NIGERIA (Hansard, 22 January 1970)

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Lord Hunt, who, as the House knows, went to Nigeria at my request to see how we could best help the Nigerian authorities in the problems of relief which faced them, returned yesterday and spent over an hour with me late last night giving me a very full oral account of what he had discovered both in his talks in Lagos and in his two-day visit to the forward areas.
With him last night was Sir Colin Thornley, Director-General of the British Save the Children Fund, who was a member of Lord Hunt's mission and had visited a number of other acutely affected areas.
Mr. Brian Hodgson, Deputy-Director General of the British Red Cross, who visited a number of areas with Sir Colin Thornley, stayed on an extra day for further discussions, in particular on the Red Cross side. He will be return-log today and I shall then be informed further on what he has seen and learnt.
707 We have seen lengthy and detailed accounts in the British Press and also on British television, and many of the individual instances described or screened naturally fill everyone with deep concern.
The picture which emerges from my meetings last night, and later information received today, substantially confirms the report which I gave to the House on Monday.
There is no question that what some had feared, namely, reprisals and victimisation, massacres involving the death of many innocent people, have not taken place. There were inevitably some individual cases where shots were fired, particularly in the period before the call to lay down their arms, and the clear order to that effect given by Colonel Effiong. It is clear that there have been serious individual instances of indiscipline, but there is evidence that in cases that came to the attention of senior officers stern disciplinary action was taken.
Concern will remain about such individual cases until the completion of the Nigerian Government order to withdraw the troops from the areas concerned and to leave the civilian police in charge of maintaining law and order.
As I indicated on Monday, the greatest concern must still be about relief, both as regards food—and particularly getting it to where it is most urgently needed—and medical supplies and treatment.
I am in no doubt that the Nigerian Government and the Nigerian Red Cross are coming to grips with the situation, and this is the view which has been taken by Lord Hunt, and his colleagues and by, for example, Mr. Hendrik Beer, Secretary-General of the League of Red Cross Societies, in his public statement.
The movement of food supplies to the distressed areas, first, by the Army and increasingly by civilian teams, is a top priority. Not enough even now is where it is most urgently needed. While the reports I have are that the situation is changing hour by hour, the movement is gathering momentum. The condition of the roads is generally good, bridges have in most cases been repaired already and the distances involved are not great.
A good deal of the movement on the roads is accounted for by refugees returning from the enclave to their homes out- 708 side the enclave, where there is plenty of locally grown food. The members of the mission reported seeing in many cases such refugees with—indeed carrying—their cassava with them.
But there is still acute concern in some of the bigger towns, notably Owerri, Orlu, Uli, Aba and Ikot Ekpene, some of which were acutely disturbed by the ebb and flow of the fighting almost to the last days, and equally had a big refugee problem.
The problem of relief is serious, locally severe, but at nothing like the scale which some outside estimates have suggested. For example, figures were being quoted of 4, and 5, and 6 million. The estimates I have been given—and they are as authoritative as possible in the circumstances—are that the total numbers who were being fed in part or wholly by local and imported relief supplies shortly before the military collapse cannot have exceeded 1½ to 2 million people.
All the evidence so far is that the numbers in respect of whom there is immediate anxiety are, of course, a small proportion of this, though the human suffering and distress, as the House has already been told, is serious.
It was, of course, serious for weeks before the fighting ended, hence the urgency with which we and the International Red Cross and others sought to secure agreement to daylight flights, in default of the more productive methods of sending in supplies, namely, by road and river. Very many of those showing distress and the symptoms of malnutrition owe their condition to the weeks and months before 10th January rather than to the days since then. Alongside the pictures of those in greatest distress there are, of course, very many more people in these areas in no acute danger of starvation.
The most urgent need is for transport, where we and other countries and the international agencies are giving all the help physically possible as soon as we get the day-to-day requisitions from the relief organisation.
The main anxiety, as I indicated on Monday relates to medical treatment. Emergency supplies and teams have been rushed to the areas affected—

§ Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)
Food?

