asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present situation in Korea in relation to the 1953 Armistice Agreement.

The objective of the United Nations in Korea—to bring about by peaceful means the establishment of a unified, independent and democratic Korea—remains unchanged. Following the Armistice of 1953, it was hoped to reach a settlement by the negotiation of a political agreement at the Geneva Conference of 1954. This hope was frustrated by the Communist refusal to accept the authority of the United Nations or their proposals for a settlement, including genuinely free elections. Unfortunately, there has been no indication since that date of any change in the Communist attitude.

Can the Minister say whether the Armistice Commission is still functioning?

Yes, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is considerable worry at the moment in Southern Korea at the presumed large increase in forces north of the border, and can he make it quite clear that the British Government would never tolerate any further attack on Southern Korea?

That is essentially a United Nations matter, which does not strictly arise out of this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the present state of tension on the Arab-Israel borders, he will state the present policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the maintenance of the existing Arab-Israel borders.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far, in deciding to support the independence and sovereignty of States in the Middle East, as agreed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council meeting in Paris, Her Majesty's Government also support their territorial integrity.

I am happy to say that as a result of Mr. Hammarskjold' s recent visit to the area there has been a noticeable reduction of tension. The policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to existing Arab-Israel borders is still governed by the principles of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, as was stated by my right hon. and learned Friend on 1st April last.

Can the Minister say whether there is any truth in the recent reports published in the Press that Her Majesty's Government now favour an imposed settlement based on the so-called Eden-Guildhall plan?

There is no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy.

Does the Minister's Answer mean that Her Majesty's Government no longer intend to bring any pressure to bear upon the Government of Israel to agree to any major modification of Israeli's existing boundaries?

I do not think it serves the interests of this country, of the Arabs or of Israel to try continually to twist, as I think the hon. Member was doing, the Guildhall speech, because it pointed out that there were two sides to this question.

May I ask the Minister of State if, under the Tripartite Declaration, it is still part of Her Majesty's Government's policy to keep a parity of arms between the Arabs and the Israelis, and, if so, would it not be better to make a move towards disarmament in the Middle East?

In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supple- mentary question, it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and we would welcome any proposals for disarmament in the Middle East.

Is that not an astonishing answer to make in view of the facts? is it not true that offers of disarmament in the Middle East have been made for some time by the Soviet Union and that over and over again it has been suggested to Her Majesty's Government, as far back as the visit of Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev, that no arms should be supplied to the Middle East? Is it not the fact that we cannot agree because of our obligations under the Bagdad Pact?

The answer to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary is, of course, "No". With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I would suggest that he await my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. Bulganin' s last letter, in which, I think, these proposals were mentioned, and also the discussions which might take place in the future.

Is the Minister of State suggesting to the House that Her Majesty's Government have no continuing obligation to supply arms to the nations of the Bagdad Pact?

I did not say that at all.

That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman did say.

Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary, but I do not think I did. I thought the right hon. Gentleman said that the reason we did not come to any arrangement for discontinuing the supply of arms to the Middle East was because of our commitments under the Bagdad Pact.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to the proposal of the Polish Government to prevent the spread of the nuclear arms race to Central Europe.

The suggestion originally made by the Polish Government in the United Nations General Assembly for the creation of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe was included in the various proposals made by Mr. Bulganin in his letter of 11th December to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister stated in his reply to this letter, the proposal is being studied, and the Polish Government have been so informed.

Is not this one of the most hopeful proposals which have been made in these discussions so far, in that it might well benefit both sides? As this approach was made direct by the Polish Government to a number of Western Governments, will not Her Majesty's Government immediately indicate on this proposal their willingness to enter into discussions?

As I have said, this was put forward in the United Nations, and, as the Prime Minister said, the matter is being studied.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what political and military arrangements exist between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government in connection with the defence of Western Europe.

None, Sir.

In that case, would the Joint Under-Secretary of State explain why confidential information about N.A.T.O. discussions is being revealed to General Franco? Is it with Her Majesty's Government's consent that General Franco is being consulted and is being given confidential information?

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the statements made by Mr. Dulles, which are the subject of other Questions this afternoon. There is no evidence that any confidential information was conveyed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he gave prior consent to the United States Government to divulge confidential information concerning British defence matters to the Spanish Government.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the conversation which Mr. Dulles had with General Franco after the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting in December.

