asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now take the initiative in calling a technical conference to discuss the future use of the Nile Waters.

No, Sir. But I will bear the suggestion in mind.

Is my hon. Friend aware that both the Sudan and our friends in East Africa urgently need to be able to draw additional quantities of water off the Nile and that, in default of any agreement, they are restricted from doing so? Therefore, is it not necessary on technical grounds alone to take the initiative to get this matter started? To wait for political agreement would be too late.

There is little prospect of a successful conference until the U.A.R. and the Sudanese Government have reached some agreement between themselves. Although technical considerations enter into the dispute, the basic issue is a political one of how to divide the water available.

If such a conference is called, will not the hon. Gentleman have to call in the Russians also, as they are building the Aswan Dam? Will he say how much responsibility the Government share for this peculiar position?

That matter does not arise at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to adopt the proposals contained in the draft European Social Charter and discussed at the recent International Labour Organisation Conference convened at the Council of Europe's request; and if he will give special consideration to the application of these proposals to overseas territories governed by the United Kingdom.

The proposals in question have still to be considered by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is at present awaiting the comments of the Assembly. The question of adoption does not, therefore, arise at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government propose to make to the funds of the World Refugee Year campaign, the objects of which include the closing of the camps in Europe and assistance to the Palestinian refugees and the refugees in China and Hong Kong.

Her Majesty's Government have pledged £100,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for the World Refugee Year.

Is this not a woefully pitiful sum, in view of the fact that there are nearly 30 million refugees in one part of the world or another at the present time? If this target is to be reached, it will involve a contribution of 3s. a week for each family in the country. Surely this Government can do more than that.

I should make it clear that this is not all that we are doing for refugees in this year. Our budget for refugees runs at well over £2 million a year. The object of the World Refugee Year is to try to arouse the conscience of people all over the world to the need to give some support to these refugees, and this sum of money which I have announced is merely a subscription to the committee's fund in the British Isles.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the best help that we could give to the Palestinian refugees would be to persuade the United Arab Republic to settle them outside the camps and then to get U.N.O. to abolish the camps altogether?

That is a much wider matter than the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government will make to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees for the year ending 31st March, 1960; and whether this is more or less than was paid in 1958–59.

A contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency amounting to £1,928,572 has been provided for in the 1959–60 Estimates, subject to Parliamentary approval. This provision is the same as the sum actually paid to the Agency in the United Kingdom financial year 1958–59.

Is it also the same sum as that promised on the last occasion? Is it not the case that the figure promised last year was larger than the figure in the current Estimates by about £70,000? If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the amount mentioned in the previous year was not in fact paid? Secondly, does he not think it rather ironical that apparently the Government are reducing their contribution to the Palestine refugees to the extent of two-thirds of the amount by which they are increasing their subscription to World Refugee Year? Is that not rather a hypocritical position?

I will look into the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted. We are always considering the exact state of the budget of this Agency. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the burden has frequently fallen upon us and the American Government to see that this Agency does not break down altogether. I can assure him that we have always seen that sums are available to keep the work of this Agency going.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take an early opportunity to discuss with the United States Secretary of State the divergencies of views and policies on shipping matters which have arisen between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

My right hon. and learned Friend has discussed these matters with United States' Ministers on several occasions. Further talks will take place between officials in Washington next month.

Whilst I am glad to hear that, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this situation has really become so serious now that the problems can only be solved between Governments on a very high level? Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear to the American Government that a continuation of the use of discriminatory practices, the continuing use of flags of convenience and the entering upon a war of subsidies, which would be uneconomic and ruinous in the long run, can only do harm? Will he really make certain that the American Government bring urgent attention to a problem far too long neglected?

I certainly agree with a great deal that the hon. Member has mentioned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that many of us, if not all of us, are very resentful of the attitude adopted by the United States Government and shipowners in the United States and that unless something drastic is done there will be a disastrous result for British shipping which we cannot afford? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite plain to his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that we expect something to be done at a very early stage?

I quite appreciate that, and I know that it is the feeling of the whole House. We have, partly or our initiative, organised the meeting which is to take place next month between not only us and the United States, but a great many other maritime Powers which are equally concerned about United States practices.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communications he has received from the French Government concerning the admission of Franco Spain to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what was his reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that Spain should be admitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what fresh proposals have been made to Her Majesty's Government regarding the admission of Spain to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to this question.