§ The Prime Minister
I have just referred to that. I shall have something more to say about food, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be equally concerned about medical treatment. They are both part of the same problem.
As I have said, emergency supplies and teems have been rushed into the areas affected, and hospitals some distance from the most recent area of fighting are accepting many who can be moved—including the British Children's Medical Care Unit at Enugu, which has also made supplies available to the forward areas.
Patients in the scattered hospitals and dispensaries of the former enclave will now be concentrated in seven large hospital centres to make the best use of medical and nursing staff available. Within a short time the Nigerian Red Cross hope to have 50 doctors and between 100 and 200 nurses employed in these new buildings.
The main problems, as the House was told on Monday, are among the war wounded and children, particularly those in institutions where the previous Ibo doctors and nurses have fled. Many of these are returning day by day and working side by side with other Nigerians. Doctors and nurses flown in from Britain are going to the forward areas.
It is encouraging that Sir Louis Mbanefo, the President of the former Biafran Red Cross, and Mr. Moses Iloh, its administrator, have returned to the enclave to mobilise the former Biafran Red Cross workers and medical teams to work in full co-operation with the Nigerian Red Cross. It is encouraging, too, that there is co-operation between Federal and former "Biafran" officers, especially at senior levels. Lord Hunt, in fact, travelled for a good part of Saturday, in the company, indeed in the car, of a former Biafran colonel, all this with the full agreement of the Federal military authorities.
To sum up, there is still a great deal of confusion and mobility, particularly on the roads and near the big towns. But more and more people are getting to their homes. And the reception centres and refugee camps are emptying as the former refugees make for home. Food supplies in the forward areas are increasing and the urgent need is for transport, 710 and better local distribution facilities. As I said, the greatest tragedy and the need for greatest urgency is among the wounded and among children, especially those previously in institutions.
Lord Hunt and his colleagues have given me most detailed accounts of what they have seen and their assessment of the position, on which they have expressed their views both to those concerned wih relief—and to the military—in the forward areas and at the highest level to the authorities in Lagos, including General Gowon himself.
I hope to have more information on Mr. Hodgson's return and, of course, some more information over the next few days. I will ensure that the House is kept as fully informed as possible and as frequently as may be for the convenience of the House next week and subsequently. There is reason for anxiety, especially over the next few days. But there is reason for hope, especially as area after area, group after group, of individuals, return to their homes or are otherwise ministered to.

§ Mr. Heath
Again the House is grateful to the Prime Minister for the further statement about the problem which still exists in Biafra. Is he aware that what causes anxiety among so many in this House and outside are the discrepancies between what appeared in the very detailed accounts which, for example, we read in the Press this morning, and such statements as we have heard from the international observers? I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in any way able to reconcile this or whether it is possible to ask the international observers again to go into the area and to pursue the statements which have been made and evidence provided by the Press. I feel that what they say will affect the degree of urgency which is applied to solving these problems.
Secondly, since Lord Hunt has reported that there is an acute problem in particular areas, does it not seem, to say the least, a pity that Uli airport is no longer used? I fully accept that the best way of getting in supplies is by road, but until there are sufficient of them, ought not the airport to be used? I again refer to the point that supplies of food which are waiting under Caritas and Church Aid are ready to be flown in but cannot 711 be used because General Gowon is not prepared to approve those societies. Is it not possible, now that the Biafra Red Cross is accepted, for it to take charge of those supplies and to help in flying them in?

