlement of the constitutional problem.

None, Sir. I should add, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) that the only legal head of Government in Rhodesia is the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs.

Is it not clear that sanctions have totally failed to induce in Mr. Smith any desire for a constitutional settlement? Is this not a singular commentary on the total lack of success of the Government's policy and is it not time that they reviewed that policy and altered it?

The Government's policy on sanctions has been endorsed and voted upon by both sides of the House. I do not know how far the hon. Gentleman speaks for the Conservative Party. I would certainly not accept that sanctions have failed. They are having a substantial economic effect in Rhodesia, but I still hope that it will be possible to find a fresh opportunity in which a settlement that can be honourably commended to Parliament can be negotiated. There are, however, few signs of that sort of attitude from Mr. Smith at present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his sound commonsense Scottish nous and ask his colleagues to rid themselves of the unreal Alice in Wonderland atmosphere which surrounds this problem and get a settlement?

The hon. and learned Gentleman had a most disarming preamble to that supplementary question, and I respond by saying that there would by no greater prize for any Commonwealth Secretary of any Government in this country than to get a settlement, but a settlement needs some sort of basis for starting it, and I regret very much that Mr. Smith is saying publicly that he has never accepted the principle of majority rule, which is one of the fundamental principles accepted by both sides of the House and was recently endorsed by the Scottish conference of the Conservative Party.

Having regard to the existence of liberal groups in Rhodesia, of which the Forum Group is an example, will the right hon. Gentleman give weight to their view that their task is being rendered impossible by the imposition of sanctions and that the more sanctions that are imposed the further Rhodesia moves to the Right?

I certainly respect the efforts of all those in Rhodesia who are seeking an honourable settlement. I do not accept that it would be right to withdraw sanctions in the present circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to publish a list of persons who will not be allowed to travel to and from Rhodesia.

No, Sir.

Since the Government are unable to specify the crimes which these people are supposed to have committed, should they not specify the people who they think will commit the crimes?

I do not think that it would be helpful to publish a list. Indeed, from the point of view of the individuals involved, it would be foolish to give advance warning to these people by the sort of publication—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I want to give my view—the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, and so enable the people concerned to keep their passports for possible travel to the detriment of British interests and those of other countries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received letters from people who have been waylaid on their private travels overseas, having had no notice that that might happen to them, with the result that great inconvenience has been caused to them? Is he aware that I received a letter this morning from a lady stating that she was asked to give the same sort of declaration to get a British passport as Sir Frederick Crawford was asked to give, and that she refused? As this is surely an intolerable situation, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he must at any rate clarify the position?

If the right hon. Gentleman will give me the details of the case he has just mentioned, I will, of course, look into the matter carefully. To answer the first part of his supplementary question, about people in other countries, there have been only two cases and I reported them to the House in the debate last week.

Would my right hon. Friend remind the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that notice was given in this House two years ago that people adhering to the illegal regime ran the danger of having their passports confiscated, which means that clear notice of the dangers which these people are incurring was given?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. Hon. Members may have forgotten that they accepted that proposition at that time without substantial dissent.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whether it be an absurd or a right policy, the only way to make it effective is to use it as a deterrent? This being so, will he be logical in the pursuit of his policy and publish the names, as requested in the Question?

The reasons I gave, from the point of view of British interests, for not publishing these names are quite logical. Whatever doubts there are about the policy—and I know that there are doubts—its deterrent value is substantial.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether there will be an appeal procedure for those refused permission to travel to and from Rhodesia as a result of their breaking sanctions.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on this subject last Wednesday.

Since the British Constitution has always provided appeals for those accused of breaking the law, and since in this case there is no law, should we not at least have a system of appeals so that those wrongly accused may have some chance of establishing their innocence?

I assured the House last week that we would look closely into the question of whether it was practicable, without making impossible the policy on passports as one of the weapons in the general sanctions policy, for Rhodesia to have some kind of review procedure. I remind the hon. Member before he gets too indignant about this, that the arrangements about passports are something which successive Governments have upheld in the whole history of passports.

Does the right hon Gentleman not realise that in such a field at this where the liberties of the subject are involved some very much better protection is needed than the good intentions of temporary and passing Ministers?