If the information was not confidential, why did Mr. Dulles in the United Nations Embassy Bulletin of 24th December imply that it was? Further, why should it be necessary to tell General Franco privately what he could have earlier read in the Press? Does not this latest diplomatic blunder by Mr. Dulles call for some protest by our Government to Washington?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's inference that the conversation was confidential or that information which should not be passed was passed. I would draw his attention to the fact that the United States of America and Spain have certain military arrangements, which Mr. Dulles is perfectly entitled to discuss.

Is it not a fact that Mr. Dulles visited General Franco in the latter's capacity as a pillar of the free world?

That may be so, but it does not seem to me in any way to affect the answer I have given.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what exchange arrangements for students and teachers at present exist between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; on whose initiative these arrangements were made; and what steps are being taken to extend them.

There is a growing number of interchanges of visits by students and teachers between this country and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, many of which are organised on the initiative, and with the support, of the Soviet Relations Committee of the British Council.

While thanking the Joint Under-Secretary of State very much for that very encouraging answer, may I ask whether he would encourage his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to consider making an official approach to his counterpart in the Soviet Union, from whom on this matter he may get a favourable response, in order to see whether by discussions between Ministries on both sides they might be able to improve on the very encouraging developments?

These questions of cultural exchanges are at present very much under consideration, and I think that the hon. Member should await further developments.

Is the Minister aware of the very helpful co-operation in these exchanges given by universities and training colleges, and will he make it clear that if an expansion of these facilities is required these institutions will be helping towards understanding between the countries in a manner acceptable both to the British and to the Soviet Government.

Yes, Sir. I agree with both points.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply Her Majesty's Government have made to the letter from Mr. Bulganin making certain proposals regarding disarmament and peace.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will propose fixing a date by which the preparations for the Summit Conference should be completed and assist in preparing for it by tabling proposals for disarmament and political settlements designed to bridge the gap between the respective positions of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and safeguard British interests;

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will prepare for a Summit Conference by making proposals for keeping Germany and Eastern Europe free of nuclear weapons and for withdrawal of foreign forces from these countries;

We would, of course, like to see suitable preparations put in hand without delay, but think it would be premature to suggest now a date for their completion. With regard to the suggestion that particular proposals should be made before a conference takes place, I would ask hon. Members to await the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. Bulganin' s letter of 8th January.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of people in this country are becoming impatient with the negative attitude of the spokesmen of the Foreign Office and of America whenever Mr. Bulganin' s proposals are made, and that we urgently desire that these summit talks shall be preceded by preparations making for a definite date?

I quite agree with the hon. Member that many people desire these talks, and Her Majesty's Government are certainly agreeable to a Summit meeting, but we think that suitable preparations must be put in hand and that there must be some agreement on what is to be discussed, where it is to be discussed, when it is to be discussed and by whom it is to be discussed. That, I think, is agreed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Is it not a fact that we are having a series of and repetitions from the Government spokesmen week after week? Is it not a fact that there is no disagreement between both sides of the House on the necessity to make preparations? Was there ever an international conference without preparations beforehand? It is beside the point here. Is it not a fact that the last letter but one from Marshal Bulganin itself contained sufficient proposals for an agenda for a conference, sufficiently concrete and sufficiently numerous? Is it not a fact that if we go on for some time without fixing a date, all kinds of recriminations will take place as to who is responsible for the continued delay?

I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that both sides of the House are relatively close together on this point, but I disagree with him when he says that Mr. Bulganin in his last letter but one put forward an appropriate agenda.

A proposed agenda.

It is only right that we should put forward our own proposals. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are preparing the reply to Mr. Bulganin' s most recent letter, and I would ask the House to await that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that preparations for the conference include putting forward proposals as the basis of negotiation? Does he further agree that if the Government cling to the policy of trying to make the Russians accept a United Germany and N.A.T.O., or cling to the policy of building anti-Soviet alliances in the Middle East, they will be responsible for the failure of the summit talks before they have begun? Will they accept the need for making a fresh approach and putting forward proposals which give some chance of agreement by negotiation?