§ The Prime Minister
May I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that this statement had to be prepared so late and that the checking of it against the latest information went on so late that I was not able to follow the usual courtesy and give him a copy over lunch?
The right hon. Gentleman expresses what is in the minds of many hon. Members—the confusion in the minds perhaps of all of us after seeing the reports in the Press and the photographs and the reports on television, and after the reports which we have had, for example, from Lord Hunt and his mission and also from international observers. I believe that the reports which we have read have been honest, but I believe that, inevitably, both newspaper accounts and newspaper photographs tend to be episodic and to deal with individual cases. They naturally do not present a general view of the whole panorama in the sense that we have been able to have from Lord Hunt and his mission, all of whom are highly experienced and expert in the relief field. They have been working closely with the Nigerian Red Cross on these visits. I do not think that there is conflict between these reports. I have tried to give the general panoramic view. I know that the Press feels strongly about the matter, but the Press inevitably—and I understand it—has dealt with individual cases of rape and atrocities. It was right that these things should be reported, but that does not mean that they are necessarily taking place on a total scale. All the evidence is to the contrary.
The job of the observers is not to report on relief; it is to be a guarantee against accusations of what used to be called genocide, which we have been told for two and a half years would happen if Nigeria became united. They have reported, like others—and I have not seen a single newspaper report to the contrary—that there is no evidence whatever of genocide or massacres. It is the observers' job to follow in the wake of the troops and deal with the issue. It may be that 712 giving interviews on television about relief was not part of their terms of reference. There are others who may be able to deal with relief, including those who have reported to me.
The observers' job is not to report on relief, but to be a guarantee against the accusations that there would be genocide, which we have been told during these two and a half years would occur if the Federal troops were victorious.
I come now to the question of food and foodstocks. There is no problem about the total amount of food available within miles of the enclave. As I said—and this is the key to it, although I was perhaps a bit slow to understand it from Lord Hunt's personal report to me—the most hopeful thing is that a large number of the people from Owerri in the Eastern Region, who had moved into the enclave, are returning to where there are considerable areas of food. They are mainly agricultural areas. They are now going back to their homes outside the enclave. There is cassava growing like weeds all over the place outside the enclave. That is so even in some areas within the enclave. There is no problem there of stocks of food.
I can give the right hon. Gentleman the figures to which he is entitled. These are the figures as at 21st January. There are stockpiles in Eastern Nigeria, at Enugu, Koko, Port Harcourt, Agbor, Uyo and Calabay, amounting to about 10,200 tons. In addition, much local foodstuff has been purchased, such as grain, and is at Enugu, and—although I would like to check this—it is reported that vessels arriving during the next few days will be carrying a further 10,000 tons. These include shipments due today and on Saturday and consignments of rice and other foods from Cotonou, in Dahomey. Another 4,600 tons are due to arrive at Lagos by sea today and arrangements are being made for further arrivals of rice and other foodstuffs from Cotonou.
The stockpiles in Nigeria are at the most only 50 miles from the area which is worst hit. The enclave itself is a small area, about the size of Hampshire. The right way to deal with that is by lorry, as we would do in any inland county of England, because no longer do flights have to take place over fighting lines. If Uli airport were a better way of getting food in, I know that the Nigerian 713 authorities would be prepared to consider it. The food is there and all around. The problem is getting it in. I do not think that Uli airport would help very much, certainly not more than the lorries being used. The other problem is that of internal distribution and that would not be helped by flights of aircraft.

§ Mr. Winnick
Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are grateful for his statement? Nevertheless, the whole country remains disturbed by the Press and television stories of hunger, misery and starvation in the former Biafran-held areas. Is it not clear that much more urgency is required from the Nigerian Government to get food direct to the people involved? My right hon. Friend will have seen reports that people holding former Biafran currency are unable to buy food at all. In view of the terrible urgency of the matter, will he make a progress report to the House on Monday?

§ The Prime Minister
The concern which my hon. Friend rightly says is felt throughout the country is equally felt in this House by all right hon. and hon. Members whatever view they may have taken in the past about matters of great controversy. That concern is shared by the Government and by the Opposition Front Bench. A lot of the problems we have seen photographed and filmed go back a long way before a week last Saturday, to a period when we were trying to get daylight flights so that there would not be the situation with which we were concerned then. One must go back that far as well in considering the situation.
My hon. Friend asked about those holding Biafran currency. There is a problem here and it has been urgently brought to the attention of those concerned. Everything that was seen by Lord Hunt and his colleagues was reported at the highest level in Lagos. Relief supplies, of course, do not involve any payment. There is no charge for that at all. A number of the markets are functioning normally, anyway.
I said earlier that, as soon as more information was available, I would see that the House is given it by one of my right hon. or hon Friends concerned with these matters. If it seems that Monday would be convenient and there is information to give to the House, and the House, 714 as doubtless it will be, is prepared to bear with it, we shall make a further statement. It is a question of what is convenient to the House and of what new information is available.