No proposals have been made to Her Majesty's Government about Spanish membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Nor has the French Government sent us a communication about it. Membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a matter for all members of the organisation together. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to say now what the attitude of Her Majesty's Government might or might not be if Spanish membership came up for consideration at any time.

Will not the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the General Assembly of the United Nations at one time pointed out that the Franco régime was a Fascist regime imposed upon Spain by Hitler and Mussolini and in no way represented the Spanish people? Will he further bear in mind that there are already over 50 dictatorships in the so-called free world? Does he not believe that the admission of this malodorous Fascist regime to N.A.T.O. would expose the fact that what the Government mean by "defence of the free world" is the preservation of "The world of King Slickey", to quote the New Statesman?

That does not arise from my Answer. Perhaps the hon. Member might listen a little more closely to the answers I give to his Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Government still consider themselves entitled, as declared by the Prime Minister in the House on 17th July, 1958, to despatch British forces at the request of the ruler of any country who may ask for such assistance to enable him to defeat a rising in his own country which he ascribes to indirect aggression or infiltration and subversion by foreign agents.

I do not accept the hon. Member's version of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17th July, 1958. With regard to the complicated hypothesis raised in his Question, I can only tell the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government would have to deal with any new situation of the sort envisaged by his Question in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and of their international obligations and duties affecting it.

Will the hon. Gentleman state whether the Government consider that, under the resolution on the Middle East passed at the last General Assembly on the initiative of the Arab States, they still remain free to act in the way they acted in Jordan and to use the arguments for action that were used by the Prime Minister on 17th July?

I cannot commit Her Majesty's Government as to the precise circumstances in which they might consider it right to send assistance in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Government remain committed to the undertaking in paragraph 5 of the Bagdad Pact Council communiqué of 22nd November, 1955, to help defend the territories of the Bagdad Pact countries against Communist subversion, and by the reply of the Minister of Defence in the House on 27th February, 1957, to the effect that it was for the rulers of those countries to decide whether a rising in their territories constituted Communist subversion which Britain was pledged to help them combat by the despatch of armed forces.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my right hon. Friend on 9th March last.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that reply by making it clear that the Government will not use military force to support the ruler of a country involved in difficulties with his own population, even if he alleges Communist subversion, indirect aggression, or what, have you?

The hon. Member has asked this Question at least five times and he knows the answer so well that I am led to wonder whether he puts down the Questions for mischievous purposes.

Was it not very improper to impute motives that when hon. Members put Questions on the Order Paper they do so for mischievous purposes?

"Mischievous" is used sometimes in the sense of meaning playful. At other times, it means something bad. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to impute any unavowed motive to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) in asking these Questions. One has to put the best construction on the utterances of hon. Members, and I thought that perhaps the Minister of State meant it in a playful sense.

In my submission, the Minister of State made his statement in such a way, and it was received by hon. Members behind him in such a fashion, as to show that it was impudent and arrogant.

In view of the utter impossibility of ever getting a straight answer to this Question from the Government, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to co-operate with the United States Government in outer space research and experimentation both in the nuclear and non-nuclear spheres.

It is our policy to seek close and continuing collaboration with our American Allies in matters of this kind. But on the specific question of outer space research, I must ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to await the policy statement which I believe my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making tomorrow.

Will the statement to be made by the Prime Minister tomorrow cover the point raised in my Question?

I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will raise it as a supplementary if it is not.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations for further arms shipments to Iraq are at present proceeding.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to the recent request of the Iraq Government for a further shipment of arms.

asked the Secretary of State far Foreign Affairs what recent requests he has received from the Government of Iraq for the supply of arms; and if he will make a statement.

As the House knows, Iraq has traditionally looked to Great Britain to supply her with arms. As I informed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 2nd March, several requests for the purchase of military equipment have been received from the Iraqi Government since the revolution, and some of these, including orders dating from before the revolution, have already been met. Early this year, General Qasim asked Her Majesty's Ambassador in Bagdad whether her Majesty's Government would be wilding to authorise further sales, including certain aircraft and tanks. In making this request, General Qasim explicitly stated that he wished Britain to remain one of the main sources of supply for the Iraqi forces.