I think the House agrees it is very important that there should be an agreed agenda.

The right hon. Gentleman answered a very large number of Questions. Will he give us any idea when the reply will be ready?

I cannot say exactly when it will be ready, but it will be produced as soon as possible.

Approximately when?

In the next week or So.

In 1958?

In 1958, I am glad to be able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman.

Is it not contradictory to hold a Summit Conference and at the same time to extend the nuclear arms race into the most explosive part of Europe? Would not a nuclear-free area be the most likely point of agreement, seeing that it is for the benefit of both sides?

The hon. Member has perhaps forgotten that in the four-Power proposals for disarmament, which were approved by 57 countries of the United Nations, there were very broad proposals for inspection, both in the air and on the ground.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make arrangements to return from Ankara via Moscow in order to initiate preparations for an early Summit Conference on Europe and the Middle East.

No, Sir.

Are we always to have that answer from the Government? Can they not think of a new one? Since the Prime Minister has already stated that he favours in principle a Summit Conference, provided there is adequate preparation, could not the Foreign Secretary start preparations now by flying from Ankara to Moscow—or is there any reason to doubt that he would be welcome in Moscow?

The hon. Gentleman complains that he always gets the answer "No" to his questions. Of course, it really depends on the sort of questions he asks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take on the request, made by the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam, that the members of the Geneva Conference should take measures to facilitate the effective fulfilment of the Geneva Agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China, on the matters referred to in paragraphs 11–17 of the Report, dated 12th July, 1957, of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam, with particular reference to freedom of movement for Vietnamese civilians within the demilitarised zone.

Her Majesty's Government have noted these various recommendations and requests. The Co-Chairmen have, of course, no power to force either side in Vietnam to accept a particular suggestion. Her Majesty's Government do not believe that there is any initiative which they could effectively or appropriately take in the matter at the moment. In regard to the specific point about freedom of movement in the demilitarised zone, I have no doubt that the attitude of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam is dictated by their determination to prevent the entry of subversive or terrorist agents from the Communist North.

Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that that reply will be received with very great disappointment? Is it not a fact that the work of this Commission, which was established by the Geneva Conference to which we are a party, has, in many important respects, been absolutely suspended; that there are no free united elections—our influence on this is opposite to that in Germany; and that the Republic of Vietnam is declining to answer letters from the Com- mission, particularly about military aid from America? Surely, it is our duty to take some action on this matter.

I think that a good deal of the information the hon. Gentleman has put over does not arise from his Question. Her Majesty's Government value the good work being done by the Commission in keeping down tension in Vietnam. The situation is, quite contrary to the hon. Gentleman's expression, much more satisfactory than it might have been.

Has the hon. Gentleman really studied the Seventh Report of the International Commission? Has he looked at page 30 of that Report, in which the Commission unanimously comes to the conclusion that responsibility for the violation of Article 14 (c) of the Geneva Agreement—that dealing with the guarantee of democratic liberties—must be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the South Vietnam authorities?

Yes, I have studied the Report, but it does not make any difference to the Answer I have given.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking to secure compensation from Albania for the sinking of British destroyers in 1946.

I have nothing to add to my rely of 12th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Turner).

Would my hon. Friend not agree that there has been very little progress in the last twelve years, and that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs? What does he propose to do in terms of getting financial compensation, either at the United Nations, The Hague Court or anywhere else?

As my hon. Friend knows, this is a complicated issue which requires the co-operation of a number of organisations and countries, and it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to take an individual initiative in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the present intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the furtherance of international negotiations for disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he will make, either alone or with our allies, for a renewal of the disarmament discussions with Russia.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Communiqué and my right hon. Friend's recent letter to Mr. Bulganin show that Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with their allies, are doing their best to find a way out of the deadlock caused by the refusal of the Soviet Government to attend the expanded Disarmament Commission.

Has there been any direct diplomatic discussion with the Soviet Government with a view to securing a resumption of the disarmament negotiations; or may we take it that the purpose of the coming visit of the United Nations Secretary-General to Moscow is to achieve that result?

I am afraid I cannot answer that part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, but I think it is pretty obvious from the correspondence that is going on between the Prime Minister and Mr. Bulganin that these matters are included.