I do not think anyone in this House, Minister or otherwise, would take lightly the question of individual liberty, but I think the hon. Member is in some danger of putting the individual liberty of one man against the political freedom and liberty of 4 million Africans we are responsible for in Rhodesia.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on asserting that we are talking about the liberty of 4 million Africans? Will he urge that in such circumstances it is time for Rhodesians to come off the fence and individually to come out for law and order or for treason, as they cannot have it both ways and must declare allegiance either to Britain or to anarchy?

The unique and unprecedented situation in Rhodesia faces individuals with an act of conscience and those who are not for us are against us.

The Secretary of State must be clearer about this. Apart from those who may be charged with breaking sanctions and for whom at the moment there is no appeal procedure, are we to understand that there is no restriction on travel from this country to Rhodesia and the refusal to allow Mr. Colvin to travel to Portugal without a passport this morning, as reported in the Press, does not represent some new restrictions not yet disclosed to Parliament and the nation?

I can assure the hon. Member that the question of Mr. Colvin and questions about passport procedure generally are matters for the Foreign Secretary. I have no reason to believe that the procedure there is different from what it has been under previous Governments in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper on the condition of the Rhodesian economy since the unilateral declaration of independence.

No, Sir.

Since the Commonwealth Secretary repeatedly tells us that sanctions have not failed, which is not the impression gained by those who visit Rhodesia—perhaps that is the reason why the Government wish to re-Strict travel—may we not have the facts set out so that we may really judge the grounds for the Government's optimism? Which is stronger, the Rhodesian pound or the pound sterling?

We are always anxious to provide the House with as much information as possible, but we would be reluctant to disclose all that is known about the Rhodesian economy, since this would enable the regime to identify and therefore suppress sources of information, and thus to deny us in future information about their economic activities.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the constitutional status of British Honduras following the report of the mediator.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will now state his policy towards the proposals of the United States mediator for the reconciliation of the differences between British Honduras and Guatemala.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in the House yesterday, since the draft treaty proposed by the mediator is not acceptable to British Honduras it is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. The Government of British Honduras have accordingly been informed that we shall not proceed with the treaty. The House of Representatives has unanimously expressed the hope that other means may be found by which the dispute with Guatemala may be settled so as to allow British Honduras to pursue an unimpeded course to sovereign independence. We share that hope.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask him to say what next steps her Majesty's Government intend to take?

I do not think that it would be helpful to speculate today about future developments. We must look for other means of settling this dispute during the time remaining before British Honduras moves to independence. We shall be consulting the Government of British Honduras about that, and I would not wish to make any further statement today.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are already considering the defence arrangements that will be necessary for this small country to maintain its constitutional integrity after independence?

The defence of an independent British Honduras is one of the many problems which will have to be discussed with the British Hondurans.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many articles have appeared in the Guatemalan Press recently suggesting an invasion of British Honduras; by Guatemala? In consideration of this, will priority be given to the idea of giving a defence treaty to British Honduras? Can the hon. Gentleman further say when the Mexican Government gave an assurance to Her Majesty's Government that that country's territorial claims to British Honduras had been renounced?

I am not responsible for what appears in the British Press, let alone what appears in the Press of Guatemala. As I said, the future defence arrangements for this country must now be discussed with the British Hondurans. As for alleged territorial ambitions on the part of Mexico, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that he had no knowledge that such ambitions existed.

While being thankful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming an undertaking given earlier about the next step in relation to a British Honduras independence conference, may I press him on the question of defence in view of the failure of the mediation and its consequent possible repercussions for British Honduras? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he really should seriously consider a defence undertaking, a guarantee or arrangement of some kind lest independence turns out to be—I hope that I am wrong—quite short-lived?

At present we have a garrison in British Honduras and we shall naturally wish to do everything possible to defend the country's territorial integrity and see that it is defended; and, as I have said, these are matters which will be the subject of future discussions with that country.

Since some arrangement will obviously have to be made with British Honduras and its neighbours before that country becomes independent, would it not be a good idea for the Secretary of State now to invite the leaders of the chief political parties in British Honduras to London to discuss exactly what sort of arrangements they would find acceptable to bring about the independence of their country?