§ Mr. Thorpe
The House accepts the integrity and experience of Lord Hunt, but, at the same time, there is an extraordinary unanimity of view, not merely by every national newspaper, but by up to 150 very experienced foreign journalists, and this is a very disturbing factor. In view of the unanimity of doctors in the field as to the need for medical supplies, would not the right hon. Gentleman still consider the possibility of an air drop of medical supplies where hospitals can be accurately reached and pinpointed?
So that we may forget the past to which the right hon. Gentleman referred today and on Monday, would he not agree that, now that we are seeing the aftermath of this tragic war, which has been sustained by the supply of arms to both sides from outside Nigeria, the nauseating orgy of self-congratulation by the Egyptian, Russian and British Governments on the success in battle of their weapons should now cease?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Press reports and their unanimity. He must have been reading his newspaper reports with less than his usual perspicacity and perception. There is not a unanimity, as he suggests. There are a number of individual reports which, I am certain, would not have been printed unless they had been seen and authenticated, but they do not add up to the kind of picture he and others who took his view were saying would happen after the fighting came to an end.
If the right hon. Gentleman studies the leader columns of the newspapers, which have taken different views about Nigeria in the past, he will admit a judgematic attitude. There is certainly a sense of urgency, but still a willingness to suspend judgment and not to condemn anything in advance, if, indeed, there is anything to condemn.
Judging by the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he apparently does want to go back into the past. I do not think that the rest of the House does, for otherwise we would want to know why those he supported did not 715 accept daylight flights. He has also referred to what he called an orgy of self-congratulation and self-satisfaction. I have not been aware of anything like that, either here or in Lagos. I suggest to him that if leading Ibos like Sir Louis Mbanefo and others are willing to turn their back on the past and work with the Federal authorities and Government as part of one Nigeria, he might show some willingness to follow their example.

§ Mr. Thorpe
While accepting the spirit of what the Prime Minister has said, may I ask whether he would accept that the sort of statement made by the Foreign Secretary, that this totally vindicated British policy, does not help the process?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may or may not have heard that statement. I did. He is apparently referring to an interview with my right hon. Friend in the "World at One", on the radio last Sunday week. The question was, "Would you feel that this is vindicated?" My right hon. Friend replied, "Yes, I would". He then said something about the length of the war and added that the time had now come to turn our backs on the past and look forward to the urgent problems raised, of which relief was the greatest.
That is very different from the right hon. Gentleman's implication and does not seem to me like an orgy of self-congratulation.

§ Mr. Barnes
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is food at Uli which has not been distributed yet? Why cannot he make the offer, which many people thought he should have made 10 days ago, to provide civilian aircraft to fly from the stockpiles to Uli? The situation can hardly be worse than it is around there. Surely we cannot conduct foreign policy on the basis that nothing can be done or suggested which might get a rebuff?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is being unfair to the Nigerian Government in this matter. It would have been useless to suggest anything of the kind 10 days ago because there was a total fog and confusion. Fighting was still going on. There had not been the demand that arms should be laid down. Nor had the order been given to lay them 716 down. The roads were blocked with refugees. No one knew what was the situation at the airport. It would have been premature to do what he suggests. It was obvious that what was needed was road transport and on this we moved very quickly—as soon as my hon. Friend turned round. We were on the job that Saturday evening.
If the use of Uli airport is the way to move in the future, I have no doubt that the Nigerian authorities would want that to happen. There are foodstocks in large quantities within 50 miles of this area. Indeed, Enugu and other places are nearer. The problem is to get it into the enclave and distributed. Indeed, Port Harcourt is a 3½-hour lorry trip away. I cannot believe that flying in more food from outside would be the quickest way of getting food in nor the quickest way of distributing it.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the news that Sir Louis Mbanefo has gone back to help organise Red Cross relief? Nevertheless, I must put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. First, it is surely for Her Majesty's Government to press in Lagos that there should be a centre of relief from Uli, because this is where trucks should be flown to—and where relief could be carried out. Lord Hunt appeared on television yesterday and made it clear that this should have been done. Secondly, the real problem is not the people seen moving about the roads, who are healthy, or the people in the towns, but the many hundreds of thousands of people in the villages who are too sick to move. That is the point. This is where the right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The Government are missing the desperate urgency of this situation.