Is it the policy of the Government that the discussions should continue to take place only through the United Nations, or are the Government prepared to meet the Russians in some other way to talk about disarmament, other than, perhaps, the particular points about Eastern European disarmament—which, presumably, will not be discussed at the summit meeting?

Of course, the United Nations are responsible for disarmament matters, but, again, I would say that the correspondence between Mr. Bulganin and the Prime Minister does include disarmament, though I quite agree that the matter should come under the United Nations hat at some time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider holding exploratory talks with the Governments of Ethiopia, France, Italy and the United States of America regarding a conference to discuss the future of the Horn of Africa, with particular reference to the proposed state of Somalia after 1960.

Her Majesty's Government fully recognise that the future of the Horn of Africa is a matter requiring frank and continuing discussion between the Powers with responsibilities in the area. Such discussion is, in fact, actively proceeding through diplomatic channels.

Is it not a fact that the Somalis feel that this Government are letting them down in this matter; and that they are stumbling from expediency to expediency? In view of the fact that this area will become a powder keg from 1960 onwards, will not the Government show a little more initiative in this matter and call a conference of all the Powers concerned?

I have explained that this matter is being discussed at the moment in the normal way, and I think that better progress would be made in that fashion than in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Francesco Costantini, a former employee of the British Embassy at Rome, was responsible for serious leakages of confidential information over a long period; and what disciplinary action has been taken against the security officers responsible for supervising the security arrangements at that embassy during that period.

Yes, Sir. The facts of this case have been known since 1944, when an investigation into suspected leakages was held in Rome and Costantini' s activities were revealed.

I am well aware that this is now history, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman has recently published a book concerning his activities, extracts from which have been widely syndicated in the world's Press? Would the hon. Gentleman accept the author's statement as being an accurate account of his activities in espionage, and does he not consider that it is very essential, in view of the harm that is being done to British prestige abroad, to make it quite clear that this could not occur again?

Yes, Sir. The statements bear close resemblance to the facts, although there are, naturally, some journalistic additions. Nevertheless, I hope that my Answer to the hon. Gentleman will, in fact, achieve the result for which he has asked.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total cost of clearing the Suez Canal; how far this includes the amount spent by the United Kingdom and French Governments in clearing the Port Said end of the canal; and how it is proposed that these costs be met.

The total cost of clearing the Suez Canal was approximately £3,401,000. This includes the costs incurred by the Anglo-French salvage fleet during the period in which it was solely responsible for clearance work and also the costs of its services when it formed part of the United Nations fleet after the United Nations took over responsibility on 22nd December. The costs of the United Nations fleet are to be met from the proceeds of a surcharge of three per cent. which is to be levied on the dues of all ships passing through the Suez Canal, while those incurred by the United Kingdom before 22nd December rank as a governmental claim against Egypt.

While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, and appreciating how difficult it is to get an agreement on this subject, may I ask whether this solution is not rather unfair to shipowners? Could he say what happens to the fleets under flags of convenience, such as Liberia? Do they pay the same share as the bigger fleets of Britain and America?

To answer the second part of the supplementary first, as far as I am aware, all fleets pay the same surcharge. I agree with my hon. Friend that this was not an easy decision to take, as it means that British shipowners who have already suffered from the closing of the canal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—through the closing of the canal by the Egyptian Government—will have to pay a further sum, but we thought that it was the least unsatisfactory of the possible arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who will represent this country on the Science Committee to be set up under paragraph 28 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Communiqué of 19th December; when and how this House will learn of the reappraisal of support being given to scientific and technical education and to fundamental research, promised in the same Communiqué and whether he will make a statement.

Her Majesty's Government have nominated Sir Solly Zuckerman. Deputy Chairman of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy and a scientific adviser to the Lord President of the Council, to be the United Kingdom representative on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Science Committee.

While what is being done by the present Government is appreciated, may I ask what sort of organisation there is to satisfy ourselves and N.A.T.O. that other member Governments of N.A.T.O. are doing something comparable or equivalent to what we are doing in the matter of support to scientific and fundamental research?

I think this Committee will help in that way, but if my hon. Friend has any suggestion in mind I shall be glad to discuss it with him further.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now permit coloured photographs to be used on passports.

