asked the Minister of Defence whether he will introduce a scheme to enable the near relatives of Services men killed on duty overseas to visit their graves at reduced rates.

After very sympathetic consideration, I have reached the conclusion that it would not be possible to meet the cost of such a scheme from Defence Votes.

Is it not a fact that facilities are given to men serving in certain overseas commands to get home on leave at reduced rates of fare? Should not the same facilities be extended to near relatives of men killed on duty overseas? A constituent of mine was killed in Aden recently and his father is deeply anxious to visit his son's grave. Cannot the Minister give him some help to do so? The number of these cases is not likely to be large.

If the hon. Lady will be kind enough to let me have details of the case she mentioned, I will see whether anything can be done to help. On the broader issue which I think she is raising, however, in certain circumstances there is a very large possible commitment. As I believe she knows, the British Legion already gives a great deal of help here, and private arrangements can be made at concessionary rates. I will always undertake to see whether the Services can do anything to help in a hard case, but I do not think that I ought to commit the Government to a widespread undertaking.

Is not the Minister aware that this case has been taken by me and by an hon. Member opposite to the Secretary of State for War and that it has been taken to the British Legion and to other charitable organisations? This father is prepared to pay about £100 to visit his son's grave but he cannot afford the £200 or more involved. There cannot be many cases in which a parent would be willing to pay to that extent. The total expenditure for the Government would therefore not be large. Nothing has been done in this case, and that is why I tabled the Question asking for the rules to be changed.

The case which the hon. Lady mentions is not known to me but, as it is known to my right hon. Friend, I will look into it.

Not only we on this side of the House but I imagine the Minister feel a good deal of sympathy for the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is putting.

indicated assent.

The Question asks merely for a scheme to enable near relatives to visit these graves at reduced rates. It does not say "free". I am a little puzzled how the Minister can say that the cost would be too high, since "reduced" means anything between 100 per cent. and nothing. What has he assumed in saying that? Will he look again at the variety of possibilities?

I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that this would mean that the Service would bear something like the total cost. I am quite willing to see whether some fairly marginal aid could be given, and I will undertake to do that.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will reassess the military importance of British Railways to the Service Departments, with a view to estimating, in conjunction with the British Transport Commission, what capital and current costs the Service Departments should contribute to the British Transport Commission in respect of Service needs.

No, Sir.

A very large number of public utility and commercial undertakings are of military importance, but this does not mean that the Service Departments should contribute to their costs, except as customers.

Surely the railways are in a rather different position from that of other enterprises. Surely in times of war their value to the country is greatly increased. Will the Minister of Defence make some allowance for this and assess what this contribution is to the Defence Services? Will he not estimate, in consultation with the B.T.C., what this will be, and make a contribution?

I am advised that during the current financial year British Railways will recover about £13 million from the Defence Vote.

asked the Minister of Defence what grants are made towards the funeral expenses of members of the Forces who die while serving at home and overseas, respectively, in cases where the relatives prefer to make their own arrangements for the funeral; and whether he will take steps to increase these grants.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to his Question on 3rd December, 1958, in which he explained the arrangements for paying grants in these cases. I do not consider any change is necessary.

Is not this another matter which the Minister ought to consider to see whether some reform can be made? Is it not a fact that at present if a soldier or other member of the Forces dies overseas, and his parents want to bring the body home for burial, they have to meet practically the whole coast themselves? Is not this piling a financial crisis on top of all the other distress which they feel at that time? Should not something be done about it, both on humanitarian grounds and as sensible public relations for the Armed Forces?

The hon. Gentleman knows that one has the very greatest sympathy for parents or dependants in that position. This is a matter which has been considered a great many times, and one in which very large expenditure would be involved. It is, of course, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, a long-standing custom that members of the Services who die overseas are buried in the area in which they die.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree—we have all had much experience of these very painful cases—that there is a case for reviewing the matter and ascertaining whether the grant could not be increased? After all, the principle which is involved is not new. I should have thought that rather larger generosity in expenditure on the part of the Government would, to put it at its lowest, pay very high dividends in good will in the Services.

I never refuse to look at anything if I am asked to do so by the House. However, I would make it plain that I do not think that anything will come from my looking at it again, because the potential expenditure is very large indeed.

asked the Minister of Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that the Chiefs of Staff tender collective advice to him on defence affairs.

Since I have been Minister of Defence I have received excellent collective advice from the Chiefs of Staff on all matters which require decision. I see no reason to alter the present arrangements which are working efficiently and well.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point of my Question is that there should be an automatic annual reapraisal by the Chiefs of Staff of our global military problems and that I am seeking to obtain from him an undertaking that there will be such a reappraisal?