§ The Prime Minister
I know the right hon. Gentleman's deep feelings, which are common to all of us, as he will recognise. Like him, I welcome the close co-operation by Sir Louis Mbanefo and other senior Ibos in working on relief and other matters.
With regard to Uli, if the Federal Government felt that this was the best way, I am sure that it would he done. They are getting advice not only from the Nigerian Red Cross, which is responsible for the work, but also from many world experts on relief. Lord Hunt, too, has been giving his advice. Lord Hunt has 717 expressed fully and frankly all the things that, in his view, would help. Someone has to decide the priorities. I do not think that it helps to discuss that policy in public, at any rate as far as Her Majesty's Government and Lord Hunt are concerned, because these things are better said in private to the relief authorities, who will form their own conclusions and make their own decisions.
I agree that the thousands of people on the roads, well fed and healthy, are not those we should be principally concerned with, although—and I do not criticise this—we have seen fewer pictures of them in this morning's papers than pictures of those in need. That is right. It is the job of the Press to show us the things we should be shocked by and not the things that we should be more gratified over.
The right hon. Gentleman has made an estimate, and he must take responsibility for it. He has come down from the 4 million to 6 million people he talked about last Monday.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
I talked about 4 million.

§ The Prime Minister
Now the right hon. Gentleman talks about a hundred thousand or so. It is impossible to measure. Nevertheless, it is a small proportion of the 1½ million to 2 million, as I have said. But every individual is, of coarse, a matter of concern to us all. As I have said, both today and on Monday, we have to be concerned about those who cannot move about, such as the war-wounded in the hospitals, those in the bust who have not yet emerged, and the children. These are the people we have to be concerned about. We cannot measure their numbers and we have to find some means of helping them.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
The Prime Minister is right that the opening of the roads has made all the difference to the situation, and when the roads go to within 50 miles of where distribution is needed that is the most effective way. But where he has not sounded quite convincing—and I know that it is difficult to make suggestions at this distance—is about the bringing, of relief to people in the bush, the large numbers of people who, from the evidence, exist there and are hungry. Could not aircraft drops or helicopter drops be considered? Has this been put to the Nigerian Government?

§ The Prime Minister
It has been put to the Nigerian Government by people and agencies all over the world. I do not think that this is so much a problem of those in the bush. While people are returning in increasing numbers from the bush, many others are unwilling to emerge. Some feel that they may be victimised, for whatever reason may seem good to them. Some have records—perhaps honourable records—which they feel might lead to charges against them of some kind or another. It is difficult to get it to them, and, certainly, to fly an aircraft into Uli would not help them because they are not identifying themselves.
The problem, therefore, is driving up from a place like Enugu 20 or 30 miles away which is far better than flying in a plane. Then the problem is Land Rovers and jeeps and things of that kind. That is a better way of doing it than using helicopters. If the food is in the enclave, it is not far into the bush areas once we can identify the people's needs. If helicopters are required they will be made available and the Nigerians will be allowed to use them.

§ Mr. Wyatt
Is it not the case that Miss Bridget Bloom, who went on exactly the same journalistic tour as all the other reporters, wrote in this morning's Financial Times a very balanced account which was far more in line with the views of Lord Hunt and Sir Colin Thornley than that of most of the other reporters?
Would it not be a good idea if the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. and the rest of the Press reported some of the marvellous things being done instead of always harping on the bad ones? I think, for instance, of the wonderful refugee camp which Sir Colin Thornley described this morning, run by Ibos, where 35,000 refugees are being very well fed indeed.
Will it not be counter-productive if we keep on gibing at the Nigerian Government? They will be very resentful. What I fear very much is that instead of helping relief this criticism will impede it.

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an article in the Financial Times. I had that very much in mind when I said to the Leader of the Liberal Party that the Press was by no means unanimous about what he had read into the Press reports. Miss Bloom 719 is extremely experienced in Nigerian matters. Many of us have been reported by her when we have been in that part of the world. It was a balanced report. The beginning of it was particularly good. She was also frank and critical of the Federal authorities when she found it necessary to be so and pressed them to do more.
What the British Press and television authorities report must be a matter for them. It is their duty and in the nature of their form of reporting to draw attention to individual cases which highlight the picture that they are putting across. Naturally, as with every other aspect of life, even in Parliament, there are not many reports when things are going quietly and well—only when there is a blazing row in any party or between the parties. The same may be true in this instance. The report given last night and to the Press this morning by Lord Hunt is authentic. It is a total view as against the episodic pictures and snapshots that we see in the Press and on television.