No, Sir. Until my right hon. and learned Friend can be satisfied that coloured photographs will retain their colour for ten years, the life of a British passport, he is not prepared to authorise their use.

is my hon. Friend aware that the authorities in the United States are to permit coloured photographs on passports as from 1st February this year? Does he not think that British travellers are entitled to the same concession?

While I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire to appear in glorious Technicolor, I would point out that American passports are valid, in the first instance, for two years and are renewable for a further two years, after which they finally expire: so the situation is quite different.

asked the Prime Minister by what principle particular firms or groupings of firms have been selected to collaborate with the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board in nuclear energy development for commercial and export purposes; and what arrangements are made for new firms and companies to enter this field.

I have been asked to reply.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread feeling that the whole of this business is too much of a closed circle? If the fruits of public activity are to be made available to private industry, should they not be made available to all?

When the Authority makes available valuable information to these consortia, there are always terms in the contract providing for appropriate payment. No exclusive rights are granted to the use of the Authority's information. I agree that in the long run this system is by no means perfect, and it will always be kept under review by the Authority. There is a possibility at a later date of returning to more conventional methods.

asked the Prime Minister what action the Government proposes to take on the Reports of the Fleck Committees which have now investigated the organisation and the health and safety arrangements of the Atomic Energy Authority.

I have been asked to reply.

Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask whether the Government are giving any consideration to the establishment of an independent inspectorate to check the safety of all nuclear establishments?

I think it is right that the Authority in the first instance should study this report on health and safety. Having completed its study, it will be consulting the Government about it.

asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if reconsideration has now been given to the opening of the Members' Cafeteria to guests between 12.30 and 5.30 p.m.; and what decision has been reached.

This matter was most carefully considered by the Kitchen Committee at its meeting held on 18th December last, when it was unanimously resolved that the present arrangements by which Members may introduce up to three guests in the Members' Cafeteria between the hours of 12.30 and 5.30 p.m. be continued, subject to review at the beginning of next Session.

Why is it that the Kitchen Committee takes this decision without consulting the wishes of Members of the House? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that a considerable body of opinion among Members would prefer to have the Members' Cafeteria at lunchtime free from strangers so that they can talk as they wish?

The Committee is composed of an equal number of Members from both sides of the House. So far as it has been able, it has also sought the opinions of hon. Members, and, it is not clear that the wish expressed by the hon. Member is the wish of the majority of hon. Members.

As a rather old Member of the House, may I ask whether it is not desirable that, having regard to the restricted facilities already available, hon. Members should have the opportunity of having lunch to themselves without their conversation being always overheard by strangers?

I do not think that that really arises. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are plenty of places whore such conversations can take place. I should like to point out that a census was taken of the number of people patronising this part of the House for the three days Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 4th, 5th and 6th December. Between 12.30 and 1.30 p.m. on 4th December only 25 were present, on the Thursday only 18 and on the Friday only 12. Between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. on the Wednesday there were only 10, on the Thursday 13, and on the Friday three. Between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. there were only two present on the Wednesday, four on Thursday and none on the Friday. Between 3.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. on the Wednesday there were 36, on the Thursday 15, and none on the Friday. Between 4.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. there were 13 on the Wednesday, 13 on the Thursday, and none on the Friday. My Committee feels justified in the steps it has taken and considers that this arrangement should at least be given a run to see whether it is popular or not.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is also a large body of hon. Members who want to see the Kitchen Committee run its affairs economically and that if this arrangement conduces to that end he will have their support?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on that basis, if he takes a statistical survey of the Members' Dining Room on certain days he could also admit the public there to luncheon and, before very long, he will have reduced the whole House to a rather squalid situation?

The position there is rather different. The Members' Dining Room has been for the exclusive use of Members for many years. This particular part of the House is a comparatively new innovation as a Members' Cafeteria. Up to three years ago it was part of the Strangers' Bar.

In view of the decision of the Kitchen Committee about the Members' Cafeteria, will the hon. Member now make a recommendation to his colleagues on the Committee that the Members' Smoking Room, otherwise known for many years as the Tory smoking room, should also be made available to strangers so that they might be permitted to listen to the conversation of hon. Members there?

Answer.

Order. I think we have spent enough time on a domestic matter.