I think Sir John Slessor has also said something about this. I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman about it, except that I feel that things move so fast today that the Chiefs of Staff would hardly rest on an annual reapraisal but ought to be reappraising the position throughout the year. That is, in fact, what they are doing, against the very best information that they can obtain.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give the latest estimate made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of the number of Soviet divisions in Eastern Germany at the present time.

I can give my right hon. Friend the British estimate—twenty-line divisions—which I think he can regard as valid.

Is not the figure rather higher than the figure previously given—twenty-two divisions?

I did not think there was any substantial change in the estimate. I was unable to give my right hon. Friend the N.A.T.O. estimate merely because it is not within my power to disclose it.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will take steps to amend the regulations governing National Service grants in order that National Service men who have to meet a court order in respect of an affiliation case may make a claim.

The regulations already provide for this.

How is it that the Service Department could not advise me accordingly? The Air Ministry told me that the National Service grant would not be available for this purpose, and that meant that the unmarried mother was in much greater difficulty than she would have been if the grant had been made?

I am not sure which Service was involved. There is, however, the fact that the National Service man must also make a contribution if there is a court order. I am prepared to make sure that this individual case has been properly examined.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will reduce this year's Forces Estimates by £400 million, in view of the effect that such a reduction will have in helping those in depressed conditions at home and abroad, re-equipping industry, relaxing international tension and encouraging similar arms cuts in other countries.

No, Sir.

Which policy involves the greater risk—an arms cut or an intensification of the arms race?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to debate the matter later today.

asked the Minister of Defence how many square miles of Cyprus will be retained for use by British and allied forces; and approximately what proportion of this land will be under the control of the Royal Air Force.

There is nothing that I can usefully add, I think, to the statement I made last night.

Since these areas are not to be regarded as colonies, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that they are, in fact, to be under military administration?

I shall be very glad to answer that. Arrangements have been made for the administration of both the sovereign base areas to be taken over by the Royal Air Force. The machinery is worked out. They will, therefore, be under strictly military control.

asked the Minister of Defence what further capital expenditure he proposes to incur in Cyprus in addition to the sum of £90 millions already incurred.

Present plans envisage the expenditure of a further £25 million on capital works projects.

Is that £25 million in addition to the £90 million? The Minister yesterday spoke about the rebuilding of the village of Akrotiri. Can he tell us what estimate he has made in the new plans for Cyprus of the cost of rebuilding this village? Is he exercising as scrupulous care over this expenditure as he did, when Minister of Transport, over the expenditure in connection with the Prestwick Airport?

The hon. Member mentioned Prestwick last night—

But the right hon. Gentleman did not answer.

I shall be happy to answer the hon. Gentleman now by saying that my best recollection is that the nation the hon. Member so happily represents extracted a very large sum of money from the Government for the Prestwick Airport. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the £25 million is in addition to the £90 million mentioned in the Question. As to the village of Akrotiri, this is not a matter which the Cyprus Republic has asked should be dealt with, so I cannot give any estimate.

asked the Minister of Defence what plans he has for changing the career structure of the Royal Air Force and the other Services, so as to avoid the compulsory retirement of so many officers and senior non-commissioned officers under the age of 50 years.

I hope to make a statement after Questions about career-structures for officers. So far as warrant officers and non-commissioned officers are concerned, no change is contemplated. The resettlement of other ranks is, in general, not a serious problem and the Grigg Committee did not recommend any change here.

asked the Minister of Defence whether the characteristics of the surface-to-surface missile, which is to be developed jointly by the United Kingdom and the German Federal Republic, have yet been approved by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the missile is designed to have a range of 80 to 100 miles? Also, as development is pointless unless it can ultimately lead to production, why are the Government encouraging the West German Government to develop weapons which are forbidden under the Brussels Treaty?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman can raise this matter in the debate later today, and I shall be very happy to answer him if he does.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us in what year he expects the missile to be in service?

No, Sir. I certainly cannot do that because the position, as I have already told the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), is as follows. The proposal first went to W.E.U., which approved it as a military requirement. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it then goes to the N.A.T.O. Armaments Committee. That Committee has not yet reached any decision. Therefore, this is not a firm proposition at all and no plans of any kind can or could be made until the N.A.T.O. decision has been reached.

Therefore, on the whole this is in the realm of Disneyland?

I would not say that it is in the realm of Disneyland. I would say that it is in the realm of N.A.T.O. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not equate the two.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the missile is of a design which is outside the limits laid down in the Brussels Treaty?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Defence what arrangements are contemplated for the supply of nuclear warheads for the surface-to-surface missile which is to be developed jointly by the United Kingdom and the German Federal Republic.

As I informed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 9th December last, any nuclear warheads required for missiles in service with the West German forces would be held in the N.A.T.O. atomic stockpile under the direct control of SACEUR.

Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is, in effect, confirming that this is a missile designed for use with nuclear warheads and that, therefore, indirectly the Government are in this case helping to encourage the West German Government to develop missiles for use in nuclear warfare?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is the one that I have already given, and that is that any nuclear warheads required for missiles are held under this very strict control, the personal control of SACEUR in the N.A.T.O. atomic stockpile.

I understood from an Answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave just now that the missile did not exist, that it was no more than somebody's idea and that nobody had any idea when and if it will arrive. How can we be discussing the practical arrangements for dealing with it in such circumstances?

On the whole, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Question was quite unnecessary in the circumstances.

No; it was the Minister—

Order. I have to assert myself if we are to make progress.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By all means rule me out of order, Sir, if you will, but I ask now for your advice because I do not know what to do. The Minister—not the Opposition—was responsible for the announcement that the missile was a reality. We are now seeking to find out from him how much it means. He says it means nothing at all and that it does not exist. How can we in this situation be protected and be enabled to bring to the fore the absurdity of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) being worried about an announcement by the Minister about a missile that does not exist and then your stopping me from putting the supplementary question which is designed to draw an admission from the Minister?

I am afraid that it is difficult always to be right. I have to estimate what run a certain topic can be given in the time available. If I remember rightly, the Minister's last answer was that, in his view, the Question was premature because of the not far advanced state of the weapon.

asked the Minister of Defence how many landing craft are available to the Armed Forces; whether they are of modern design; and if he is satisfied with the position.

Apart from the Commando carrier H.M.S. "Bulwark", there are 130 landing craft in commission or reserve. A substantial number of the smaller craft are of modern design. As I informed the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 11th November, the future of our amphibious forces is under consideration.

Does that mean that we shall scrap the landing craft no longer regarded as adequate for military purposes?

The second half of the Answer means, if I may tell the hon. Gentleman, that new designs for a replacement L.S.T. for the Army and a new design for a naval assault ship are now under consideration, and will be take into account in the study I have mentioned.

Can my right hon. Friend say when the larger landing craft were built?

I do not think that I could, without notice, but I quite accept that some of them are getting rather ancient.

asked the Minister of Defence who is responsible for appointing and dismissing chaplains in the Royal Air Force and the other Services.

Responsibility for appointing and dismissing chaplains in the Services rests with my right hon. Friends the Service Ministers.

In view of the recent dismissal, as the right hon. Gentleman alleges, of a Royal Air Force chaplain at Mildenhall, can he say whether there is a similar security of tenure, or lack of security of tenure, in the three Services?

I do not think that I can. If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question, I shall try to answer it, but I cannot do so now.

Would the Minister tell us what would happen to a chaplain who delivered a sermon on the text, "Thou shalt not kill"?

I have, perhaps, not yet had enough experience in my present office to tell what my religious responsibilities are.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that he is now able to defend this country against rockets.

No, Sir; and this is why our policy is based on deterring others from shooting rockets at us.

But, surely, the Minister has had time to consider developments in the world. Is he aware that the Soviet rockets now travel, apparently, over 8,000 miles, and a few could easily hit this country? If he cannot defend us against rockets, what is the relevancy of this huge annual expenditure?

The relevancy of the question is that as, at the moment, no country has adequate defence against missiles of this nature, the balance of the deterrent appears, at the moment—thank goodness—to be working rather well.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will ensure that the heavy machine gun under development for the Army is of a kind likely to be accepted by other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries.

The British solution for a weapon to replace the Vickers medium machine gun has been discontinued in favour of the Belgian F.N. sustained-fire machine gun. The British Army intends, subject to the satisfactory completion of trials, to adopt the Belgian weapon. This will fire the standard N.A.T.O. 7.62 mm. round.

This, of course, is a reversal of the very bold announcement made by the Secretary of State last year. Even so, is the Minister sure that what he now says will happen, will, in fact, happen? He will remember what happened about the F.N. rifle, and about the failure to adopt a common round to fit the different rifles? Does he not think that, on the whole, it would have been better for him to have bothered more about this and less about hypothetical weapons that may never materialise?

As to attending to these things, I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the problem of getting a common round for N.A.T.O. is met by this weapon, as, indeed, it should be.

asked the Minister of Defence what progress was made with the integration of production of weapons within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries at the meeting of the Western European Union Council in London on 4th February.

The matter was not discussed at the meeting of the Western European Council on 4th February.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to indicate why he did not raise the subject? Is not this question of integration of production enormously important? Is not the W.E.U. Council of tremendous importance in getting the question considered? Why do we allow these meetings to take place, and not raise it?

I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. The next step is the meeting of Defence Ministers which, I hope, will be held in Paris at the end of March. That is when we shall next discuss the integration of weapons within N.A.T.O. Incidentally, that is why I make no apology for the joint approach with the West German Government for a N.A.T.O. ground-to-ground missile.