Only a week ago the House of Representatives of British Honduras unanimously passed the resolution which I described, in which they expressed the hope that every means might be found to settle the dispute with Guatemala before an unimpeded course to independence took place; and naturally we will be discussing this with the British Hondurans.

Would it not be helpful if the hon. Gentleman agreed to have an aerial survey made, since this might be a good preliminary to reaching some agreement between British Honduras and Guatemala on the question of the disputed boundary?

An aerial survey is certainly a suggestion which we could consider.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have now been made to ensure that the interests of the dependent territories will be safeguarded when there is no longer a Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs.

The arrangements for the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices are still in process of formulation. It is the Government's firm intention to ensure that the interests of the Dependent Territories are fully safeguarded in whatever organisation is finally adopted for the new Department.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind that a large country such as the Falkland Islands and the Cayman Islands have of their own free will opted to remain with his Department? Will he see that there their interests are safeguarded?

I can give the hon. Lady that absolute assurance. Nothing concerns me more as Commonwealth Secretary in the arrangements for this organisation than making sure that our dependent territories—and many will remain our responsibility for as far ahead as we can see—have their interests safeguarded in the new organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether a date has yet been fixed for the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 2nd May to a Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). —[Vol. 763, c. 1285.]

Have we not waited a long time for a reply? If the Government intend to hold a constructive Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference had they not better first negotiate a settlement with Rhodesia, bearing in mind that the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference was largely vitiated by the disproportionate amount of time allotted to discussion of Rhodesia, which is a United Kingdom matter and not a matter for the Commonwealth as a whole?

I think we have waited a long time for this to come to the point of an announcement. The hon. Member is perhaps under a misapprehension in believing that this is a responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. The calling of a conference is a matter for the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is still taking soundings about this, although it is being done now with a great sense of urgency and I hope that an announcement will be made soon. I echo the hon. Member's hope that when the conference takes place, while Rhodesia will certainly have to be discussed, it will take its proper place among many other matters which will properly be debated.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether, when Her Majesty visits South America, he will advise her to visit her subjects in the Falkland Islands also.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will advise Her Majesty to include a visit to Her Majesty's loyal subjects in the Falkland Islands during her visit to South America this autumn.

This possibility has naturally not been overlooked, but there are a number of practical difficulties.

In view of the recent anxieties of the people of the Falkland Islands, now happily allayed, and the possibility of a visit to their country which was the cause of those anxieties, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be both reassuring and extremely popular with the people of the Falkland Islands if Her Majesty visited her Colony?

I have no doubt about the popularity of it. We regard this as an important question, but I must make clear that no decision has yet been taken about a visit to the Argentine.

Without wishing to add to the enormous burdens Her Majesty carries so tirelessly, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that here there is a unique opportunity to show the fellow feeling and sympathy of all of us in this country with those islanders, so remote, who have suffered much anxiety in the past year or two?

I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to help the trade balance of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.

The British Government provide budgetary and capital aid. Among the primary aims of the development programme under which this aid is spent are the establishment of new industries and diversification and expansion of exports. In view of the large quantity of capital goods imported at the present stage of the country's development, an overall adverse trade balance is inevitable. Exports in 1967, however, totalling $A.4·9 million in value, were the highest yet achieved and were 36 per cent. above 1962.

As copra and cocoa have proved unsatisfactory in recent years, has any decision yet been made about oil palm?

I should need to have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in education by the British administration in the New Hebrides.

Considerable progress has been made in recent years in the development of education in British schools in the New Hebrides on the basis of a plan adopted by the British Administration in 1963 under which expenditure has increased from under £50,000 to almost £200,000 in 1967.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. How do our arrangements compare with those of the French?

Figures of the amount spent on education by the French administration are not available.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now able to report how many cases there have been over the last ten years in territories under British colonial administration, of executions having taken place one year or more after the accused had been condemned to death.

There was one such case in the dependent territories for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.

Is the Minister aware that I am still waiting hopefully for this information? Is it not likely to disclose —certainly in the Far East—that it was the exception rather than the rule for a man to be; executed within a year of his conviction?