What possible advantage can there be in such a policy? Are the Government still so bitter about the events of two and a half years ago that they would prefer to see Iraq become more Communist than become more Nasserite? What argument is there for engaging at present in a policy which can only be regarded as extremely unfriendly towards Egypt and the United Arab Republic?

I do not think that forcing General Qasim to rely solely on the Soviet bloc for arms would contribute to stability in the Middle East, which is our sole aim.

As this is bound to affect the neighbours of Iraq, may I ask whether this matter was discussed with the Shah of Persia when he was here and what was his opinion?

The right hon. Lady can rely on that all right.

Yes, it was discussed and he and his advisers approved.

Is it not extremely ironical that we should now be reduced to supplying arms to Iraq following the revolution when it was stated from the Government side of the House at the time that one of the reasons why we went into Jordan was because of the anxieties raised by the very Government to which we now supply the arms? Was it not said by Mr. Khrushchev that he invited Sir Anthony Eden to have a general embargo on the supply of arms to all nations in the Middle East? Has the hon. Gentleman discussed that with the Russian authorities since? Surely, this is a very upsetting statement to have to make.

I do not think that a general embargo on arms in the Middle East is practicable, and I do not think that the Russians would agree to it or that it could be enforced. The answer to this is that we should continue, within reason, our long tradition of supplying this country with arms and do our very best to allow General Qasim to maintain an independent line of action, which, he says, is what he wishes to do.

How can the hon. Gentleman express doubts about the practicability of an embargo on arms by all the major nations to the Middle East unless he tries it? On several occasions Mr. Khrushchev has made the statement that he made this offer. Why has the offer not been followed up? If it had been followed up and the arms embargo had been imposed upon the Middle East, the Government would not have to make this embarrassing statement this afternoon.

First of all, I really must say that the Government do not find this an embarrassing statement at all. [Interruption.]Certainly not. We do not find it embarrassing to come to the House and tell the House of something which we believe is a good decision. I will give the right hon. Gentleman something of an answer to the question he asked about why we have not done more to ask the Russians whether we can have a general embargo. One of the reasons is that the Russians themselves have been extremely busy since the revolution exporting arms to the region themselves.

Is the delivery of these arms part of an outstanding contract, or is it a fresh contract? If it is a fresh contract, could my hon. Friend give the House some idea of when the consignment of arms is likely to be delivered?

I will refer my hon. Friend to my original Answer. Part of this, of course, is a new request from General Qasim. So far as that is concerned, the delivery of the major items cannot begin for some time.

Is the Minister aware that the Iraqi Government have been making threats of armed action against the Government of the United Arab Republic, with which we are now seeking the resumption of diplomatic relations, and that they also have had a serious diplomatic quarrel with the Government of Persia, with which we are allied. Is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government totally reprehensible and damaging to British interests and world peace?

No, Sir; I simply do not accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question at all. My right hon. and learned Friend has taken steps to inform Colonel Nasser of the action we have taken.

Have the Government detected any change in Iraq in the last year or so? Is Iraq going Communist or is it more friendly disposed towards the West, or what is its policy likely to be? Have they taken all these calculations into consideration before exporting arms to that country? Finally, does this provision of arms to Iraq mean that we are now prepared to provide arms for any Middle East country if it asks for them, including Israel?

I think that the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary is very much wider than the Question on the Order Paper. If he wishes to ask that question, perhaps he will put it down. All that this Question refers to is arms to Iraq. As regards the earlier part of his question, we have, of course, taken into consideration all the many ramifications which the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out to the House. Her Majesty's Government do not accept the premise that the present régime in Iraq is now completely dominated by the Communists. As to the future, we cannot tell, of course, but we regard the action we have taken as generally designed towards the maintenance of stability in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are now the obstacles to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.

There are no obstacles on the side of Her Majesty's Government. We have channels through which we have been in contact with the Saudi Arabian Government and we hope to find a mutually acceptable basis for resuming relations.

Did the hon. Gentleman see the report of an interview given to a British journalist which appeared in one of the Sunday newspapers yesterday? Does he agree that there might be a chance for our Middle Eastern policy being more consistent and sensible if we quickly resumed diplomatic relations with the two major Arab countries?