Is not the Minister now mixing two things? I gather that he is now talking about the Defence Ministers in the N.A.T.O. Council, but I was speaking of the W.E.U. Is not the W.E.U., by its constitution, a very useful place in which to raise this subject? And is not the W.E.U. growing incredibly weaker because it does not discuss such things? Would it not be far better to make more use of the opportunity afforded by the W.E.U.?

I am perfectly willing to be available to the Western European Union at any time if it wants to question me and discuss matters with me. As to the meeting of Defence Ministers, what I meant was that when we meet in Paris in March we could discuss a whole range of issues, including the Western European Union.

What authority has the W.E.U.? Is it not a fact that the countries associated with the Western European Union are also associated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Why duplicate the effort?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is, perhaps, a great deal of inter-relation between the two. On the other hand, we should certainly not seek to weaken the Western European Union, because it is within that body that lie the essential safeguards against a degree of German rearmament that many might think was a danger.

Taken together, do not the right hon. Gentleman's last two answers mean that although the round for the heavy machine gun may now be standardised, the round for the rifle is not standardised as between British and German forces? Did the Minister raise that at the W.E.U.?

That point is not raised by the original Question. If the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on that matter, I shall answer it, but I think that I had better be very precise on this, and I hope that I have been precise about the heavy machine gun.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the disquiet that exists over the conduct of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Yugoslav Service, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Pembroke, he will make a statement.

From all the evidence available, the British Broadcasting Corporation's Yugoslav Service is successful in its purpose of getting British news and views to a very large number of Yugoslav listeners.

In view of specific allegations made in very lengthy correspondence in The Spectator, what assurance can the hon. Gentleman give to the House that the Yugoslav Service on the B.B.C. is not under any kind of policy influence from Yugoslav Communists?

I have looked into those criticisms, and I have read translations of many of the broadcasts. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Yugoslav service is not influenced by Communism, either from Yugoslavia or from this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the appeal on disarmament addressed to the Parliaments and Governments of all countries by the Supreme Soviet on 15th January and delivered to him as a Note by the Soviet Ambassador in London; and what reply he proposes to make on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend has considered this appeal, but I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), on 3rd February.

I think that the Answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers said that no reply was being made. Would not the Under-Secretary, together with his right hon. and learned Friend, reconsider that, as this appeal has received considerable publicity in some countries and sets out in detail the Soviet standpoint on disarmament? As it is addressed to all Governments and Parliaments in the world, should not the Government take the responsibility to set out their point of view in reply to the points made in the appeal?

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, this appeal was delivered with a Note from the Soviet Embassy to which, quite correctly, we have replied in a Note saying that it was delivered in accordance with the instructions and requests in that Note. No further reply is required, but I would point out that in a speech made at Strasbourg on 21st January last, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said

"I welcome the speech of Mr. Khrushchev … announcing further reductions in the strength of the Soviet armed forces. …"

And he added:

"I am glad to be able to congratulate him on having followed the British example almost with mathematical precision."

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sum has been paid by the Abyssinian Government as compensation for the killing last December by their troops of fifteen Somalis who were exercising their grazing and watering rights secured by Treaty between Great Britain and Abyssinia.

I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 1st February.

I am sorry, but I am acquainted only with the replies which have been given to me by the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he might be good enough to tell me about that reply which I failed to notice. Is it not the case that these incidents have been continuing for a long while and will probably continue because there are Treaty weaknesses which ought to be looked into? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that much of this trouble dates from the fact that the Treaty in existence between this country and Ethiopia now needs revision?

I am sorry to have referred the hon. Gentleman to something that escaped his notice, but when he looks at the Answer I think that he will find it helpful. I do not think that I could have put it better than my hon. Friend put it. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that I should remind him of the fact that about 250,000 Protectorate Somalis have migrated in and out of Ethiopia every year since the Agree- ment entered into force, and we have had remarkably little trouble. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to see the Treaty improved, and we are in constant contact with the Ethiopian Government to that effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the support given by Her Majesty's Government to the granting of a loan by the World Bank to Egypt for widening the Suez Canal, what progress has been made since then towards compliance by Egypt with her international obligations concerning the passage of vessels through the canal.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the Government's attitude to this loan in the House on 26th January.

Her Majesty's Government have always maintained that there should be free transit through the Canal for the ships of all nations. They will continue to work through the United Nations for the application of this right.

In view of the fact that this is an international bank which has made a loan from international funds, is it not necessary to press that point home so that there shall not be the continuance of a flagrant breach of international law in respect of the use of the Suez Canal, which is being widened in consequence of the very money provided from international funds?

My right hon. and learned Friend made abundantly clear in his remarks to the United Nations General Assembly—I think that was on 17th September—Her Majesty's Government's attitude on this grave matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it was a condition of the agreement to resume diplomatic relations with the Egyptian Government that the Suez Canal should be free to international shipping.