I cannot accept that. However long the delay between sentences and executions in former Colonial Territories may have been, the reasons for such delay had little in common with the recent cases in Rhodesia. In his Question on another occasion the hon. Member mentioned Singapore. I understand that those men were executed on 29th October, 1965, when Singapore was independent.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that whoever might have been executed over the past 10 years in Colonial Territories at least had access to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and Her Majesty's Prerogative of Mercy? What would the constitutional position have been had that ruling been ignored?

As my hon. Friend said, those people had access to the Prerogative of Mercy, and this was something which obviously Her Majesty's Government had to maintain.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish a list of the names of all British citizens, resident in Great Britain, Rhodesia or elsewhere in the Commonwealth, whose passports have been impounded by the British Consular authorities, or other officials acting on their behalf, in Frankfurt since the illegal declaration of independence by Rhodesia.

There have been only the two cases which I described to the House on 14th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 1041–116.]

Do not both those instances illuminate with the vividness of a flash of lightning the manner in which the attempt to implement a wholly impractical and unrealistic policy must involve the Administration in an ever-widening series of decisions which, though consistent to the policy as a whole, are individually indefensible, anomalous and utterly ridiculous?

I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman has chosen two most unfortunate cases on which to base such a wide generalisation. The House must remember that we are trying to deal with a very difficult problem, which has now become a major international problem, by peaceful means, and the use of passports is one of the weapons in this. It certainly raises difficulties, but it is an effort to solve an international problem and bring it to an honourable settlement without any resort to violence or force.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to interfere with the travel of British residents living in South Africa whom the Government know to have aided, directly or indirectly, the economy of Rhodesia?

If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind, I shall be glad to look at them, as I always am.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will now restore the British passport of Mr. F. Gordon Harper, taken from him in Malta.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the House on 14th May.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision in this case is widely thought of to be inhumane and unjustified, and also, owing to the record of Mr. Harper, to be a case of mistaken identity?

It is not a case of mistaken identity. I cannot take refuge in that explanation. I explained briefly to the House last week the reason for it. I also said that I am always ready to reconsider these cases. I have explained to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who has raised this matter with me in correspondence, how I should be willing to deal with it.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman yet grasped the point, that if a known opponent of the Smith regime and a respected businessman can be treated in this way on what I can only describe as a trumped-up excuse, as I am ready to prove to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no hope whatsoever of persuading moderate opinion in Rhodesia to return to the path of legality?

I cannot accept that premise. As I have explained earlier, I think that the use of passports and the strength of feeling that generated in Rhodesia is an indication of how much of a deterrent value this weapon has in the total sanctions policy. In regard to the individual case, I am ready in present circumstances to reconsider this carefully, and I will listen most carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us on this side of the House find it increasingly nauseating that hon. Members opposite are interested only in the welfare of so-called respectable businessmen and so-called distinguished ex-governors, and are not at all interested in the sufferings of millions of ordinary coloured citizens of Rhodesia?

The House must remember that it has conflicting responsibilities. It has its responsibility for the rights of individual British citizens holding British passports, which is not to be taken lightly, and it equally has the responsibility for the political freedom of 4 million Africans in Rhodesia. My charge against the Opposition is that they have these two things hopelessly out of perspective.

asked the Prime Minister which Ministers are responsible for retraining, apprenticeships, and further part-time education after secondary schooling.

My right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason for the recent backlash on colour was fear amongst many unskilled and semi-skilled workers that their jobs would disappear with increasing automation and mechanisation, as in the London docks? Is not there a strong case for a full-scale inquiry by the Government into the future position of semi-skilled and unskilled workers?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the anxieties here. He will know about the increase in the programme of both Government training centres and industrial training. I am sure it is right to maintain the division between Ministerial responsibilities, with practical training being undertaken in industry being the responsibility of industry and vocational education being connected with the public education service.

But will the Prime Minister do something more to increase the retraining programme, both for the reasons mentioned by his hon. Friend and for general industrial reasons? Is he aware that the present programme is totally inadequate?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have been pushing on with this very fast. Against 17 training centres when we took office, there are now 38, and present plans provide for 55. Those are Government training centres. The right hon. Gentleman, who had some responsibility, will also know how much has been done by successive Governments to get the industrial training programme into full swing.

asked the Prime Minister what further consultations he proposes with the leaders of the Trades Union Congress to encourage the nation's export drive.