I did see the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but that, of course, is not the same as having a direct approach from the Government concerned. As I said in my Answer, I hope that a way may be found mutually acceptable for resuming relations with that country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the supply of arms is a short-term policy, and will he consider—

Order. I think that that was the last Question. This is about diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I was about to ask a question about diplomatic relations within the context of arms? May I now put my supplementary question?

On what subject? There is nothing about arms in the Question.

About diplomatic relations, Sir. From the point of view of the problem of diplomatic relations, would it not be better policy for Her Majesty's Government to ask the Heads of State of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Republic and Iraq to this country to try to reach some long-term policy for Great Britain and the Middle East as soon as possible?

I think that it would be wiser if we concentrated first on the resumption of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the recent official statement of the United Nations Secretary-General, to what extent it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the proposed Summit Conference should be within the framework of the United Nations.

I understand that at a Press conference on 5th May, Mr. Hammarskjold explained that he had not made a proposal in his speech a few days before. He added that whether or not a Summit Conference, if one were to be held, should be within the framework of the Security Council would, in his view, depend on the programme for such a conference. My right honourable and learned Friend agrees with these views.

Will the Government consider proposing that the Secretary-General of the United Nations be invited to sit in as an observer at the Summit Conference, and, to that extent, associate the United Nations with the conference?

I think that it will very much depend on how the issues regarding Germany, Berlin and so on arise and whether they are taken up in the United Nations, and, if so, in what form they are taken up in the United Nations. It is much too early to pronounce on any of those matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in the light of the decision of Ghana and Guinea to invite African States to establish a basis of union, he will initiate discussions with Governments responsible for the administration of Colonial Territories in order to facilitate the union of such territories on the achievement of independence when their Governments so desire.

I have nothing I can add to the Answer which I gave the hon. Member on 2nd March. Once a State has achieved independence, questions of its union with other States are strictly its own responsibility.

Will the Minister discuss this matter with his right hon. and learned Friend and with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in order to foresee the difficulties which are now arising in the whole Continent of Africa where territories which used to accept imperial rule are now appealing to international considerations? In view of the fact that many European countries are involved. would it not be desirable to foresee this situation and have the discussions suggested in the Question?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when the circumstances are propitious, Her Majesty's Government will make a point of confidential discussions and consultations with other friendly Governments.

Are we to understand from that reply that there are no continuing discussions with France, in particular, about this large network of territories, the majority of which are still not independent and are under French or British rule? Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of disquiet among many people interested in West Africa at the lack of co-operation there appears to be between the British and French Governments?

I do not think that there is any lack of co-operation between the two Governments concerned. This is much more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, but I think I should be right in telling the House that these consultations go on the whole time. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had something rather more than that in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what machinery he provides to help foreign Governments find suitably qualified British persons to teach in their schools and universities.

As the Answer to this Question is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would it not be to the long-term advantage of this country as well as render a service to other countries that British teachers should be encouraged to take overseas appointments? If the organisation does not already exist, will my hon. Friend encourage the establishment of a central organisation to deal with applications from overseas countries?

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very important matter. I hope that he will find my Answer helpful when he reads it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received from the British Minister in Hungary about the number of Hungarians still in prison or slave labour camps in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or in China, following the reported deportation of 75,000 Hungarians after the 1956 revolution; and what efforts are being made to get the Soviet Government to return all these political prisoners to their own country in the light of obligations incurred by Her Majesty's Government under the Hungarian Peace Treaty and the resolutions agreed to by the United Nations after the revolution.

I have no reliable information about the total number of Hungarians deported to the Soviet Union at the time of the Budapest uprising, or about the number of these deportees subsequently repatriated to Hungary. I have no evidence that any of these deportees were sent to China. The Soviet Government have not seen fit to make any response to the many expressions of concern on this subject made in the General Assembly of the United Nations by Her Majesty's Government and many other Governments. They have also ignored the resolutions of the General Assembly calling upon them to respect human rights in Hungary and have refused to discuss Prince Wan's appeal of September, 1957, for the return of the Hungarian deportees to their own country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would appear from the evidence submitted a few weeks ago to the United Nations that about 12,000 of these Hungarians have been repatriated during the last 18 months? Does he agree that nothing would be likely to contribute more to crowning with success the Foreign Minister's Conference, which are the words Mr. Gromyko used in expressing his hopes for the Conference, than the return of all these unfortunate people?