The two matters which the right hon. Member links in this Question are, I think, separate. The resumption of diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic has been a matter for decision by the two Governments. The right of free transit through the Suez Canal concerns all maritime countries, and has been dealt with in the United Nations. In their declaration of 24th April, 1957, registered with the United Nations, the Egyptian Government said that it remained their firm purpose, and I quote,

"to respect the terms and spirit of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and the rights and obligations arising therefrom".

When we resumed diplomatic relations with Egypt would not it have been natural to raise this question of interference with British ships in the Canal or with any type of shipping? Does he rely on the United Nations, as apparently he did in a reply to a previous question? What is likely to happen as a result of the efforts of the United Nations?

I said that earlier because I thought I should remind the House that we have made our position in this matter perfectly clear. But the argument is a legal argument and not one for us. It is a legal argument between the Israelis and the Egyptians. I think that, unfortunately, this is one of those matters when the least said publicly, the fewer public positions taken up, the better the chance of achieving a workable agreement.

Would the right hon. Gentleman invite his right hon. and learned Friend to look at those passages in the recently published memoirs of Sir Anthony Eden which show that, in the opinion of Sir Anthony, one of the main purposes of the intervention at Suez which led to the break in diplomatic relations was this question of the freedom of shipping in the Suez Canal? Will he bear in mind that all international shipping is affected, British shipping too—any shipping which comes into an Israeli—port and therefore, if this is to be regarded purely as a legal question, are any steps being taken to get a legal solution of it? Why was it not discussed at the time when the resumption of diplomatic relations was discussed, as was asked by my right hon. Friend?

I think that what the hon. Member has quoted from Sir Anthony Eden's published extracts shows that Her Majesty's Government have made their position perfectly clear. What I was trying to say was that the argument is a legal one between the Israelis and the Egyptians which, I fear, we in the United Kingdom cannot ourselves solve. I should have thought that it was right to say that diplomatic relations are not a matter of conferring favours or, indeed, of bargaining, and I hope that our new relations with Egypt may help to solve these and other problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent visit of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Egypt, he will make a statement on the interference with Israeli ships seeking to pass through the Suez Canal.

We have had no report on Mr. Hammarskjold's discussions in Cairo, and I can, therefore, add nothing to the previous statements made in the House.

Have the Government any information about the intention of the Secretary-General to make a report to the Security Council about his recent visit to Egypt and other Middle East countries?

I have no information beyond that which, I think, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already, namely, the public Press announcement which Mr. Hammarskjold made when he arrived back in the United States. I saw him myself on his way through Tangier and at that time he told me that he had so many impressions that he wanted time to sort things out before making any statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in the demilitarised zone south-east of the Sea of Galilee on the Israeli-Syrian border; and whether he will state the number of United Nations observers stationed in the area.

I understand that the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation has called on both sides to withdraw all forces from the demilitarised zone, and is discussing with them the terms of a meeting to deal with the problems which gave rise to the recent clash.

There are no permanent United Nations observation posts in the demilitarized area and no observer was present at the time of the incidents.

In view of the fact that any outbreak of hostilities in this part of the world is of direct concern to the United Nations, do Her Majesty's Government consider it highly desirable that a force of United Nations observers should be stationed on the borders of Israel and her Arab neighbours?

I would rather await the outcome of the present discussion before saying anything further.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the other co-signatories of the Tripartite agreement regarding recent military incidents on the eastern frontier of Israel.

These incidents and the resulting loss of life, which Her Majesty's Government deplore, do not on present evidence amount to a situation of the gravity foreseen in the Tripartite Declaration. Exchanges of view about the frontier situation are continually taking place as a matter of course between Her Majesty's Government and the interested Governments, including co-signatories of the Declaration.

Is the Minister of State aware that, according to Sir Anthony Eden's recent articles in The Times, very similar incidents were held in 1956 to justify direct British diplomatic action in certain of the capitals concerned? The situation in the demilitarised zone at this moment is extremely dangerous. What proposals has the right hon. Gentleman for dealing with a possible outbreak of general violence? Has he considered the possibility of trying to arrange that the United Nations Emergency Force should play a rôle in this area, too?

I think that that is entering the realm of hypothesis. I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. I cannot go further and say what might happen in certain circumstances.

Do the Government regard the Tripartite Declaration as being still in force?

Yes, Sir.

In the view of the Government, does a state of war exist between the State of Egypt and the State of Israel?

I cannot pronounce on that. I have already told the House that this is a matter which is capable only of legal interpretation and it is not our affair.

In a previous answer, the Minister of State referred to an invitation by the United Nations to both sides to take part in discussions, but he did not say whether the two sides had agreed to take part. Are any discussions coming off?