The House will know of the series of meetings currently taking plce between Her Majesty's Government and the Economic Committee of the Trades Union Congress. It is planned to devote one of these meetings—at which my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade will represent the Government—specifically to export promotion and import saving. The last meeting of the series, under my chairmanship, will cover the whole field of economic policy.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to discuss the very useful contributions in paragraphs 131–141 of the T.U.C. Economic Review, including the suggested British export corporation, and make it clear that there is no limit to growth in an export-based industry except the ability to sell overseas and to deliver on time?

The last point my hon. Friend made is the whole basis of our statements on the prospects of industrial expansion this year. I have already had one discussion with the T.U.C. on the relevant paragraphs. As to the export corporation, my hon. Friend will be aware that, following the Report of the Denman Committee, we now have a new element in our overseas trade drive, on the lines suggested by the T.U.C.

Would not this be a suitable subject on which the Prime Minister could break his silence and appear on television, as he appears to have gone on to a care and maintenance basis?

No, Sir—nothing of the kind. I discussed this on a number of regional industrial tours, and I discussed the same question with members of the export committees. I hope that the whole House will do what it can to further the appointment of export committees in these and other regions.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister to co-ordinate a programme of education against racialism.

The House already knows of the co-ordinating functions of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the field of race relations. I have no further appointment in mind, Sir.

That is a very disappointing reply. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that recent events demonstrated that even intellectuals, covering the whole range from dockers right down to ex-professors of Greek poetry, have been misinformed on this subject—

Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for a special appointment covering the whole range of education, both adult and that affecting schoolchildren in this matter?

I cannot think that any Ministerial appointment or any Government expenditure could hope to educate at least one of the persons referred to by my hon. Friend in this field. But my hon. Friend will be aware that in addition to the work done by Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House, in their speeches, there is also the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, whose grant has recently been increased, which is doing very valuable work on a local basis in this matter of education.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, however many questions of this nature may be addressed to him by his fellow-travelling do-gooders, the British people simply do not—repeat not—want a multi-racial society?

If that question represents the considered view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I tremble to think who he goes fellow travelling with.

Not very good at all.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how much money is being transferred to the 57 local authorities facing particular immigrant problems which he promised to help in his recent speech on the subject?

If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary he can have whatever details are available with particular reference to the Section 11 expenditure under the 1956 Local Government Act. But, as he will know from what my right hon. Friend has said, we are surveying the problem of further help not only to the 57 towns where there is above a certain proportion of immigrants, but others where the problems of urban housing and schools are particularly urgent.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further legislation to provide for the independent investigation of citizens' grievances.

None at present, Sir. The Parliamentary Commissioner has been at work for less than 14 months and the House has only just received the Select Committee's first Report.

Since the Government's very welcome extension of the protection of the rights of the individual by introducing the Parliamentary Commissioner, which the previous Administration failed to do, would my right hon. Friend agree that the same arguments for independent investigation apply to allegations against the police, hospitals, nationalised industries and the Armed Forces?

My hon. Friend will be aware that these were not included, in the first instance, in the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner, whose contribution to solving these problems we shall want to study after he has been at work for a suitable period of time. But there are adequate provisions for inquiries concerning the police under existing legislation, and also, of course, in relation to hospitals and the other cases mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Will the Prime Minister, in considering this question, not lose sight of the fact that the citizens' principal grievance at the moment is that there is already far too much ill-digested legislation?

Is the Prime Minister aware that 1½ million British subjects in Northern Ireland do not have the opportunity to take their grievances to a Parliamentary Commissioner? In view of this, would the Prime Minister not now regard the time as opportune to have further discussions on the subject with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who is at present in danger of being overthrown by a Right-wing Fascist clique?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern I expressed on the very point he made in answer to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) when this matter last came up at Question Time. I indicated then what I thought was the right way of dealing with the problem. I am sure the whole House will join with my hon. Friend in deploring the reports which we have read in the Press of these vicious attacks on the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland who, all of us recognise, has gone a great way—not anything like far enough to meet many hon. Members—and shown considerable courage in what he has done.