§ Mr. John Mendelson
While my right hon. Friend is absolutely right and will receive general support in saying that the politics of the past cannot be relevant to the present discussion, is it not equally true that the Government in Lagos are opposing the use of Uli airport on purely political grounds which have nothing to do with the urgent humanitarian situation?
Is it not equally true that the Government have known for some days about some hospitals where there are unattended children, not enough doctors and no food, and that they are in difficulty because they dare not oppose more openly the rigid political attitude of the Lagos Government?
Is it not the task of hon. Members who are not constrained to the same extent as the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to voice the opinion of many people in this country that Uli airport should be used, that the United Nations should be allowed to help, and that the food stored, not only in but outside Nigeria, should not be allowed to rot but should be flown in?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is not only a little unfair, but unusually ill-informed. It is not the case—and I ask my hon. Friend to accept this—that 720 we identified several days ago a hospital without doctors and nurses and were not allowed to get doctors and nurses in because of the fear of treading on the toes of the Nigerian authorities. This is not a description of the kind of situation which we are facing.
With regard to Uli, most of us have read the history of the feelings at the end of other bloody civil wars where anything as provocative as Uli was in this war would naturally be regarded as a pretty dirty word. It was through Uli that all the arm supplies came, wherever they may have come from—[Interruption.] There were a lot of countries. I will not name all of them; some have named themselves and others have not.
At the end of this war, even with the magnanimity which I still assert has been shown by the Federal authorities in full measure, it would be natural if they felt strongly about some of those who had opposed them in Nigeria or elsewhere making use of Uli airport for relief supplies with the new symbol and new crusade.
Having said that, unusual and speedy magnanimity and reconciliation has been shown by the victors in this conflict. Whatever their feelings about Uli, I am convinced that if they thought that Uli would save lives and would enable the stuff to get in more quickly, despite the bad history for them of Uli—and it has been bad—they would use it.

§ Sir J. Rodgers
Is the Prime Minister still convinced that the Federal Government and the relief organisations have the necessary organisation speedily to distribute the medical supplies and food to which he referred? Does he recall that several times in the House he has justified his policy by referring to his influence with General Gowon? Will he use that influence to get the United Nations or other international organisations to help with the urgent problem of stopping starvation and real misery?

§ The Prime Minister
I am prepared to debate the question of influence with regard to the past. I referred the other day to the good influence which we had at a very critical time 2½ years ago. But that is not the question; it is not a question of influence. The Federal authorities are only too anxious to learn from anyone who can help them, and 721 the best people to help them are the International Red Cross, the League of Red Cross Societies and people like Lord Hunt and his colleagues.
I do not believe that the problem will be solved by proliferating the relief organisations in Nigeria by several competing organisations crossing wires and getting in one another's hair. There are problems of the build-up. The biggest problem must be the conditions in the forward areas, about which so little was known, particularly while the fighting was going on.
The withdrawal of the troops will give a lot more hope to the forward teams, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The central organisation is very much more articulate and very much better organised than a week ago because this thing had to be done in a hurry. No one knew what the situation would be. It is under the full-time leadership of one of Nigeria's ablest administrators, Mr. Ayida, and his team. The problem is getting to know what is required on the ground.

§ Mr. Amery
Judging from the Press, one of the major problems is the shortage, not only of food, but of purchasing power in the hands of the Biafran people. There have been accounts of food being there and people not having money to buy it because of the collapse of the Biafran currency. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information About what is being done by the Federal authorities to put purchasing power back into the hand of the Biafrans?

§ The Prime Minister
I answered exactly the same question when it was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), but perhaps I can repeat that the relief supplies which are going in in considerable quantity do not involve any monetary hand-over. A great deal of the food still available in the area is locally grown—subsisterce farming—within and, more particularly, outside the enclave.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
On a point of order. I wish to make an application to you, Sir, under Standing Order No. 9. In view of the continuing complacency—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not put forward political arguments.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, that the Government's Nigerian relief contingency plans referred to by the Foreign Secretary in a broadcast on Sunday, 11th January, and expanded by the Prime Minister on Monday and again today, are inadequate, have failed to encourage the use of immediately available international relief supplies, and cannot meet the immediate needs of the most afflicted areas".

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) was courteous enough to inform me that he would ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, that the Government's relief contingency plans referred to by the Foreign Secretary in a broadcast on Sunday, 11th January, and expanded by the Prime Minister on Monday and again today, are inadequate, have failed to encourage the use of immediately available international relief supplies, and cannot meet the immediate needs of the most afflicted areas. I have given the matter serious consideration. I have listened to the exchange this afternoon. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business on Monday afternoon, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.