So far, there has been no actual agreement.

Do the Government regard the Tripartite Declaration as now applying to the United Arab Republic, including Egypt?

I do not think that I have anything to add to what I have said.

It is a very straightforward question. If the Tripartite Declaration does not apply either to what used to be called Syria or to Egypt, are we to understand that it applies only to Jordan, and is that the view of the other signatories of the Declaration?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have to put down a specific Question about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the anti-Semitic incidents in various parts of the world, he will instruct the United Kingdom delegate on the Commission of Human Rights to request that the matter be put on the agenda of the forthcoming 16th Session of the Commission.

A resolution on these outbreaks has been adopted by a Sub-Commission of the Human Rights Commission. It will appear on the agenda of the Commission in March.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for that reply. May I ask him to use his utmost endeavours to ensure that the resolution which has been submitted for approval to the Commission of Human Rights will be accepted by the Commission and put into practical effect?

I think that I cannot go further than to say that Her Majesty's Government do recognise the deplorable character of the recent manifestations and are in general agreement with the terms of the resolution proposed for adoption by the Human Rights Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the Cyprus negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, (1) if he will explain in detail his reasons for requiring 120 square miles for a British base in Cyprus;

(2) if he will give a full explanation of the type of administration proposed by Her Majesty's Government for the British base in Cyprus.

All these matters were discussed at length during the debate last night. In case any hon. Member did not see the details given in the Governor's statement to the Press in Cyprus on 29th January, I will arrange to have a copy put in the Library. I have just heard news that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has delayed his departure from Cyprus at the express request of Archbishop Makarios and Dr. Kutchuk. A meeting has already taken place this morning and further talks will be held this afternoon.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the fact that we regard his last statement as very welcome news indeed? With that comment I will leave the matter.

As the Government and the official Opposition leaders at any rate are now in possession of this secret map about the latest areas of Cyprus, can it now be given to the Press, so that we may all have it?

Certainly my right hon. and learned Friend would not wish to withhold this information—which I think is very helpful—from anyone in the House. I have not considered this, but may it not be in the general interest of the House if I arrange to have a copy, or one or two copies, put in the Library? I think that might be simpler than trying to have them reproduced in the Press where they may not be entirely accurate. May I suggest that we start by putting one or two copies in the Library to see if that helps?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what special commercial qualifications are required by commercial officers of his Department before appointment.

The 1943 reforms established a unified Foreign Service whose members were to be selected for general rather than specialist ability and were to be trained after entry for the various branches of the work. Before taking up their first appointment those selected as commercial officers are given an intensive training course organised by the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office in co-operation with industry and commerce. They are given refresher courses later in their career. Those with particular aptitude for commercial work tend to specialise in it.

In view of the vital importance of these officers in our drive for exports, will my hon. Friend give consideration to the suggestion that an approach might be made to the F.B.I. whereby these officers could be given some specific knowledge of the export potential in the countries to which they are to be posted?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of these officers. In fact, they already get such information from the F.B.I. which arranges, and is responsible for, part of the intensive training course that I mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the assistance, financial and otherwise, afforded by the British Embassy in Moscow to Mr. Anthony Maynard Wraight to enable him to return to this country from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 15th December, 1959; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wraight called at our Embassy in Moscow on 26th November, 1959, to ask for assistance in returning to the United Kingdom. Arrangements were made for him to apply to the Soviet authorities for an exit visa. Meanwhile he was permitted, at his own request, to remain in the embassy. An exit visa was granted on 12th December and Mr. Wraight left Moscow for London by air on 14th December. The embassy advanced 2,140 roubles to Mr. Wraight to enable him to pay for his air ticket and for his maintenance while living at the embassy. This money has been repaid in full.

While appreciating that our Ambassador could not possibly have turned this creature out into the street, may I ask whether we may be assured that no incidental expenses of any sort will fall on the British taxpayer, such as, for instance, his board and lodgings in the embassy, particularly in view of the fact that he has just been paid these vast sums of money by the Daily Mail?

I asked that very question myself and I am assured that no expenses were incurred by him which fall on public funds.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what documents Her Majesty's Government still have in their possession concerning people who held high office in the Nazi Party or Government of Germany prior to 1945; and to what extent they are prepared to permit public access to these documents;

(2) until what date documents concerning the pre-1945 activities of people holding high office in the Nazi Party or Government of Germany were in the sole possession of the war-time Allied Powers; and when these were made available by Her Majesty's Government to the West German Government.

The Americans captured practically all biographical records of the Nazi period which survived the war. Such documents of this sort as fell into British hands were of relatively minor importance. They have at various times been handed over to the United States authorities to be incorporated in the main collection. None of this material has been handed over to the Federal German Government; it is in the sole possession of the United States Government.