That certainly would be a very helpful development.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been given to the request of Mr. Dom Mintoff that the question of Malta's independence should be discussed at the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva.

On a point of order. I wonder whether you could give the House some guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker. This Question is related to Malta's independence. Malta is still a Colony and questions on Malta are normally answered by the Colonial Secretary. Is it in order for this Question to be put to the Foreign Office?

The Foreign Office thinks so. The Colonial Office thinks so, too, or it would not have agreed to its transfer. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Question, he will see that it refers to the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva.

It has been agreed between the four Governments that the agenda of the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva should be "questions relating to Germany, including a peace treaty with Germany and the question of Berlin". Even if this had not been the case, the future of Malta would not be a proper subject for discussion at the Geneva Conference. Mr. Mintoff is being so informed.

Is not this another instance of how colonial peoples are now looking towards an international authority rather than the old imperial authorities which have controlled them in the past—

Ask Hungary.

I asked about Hungary at the time of Hungary—and will not the Minister anticipate the growing feeling among subject people that they wish to appeal to international authorities for their independence?

That certainly is not a proper subject for the Foreign Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the reason for recent changes in the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to limiting arms in Central Europe.

There have been no such changes in the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Did not the Foreign Secretary, speaking on television last Monday, speak of

"mutual inspection of arms and perhaps ceilings "

I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend has ever used the word "disengagement" in reference to any plan which the Government have tabled.

The Prime Minister has on several occasions used the phrase "limitation and thinning out".

Those are different words.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will refer the legal aspects of the dispute over the Buraimi Oasis to the International Court for a decision.

No, Sir. This could not be done without the consent of the Sultan of Muscat and Oman and of the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, which would not he given.

Does the Minister of State continue to pretend that the Sultan of Muscat and the Ruler of Abu Dhabi are not puppets of the British Government? Is not the Buraimi Oasis dispute the only obstacle to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia? Although we all deplore the behaviour of the Saudi Arabian Government when this matter was last submitted to arbitration, is it not time to put first things first?

I cannot agree with any of that. First, they are certainly not puppets of Great Britain. Secondly, with regard to it being the only obstacle, I was only just now answering a Question about Prince Feisal's statement in which he said that this was not the case. Thirdly, perhaps the hon. Gentleman may like to refresh his memory of what happened when they went to arbitration last time.

If we have a good case in this dispute, should we not strengthen it by submitting it to the International Court? Have we asked the Sultan whether he would agree to do so?

No. We cannot submit this matter without the agreement of all parties. As I informed the House, I am certain that the two Rulers concerned would not, unless they have recently changed their mind, subject themselves to this sort of thing.

May I have an answer to my question? Have we recently asked the Rulers whether they will agree to submit it, and, if not, why not?

We have not asked them recently, if by "recently" the right hon. Gentleman means in the last month or so. I have no doubt that their attention will be called to this matter and, if they change their mind, we shall be very glad to continue to try to find a solution to this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official communications have been received from the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Persia concerning the establishment of an atom-free zone in the Middle East; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to agree to the Soviet proposal for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

Her Majesty's Government have received no official proposals of this nature either from the Soviet or Iranian Governments.

Do Her Majesty's Government intend to take the initiative themselves in this matter?

No. We do not feel that dealing with the question of nuclear arms alone is ever likely to provide a useful solution. However, we are always prepared to discuss the question of the limitation or the elimination of nuclear arms in a properly balanced disarmament agreement.

Did the right hon. Gentleman hear his hon. Friend the Minister of State just now say with regard to the supply of conventional arms to the Middle East that we had not taken up the proposal of the Soviet Union? We are now informed that we are not going to take up the proposal on the prevention of atomic weapons in the Middle East because that ought to form part of a general agreement. Will the Ministers stop playing Box and Cox with each other in this way? Will the hon. Gentleman now say whether he is prepared to discuss with the Soviet Union the prohibition of all additional arms to the Middle East, including nuclear weapons?