On the question of citizens' grievances in the United Kingdom, may I suggest a General Election?

Is the Prime Minister aware that we all understand the sympathy which he feels for the vicious attacks being made on the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland? Could he tell us, as a result of his talks, why the Ulster Government have not thought it necessary to have an Ombudsman for grievances in that part of the United Kingdom, whereas it has been the overwhelming wish of this House of Commons that the grievances of citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom should have swift redress from an Ombudsman here?

The right hon. Gentleman's wording in the early part of his question was unfortunate. I was expressing sympathy with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in respect of the vicious attacks, not what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will co-ordinate action by Government Departments in Human Rights Year to eliminate religious discrimination.

Existing arrangements for co-ordination are I think adequate, Sir, but if my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind I would, of course, be happy to consider it.

Can my right hon. Friend, first, say whether any public offices, such as the Lord Chancellor's, carry religious criteria? Secondly, does he agree that before we sign the United Nations or the European Convention of Human Rights, we must have provision against religious discrimination in all parts of the United Kingdom?

I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I have already answered the part which he has in mind in referring to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Does the Prime Minister agree that in Great Britain the elimination of religious discrimination is best left to the tolerance and good sense of the people rather than to Government intervention?

That has been the basis on which we have been conducting these affairs over a considerable time. It is on the question of race, as opposed to the question of religion, that we have introduced the Race Relations Bill.

asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on British Broadcasting Corporation television on 29th April about the provision of financial assistance to facilitate the return of Commonwealth immigrants to their countries of origin represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir. As to the precise criteria governing financial assistance in these cases I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security to a Question by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) on 8th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 169.]

As the Home Secretary on television, to the largest possible audience, suggested that there was a general scheme providing for assisted passages for those migrants who desired to return to their former countries, will the right hon. Gentleman now make clear whether this is so or not?

That was not how I read my right hon. Friend's broadcast. I did not see it, but he said that the Social Security Ministry now will repatriate any family unable to pay for itself and willing to go back. That was the basis of the answer of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security which I quoted a few minutes ago.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that all this talk about returning immigrants in any significant numbers to their home countries, which have low standards of living, is irrelevant to the problem? Very few, if any, are likely to go. It merely distracts people from dealing with the real problems in this very important matter.

That point has been made recently by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as recently as last weekend.

Will the Prime Minister consider financial assistance for the immigrant population of Rhodesia if at any time in future they wish to return to their various countries of origin?

That will be no idle threat.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is becoming more and more clear that there are many immigrants who did not want to come here and do not want to stay? Would it not be a human kindness to allow, encourage and financially help such people to return to their own countries?

I have already indicated the basis on which the Government provide financial assistance in those cases where the return of immigrants would mean a net saving of public expenditure.

asked the Prime Minister if he will define the duties of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when acting as First Secretary of State.

asked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in her capacity as First Secretary of State.

In her capacity as First Secretary of State my right hon. Friend's duties will be such as from time to time are allotted to her. As the House knows, however, it is not the general practice to specify in detail the duties attaching to offices of this kind.

As the office of First Secretary seems to have become almost a status symbol, is it not time that it was dropped, unless there was something specific to do in being First Secretary?

I can well remember, when the post of First Secretary was created, that it was held by Lord Butler, and we had some idea of the manifold functions which he undertook outside as well as inside the House.

The Prime Minister read his Answer so quickly that I did not hear what he said. Am I right in saying that the right hon. Lady is a kind of "overlady" at the D.E.A., the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade when questions of prices and incomes arise?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear the original Answer, but on the last part of his question, as I have said, my right hon. Friend has general responsibility for the co-ordination of prices and incomes and productivity. In addition, of course, she has the traditional duties previously carried on by the Minister of Labour in respect of incomes questions in particular.

On a point of order. I rise to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a Private Notice Question, which I wished to table earlier today, dealing with one of the outstanding sea rescues of modern times—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that he cannot raise, under the guise of a point of order, the subject matter of a Private Notice Question which Mr. Speaker has refused to entertain.