Can the Minister tell the House whether it is a fact that as joint allies in this operation this country's Government have joint ownership of these documents? Will he, therefore, make representations to the American Government to ensure that anyone who wants to do serious research into these archives, including any representatives of the West German Government or of bodies in West Germany who are trying to trace some of the Nazi activities of persons at present in high places in Germany, will be given facilities for such research?

I understand that it is United States policy not to provide any information from these documents except—

Why?

I have not quite finished—except in answer to requests made through official channels, and I think that is right.

When the hon. Gentleman refers to requests being made through official channels, may we take it that if the West German Government made such a request, access would be given? Should not such facilities be extended to other reputable bodies inside Germany which might want to be more active on this question than the West German Government? Is it not intolerable that evidence regarding the wartime and Hitlerite activities of certain people in high places in Germany at the moment should be withheld? Is not this an international matter?

I am afraid I cannot go all the way with the hon. Lady. I think our present arrangements are reasonable.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent levels of stocks of missiles forming part of the equipment of the West German armed forces have been agreed with the Armaments Control Agency of Western European Union.

Fully, Sir. These stocks form part of the equipment of the West German armed forces which are assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

In accordance with Article 14 of Protocol IV of the Revised Brussels Treaty, the Armaments Control Agency verifies, in consultation with the appropriate North Atlantic Treaty Organisation authorities, that the total quantities declared by the Federal Republic in its replies to the Agency's annual questionnaire are consistent with the quantities recognised as required by these units and with the conclusions and data recorded in the documents approved by the North Atlantic Council in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Annual Review.

Does all that really mean that there is no limitation, no control; that the limitation in fact is effectively self-imposed; that the safeguards laid down in the Brussels Treaty are very largely illusory and that a good many people were induced to support German rearmament at the time under false pretences?

No, Sir, and I do not believe the hon. Gentleman thinks that either—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am sure that he cannot. Briefly, the procedure is that N.A.T.O. decides what missile units Germany should contribute; Germany declares annually how many missiles she has to the Armaments Control Agency; and the Agency then checks with N.A.T.O. that these are the numbers required for the number of units which Germany contributes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how Her Majesty's Government's representative on the International Commission considering the sale of Herr Krupp's coal and steel holdings voted on the recent decision to permit an extension of one year.

I have nothing to add to the Answer my hon. Friend gave on 8th February to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson).

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the extraordinary and inexcusable delay in carrying out this agreement? Is he aware that this matter is regarded by millions of people in this country and elsewhere as an acid test of the Federal Republic's readiness to carry out international agreements? Can the right hon. Gentleman accept from the Federal German Government the argument that no one will buy any Krupp industries when that same Government have successfully disposed of the nationalised Volkswagen concern?

I well understand the hon. Gentleman's sentiments in this matter as, I am sure, the House does. All we can do is to carry out the procedure which was laid down in the Bonn Settlement Convention. We are bound by that. The Convention foresaw from the very beginning that it might be necessary in some cases to ask for extra time.

Have the Government considered Krupp's recent offer of compensation to the Jews used as slave labour during the war, and do they think it satisfactory?

That is another question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of agreements for compensating Nazi victims entered into between the Federal German Republic and a number of countries associated with Her Majesty's Government in the 11-Power démarche; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to reach an appropriate agreement on this issue with the Federal German Republic.

Yes, Sir. I informed the House on 27th July last that Her Majesty's Government had opened discussions with the Federal German Government on this subject. We are doing all we can to expedite these discussions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman press the view that all persons who are British subjects at present and who have been persecuted and have suffered in consequence of Nazi victimisation at any time and in any place should be included within an agreement so as to provide for compensation if they are not receiving compensation under the German compensation law?

I will certainly consider that or anything else that the hon. Gentleman says on this matter.

Has any approach been made to the East German Government to ascertain whether they will pay compensation similar to that now being paid by the West German Government in respect of these people who have suffered so much?

So far, we have been dealing in these matters with the West German Government, whom we recognise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what compensation has been paid by the Guatemalan Government in respect of the bombing of the British steamer "Springfjord" on 27th June, 1954.

Although Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly pressed the Guatemalan Government to meet this obligation, no compensation has so far been paid.

Is not this a lamentable state of affairs? I do not want to appear unduly impatient, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I raised this matter in the House on 8th November, 1954, Sir Anthony Eden, who was then the Foreign Secretary, said that the Guatemalan Government were prepared to discuss payment, and he added:

"I think that is a step forward. If everything went like that, I should not have so much cause for complain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1954: Vol. 532, c. 847.]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that those who are interested in the matter have cause for complaint, and when are the Government going to activate themselves in this connection?