My hon. Friend's Answer and mine were completely consistent. What I am saying, first, is that any discussion about limitation of arms should not be confined to one particular type of weapon, and, secondly, that I do not think that it is best to even approach these problems from a purely regional point of view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, on many occasions we have expressed full proposals for disarmament which we have put to the Soviet Government, and it is only a pity that at the moment there is no forum in which the Soviet Government are prepared to discuss them.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not Her Majesty's Government's policy to discuss limitation of arms on a regional basis when the Prime Minister made a declaration in Moscow in which he said that he was prepared to study seriously and earnestly the limitation of arms in Central Europe? What on earth are the Government doing in the matter? Why do not they have a little conference among themselves and agree what their reply to the House of Commons should be? We might then know what their policy is.

What we are discussing is a disarmament proposal which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was put forward by the Soviet Union. No such proposal was put forward. There was a statement by a Soviet spokesman about a zone in the Middle East, and when we made diplomatic approaches to the Soviet Government about what was the meaning of this statement it was clear that they had no official proposal to make and that no details were available.

May we have the truth here? We have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Minister of State that no such approaches were made to the Soviet Union because the Government considered that they were not practicable. We are now told that approaches have been made and that they came to nothing. Who is telling the truth?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman might listen a little more carefully and perhaps read his own Question, which relates to a nuclear free zone. What my hon. Friend was replying to was a Question about the limitation on their own of ordinary conventional armaments. These are two different matters.

Does the reply of the Minister of State mean that there is no truth in the report published in The Times a few days ago stating that such a proposal had been made by the Soviet Government to the Government of Persia and that the Government of Persia in their reply said that they would give favourable consideration to the proposal if the Soviet Government could obtain the agreement of the other nuclear Powers—Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government? If there is any truth in that statement, may I ask the Minister of State whether he will at least say that the Government will consider the desirability of preventing nuclear weapons getting into the Middle East?

The Iranian Government, in replying to the Soviet Note of last December, spoke about the importance which should be attached to agreement being reached within the framework of the United Nations on the prohibition of atomic weapons and the limitation of armaments in general. That, I think, is a statement of policy on behalf of the Iranian Government which exactly coincides with the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to publish his reply to the Soviet Note proposing the reconvening of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos.

We have not yet received the reaction's of the Soviet Government to our Note of 7th April. As my right hon and learned Friend said on 8th April, we are not prepared to disclose its contents until those reactions have been received.

Why are the Government being so coy about this matter? Are they trying to avoid some awkward decision? Can the Minister at least say whether the Government favour steps towards the reconvening of the International Commission for Laos?

I cannot reveal what are the contents of our confidential discussions at the present time. Laos is now a sovereign and independent Government whose views on all these things have to be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Her Majesty's Government approve of the official proposals for nuclear disarmament made recently by the Government of Ireland at the United Nations General Assembly.

Her Majesty's Government sympathise with the wish of the Government of the Irish Republic to make a contribution towards solving the problems of disarmament. We do not, however, feel that this particular proposal would achieve the desired result. The resolution embodying this proposal was withdrawn by the Irish Republic before the United Nations Assembly had the opportunity to vote on it as a whole.

Was there not a vote on this issue at one point and did not the Government abstain from voting? Can the Minister tell us exactly why? Does he not agree that Ireland is so near this country that if we decide to commit suicide as a nation by entering into a nuclear war the Irish may be obliterated. too?

What happened at the United Nations was that one preambular paragraph was voted on and before the resolution was voted on as a whole the Irish Republic withdrew it. The reason we were not in favour of the resolution was that which I gave in the original Answer. We did not think that this particular proposal would achieve the desired results.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay a White Paper containing the texts of the proposals for the suspension of nuclear tests so far made by the Governments participating in the present Geneva Conference.

I regret that I cannot accede to this request for reasons already given to the House.

Does the Minister recall that on 27th April the Foreign Secretary gave what we understood to be a full account of the proceedings in the Conference? If this was the Foreign Secretary's interpretation of the proposals, ought we not also to have the text of the proposals?

For reasons which were given during that debate, it is very difficult if we are having confidential and secret negotiations for one party to publish the documents which are the subject of the negotiations inside the Conference chamber.

If our Ministers are to give an interpretation of these proposals, is it not desirable that we should see the proposals? Is it not open to the Government to suggest to the other parties to the Conference that the proposals should now be published?

We made such an approach early in the Conference and they were against such an action.

Would the Minister make a further attempt? It is a very difficult position for the House. First of all we are informed that these are secret and confidential negotiations and then one of the parties to the negotiations tells us something of what is being said and done. That is an ironical situation. Ought we not to approach them once more to see whether we can have the working documents published in order that we may judge for ourselves?

There is a genuine difficulty. One of the problems with which we are faced is our desire to try to give the House at least some information as to how the negotiations are going, but it seems to me that this is likely always to arise when confidential and secret negotiations are going on. It seems to me right that from time to time the Governments concerned—and that includes the Soviet Government and the United States Government—should give an indication of the policy which they are pursuing in the negotiations without necessarily disclosing the exact details of what is going on in the Conference.

Does the Minister recall that in July, 1957, the Government published a White Paper precisely at this time about the proceedings of the Sub-Committee of the United Nations on Disarmament? The conditions were precisely similar to those of this Conference. If we could do it then, can we not do it now? Can we not at least propose it to the other parties?

As I indicated, we did propose it to the other parties but they did not think it a good idea. We will certainly bear it in mind. If a suitable moment arises during the Conference when it would be possible to publish the documents, we are quite prepared so to do, but that moment has not yet arisen.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far Her Majesty's Government have yet formulated proposals for the abolition by international agreement of all biological and bacteriological weapons, and of all poison gases.

I share the right hon. Gentleman's desire to see these weapons abolished. The whole question of disarmament, and the proposals we could usefully make to solve this vital problem, are being reviewed by the Departments concerned.

Has the Minister of State not seen the warning given by General Marshall Stubbs of the United States Army last month that great technical advances in chemical and bacteriological weapons have been made in the last four years and that the survival of the American nation may depend on finding defences against them which do not now exist? In view of this, ought not the Government now to institute a very close study of proposals for their abolition?

I think that that would be very wise, and we are quite prepared to do so, but, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, at present those weapons are prohibited altogether. They are banned. What we have to do is to see that their abolition forms part of any disarmament proposals.

I fully agree, and I am most grateful to the Minister for his Answers. Would he suggest to the Ministers of Defence and Supply that they should not pooh-pooh the dangers of these weapons and suggest that they have been exaggerated?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that shots have recently been fired off the coast of Iceland and fishermen's lives are put in danger because the British and Icelandic Governments have failed to come to an agreement on the delimitation of coastal jurisdiction, and that this is likely to continue until a mutual agreement has been made; and, as the International Court which deals with these problems does not meet until April of next year, if he will make a further effort to contact the Icelandic Government with a view to arriving at a temporary settlement of the dispute until the meeting takes place next year, or seek an earlier meeting of the World Conference on the Law of the Sea.

Unless the Icelandic Government are willing to come to some interim arrangements of a compromise nature to regulate fishing around Iceland, the risk of dangerous incidents in that area is likely to persist. We are constantly reminding the Icelandic Government of our readiness either to negotiate an interim arrangement, or to refer the dispute to the International Court and to accept any interim arrangement indicated by the Court. But the Icelandic Government have not responded to our approaches; and the Icelandic Parliament recently passed a resolution to the effect that "no fishery limit can be considered which is less than twelve miles from the base lines around Iceland". We shall, however, persist in our requests that the Icelandic Government discuss an interim arrangement.

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the consideration he has given to this matter, which was discussed last week on the Floor of the House. Is he aware that so long as the question of territorial waters is unsolved our fishermen in that area are in danger, and that when the question of the twelve-mile limit was before the Conference on the Law of the Sea 39 voted for the twelve miles, 38 voted against the twelve miles and eight were neutral?

I do not think it has been done with the Faroe Government along the lines which the hon. Gentleman suggests. What I indicated was that Her Majesty's Government had made every possible attempt to get the Icelandic Government to discuss some interim arrangement which would make fishing round Iceland safer during the interim period before the Law of the Sea Conference meets next year and comes to a final decision on the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many people will think that the interim offer of Her Majesty's Government is, in fact, a very reasonable one? Can he tell me whether any steps have been taken, either through N.A.T.O. or O.E.E.C., both of which bodies have at various times attempted to mediate in this dispute? Is there anything going on about this at the present time in either forum?

Not at the moment. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have tried for a very long time, through N.A.T.O., in particular, to get the Icelandic Government to discuss these problems, but I am afraid we were unsuccessful. It is a matter of judgment of when it would be useful to take up the matter again with the Icelandic Government, but I will certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.