At one time the Guatemalan Government intimated that they would be prepared to pay some compensation, but the amount they offered was totally unacceptable to the claimants.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply—I do not want to have to wait another six years—I give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in accordance with his statement made before the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on 21st January, 1960, he is now prepared to take the initiative for political consultations in the framework of the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe, in view of the terms of Resolution (59) 30, of the Committee of Ministers, adopted on 14th December, 1959, and Recommendation 230, of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, adopted on 22nd January, 1960.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no objection to full use being made of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for political discussions on such topics as properly fall to be discussed in that body. But he is not at present contemplating any initiative to stimulate such discussions.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this might be a fairly suitable channel for political discussion arising out of the difficulties between the Six and the Seven?

My right hon. and learned Friend has considered this matter in the light of the Recommendation of the Assembly. Of course, there are practical difficulties in view of the number of Ministers concerned and all their other commitments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to Recommendation 228 of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe relating to refugees; what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for implementing recommendation one; and what action is to be taken to encourage those Governments who have not ratified or acceded to the Agreement of 23rd November, 1957, relating to refugee seamen, to do so.

Yes, Sir. We have agreed, subject to the present examination of the individual cases, to accept for resettlement in this country all those Hungarian refugees in Austria who last year expressed to the United Nations High Commissioner their wish to come here.

Her Majesty's Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have ratified the Agreement relating to refugee seamen.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his reply to the first part of my Question, but the latter part refers to refugee seamen. Is he aware that there are about 8,000 refugee seamen who are prisoners on their ships? Will he use his good offices to persuade the other two countries to sign the 1957 Agreement whereby travelling papers would be made available to these refugee seamen so that once again they would have citizenship rights?

As I said in my Answer, Her Majesty's Government have ratified the Agreement. As for getting other countries to do so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Council of Europe might press their own Governments to take the same action.

As a Recommendation of the Assembly will come before the Committee of Ministers, may I invite the hon. Gentleman to use his good offices to persuade the two countries who, although they drew up the original Agreement, so far have not signed it, to do so in order that it may apply to the 8,000 refugee seamen?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will do what he can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the meeting of the Western European Union Council of Ministers in London on 4th February, 1960.

It was a particularly useful meeting largely because the atmosphere was informal and intimate so that the discussions were able to range over a wide area. It was agreed that these political consultations within Western European Union should be developed without prejudice to the political consultations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. For this purpose it was decided that the Council should meet at Ministerial level several times a year.

The Council also had a discussion with the President of the Western European Union Assembly about the rôle of Western European Union.

With permission I will circulate a copy of the communiqué in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he say whether these meetings will be held on a regular basis several times a year or merely when inspiration moves the Ministers to call them?

Somewhere between the two.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent consultations he has had with other co-signatories concerning the implementation of the Geneva Agreement about Indo-China.

There has been no recent formal consultation, but we have been in close touch with other interested Governments.

Can the Minister of State unequivocally deny a circumstantial account, which appeared in the periodical U.S. News & World Report of 25th January this year, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government had reached a secret agreement with the Government of the United States for military intervention in Laos in certain circumstances? Does he agree that such an agreement, if made, would be totally contrary to Britain's obligations under the Geneva Agreement?

It would really be most dangerous and damaging if I were to start to contradict statements which are quoted by hon. Members in the House. I should have to look at that document first.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the declared policy of the Government of Southern Rhodesia that the whole question of the Colony's participation in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland may in certain circumstances be submitted to a referendum, he will take steps to revise the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission.

I have been asked to reply.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have read that Answer? As he must be aware also, the people of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia have always wanted the possibility of Federation to be considered by the Commission. As the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has now made the threat of secession which I quote in my Question, may I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's Answer means that, in the Government's opinion, it will be open to the Monckton Commission to consider the possibility of secession?

I can only refer to the evidence to be given before the Commission. I cannot refer to its conclusions, which must be a matter for the Commission, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 24th November that the Commission will be free to hear views

"from whatever quarter and on whatever subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 208.]

But we thought it right to give the Commission terms of reference which would accord with what we regard as the objects of the 1960 review.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the winds of change have been blowing so fast in the last few weeks that clearly the Commission will be wasting its time if it does not consider secession?

I cannot add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend, both in this House and in Africa. I think that there is a very great task for the Monckton Commission to perform.

Is it not becoming increasingly clear, especially in the light of the statements of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, that the conditions under which Southern Rhodesia says that it will remain in the Federation are likely to be unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government, who are responsible for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland? In view of that, would it not be far better to consider now alternatives to federation—some looser forms of association?

I cannot alter the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission, nor the statements in reference to the Northern Territories, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, made in the Prime Minister's speech in Salisbury on 19th January. Also, having studied the complete text of the speech of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, I do not think that any final positions have been taken up.

Does the right hon. Gentleman take the view that, while Southern Rhodesia is free to secede from the Federation, this is not the case with Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland?