asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent any form of disengagement in Europe is now included in Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy.

I have nothing to add to what I said about disengagement in the foreign affairs debate last week.

Will the Foreign Secretary explain what has caused the change of attitude since twelve months ago, when the Prime Minister was speaking, very sensibly, I thought, at least, about a zone of limited arms in Central Europe?

I explained that matter at some length, covering at least one column of HANSARD, during the debate. If I did not satisfy the hon. Member then, I doubt whether I shall satisfy him in answer to a supplementary question.

Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that foreign troops shall remain permanently in Germany, both East and West, or have they any alternative?

I have nothing to add on the question of disengagement to what I said in the debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Icelandic Government that, during the period of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Seas, British trawlers should be permitted to fish up to the four-mile limit and British naval protection vessels be withdrawn.

Her Majesty's Government have made repeated suggestions to the Icelandic Government for an interim arrangement on fishery matters pending the outcome of the Conference on the Law of the Sea. I repeated in Paris in December our offer as an interim measure to withdraw our naval protection vessels from within the twelve-mile fishery limit claimed by Iceland if the Icelandic authorities would undertake not to interfere with our fishing vessels between six and 12 miles.

While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him to continue to urge the Icelandic Government to adopt a more reasonable attitude, particularly as we are now approaching the date of the conference, which could get off to a much better start if some such arrangement were made?

I regard the suggestion as a fair one, because it went two miles beyond the four-mile limit to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is a matter of deep regret that the Icelandic Government have not seen fit to accept it. I still hope that they may change their mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what circumstances certain authors have had access to Special Operations Executive Reports covered by the Official Secrets Acts; whether he is aware that they have used them in such a way as to injure the reputation of agents who have been tried and acquitted; and whether, in order to stop the publication of secret reports which cannot be checked and the consequent abuse of the Official Secrets Act, the authorised history of Special Operations Executive will be immediately commenced.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her on 6th June, 1956, by my right hon. Friend the then Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I am not aware that the information disclosed in the single instance to which he referred was used for the purpose which the hon. Lady suggests.

With regard to the second part of the Question, I do not accept the implication that the Official Secrets Act has been abused. As regards the publication of an authorised history of the Special Operations Executive, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State informed my hon. Friend on 11th December, 1958, the question is being examined. That is still the position.

Discounting the problem of unauthorised people being in possession of secret reports, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, if a libel action is brought against an author who has quoted from a secret report of which he should not be in possession and the case goes to court, the proper document will be available, supplied by the Foreign Office, for the complainant to clear his character?

I would like notice of that question.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that enough harm has already been done by these amateur cloak and dagger people who have ignored the Official Secrets Act and cashed in on their limited wartime experience? Will my right hon. and learned Friend deny them any further encouragement by refusing absolutely to authorise an official history of what is supposed to be a secret organisation?

I am well aware of my hon. and gallant Friend's views about this matter, remembering his supplementary question of 15th December, 1958. I certainly will bear his views in mind.

Will not the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to comment on the wild allegations which have been made? A great number of the people connected with this work gave distinguished and gallant service during the war. Surely, he will not let that supplementary question pass without comment.

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that many people did very gallant work in this connection.

rose—

On a point of order. Would it be in order for me to ask the Foreign Secretary if he is aware that the Prime Minister has authorised publication of an official history?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent information he has received regarding the whereabouts of Commander Crabb.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent information received by Her Majesty's Government about Commander Crabb.

No recent information about Commander Crabb has been received by Her Majesty's Government.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us a little more assurance, having regard to some wild statements which have appeared in the Press and the disquiet which some of those observations have aroused? Has he not got any further statement to make on the subject, on whether we know definitely what happened, and whether there has been identification of the body?

I would remind my hon. Friend that at the inquest in June, 1957, the coroner expressed himself as quite satisfied that the remains which were found in Chichester Harbour on 9th June were those of Commander Crabb.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a possibility that the coroner was wrong on that occasion? Is he aware also that a book is being published shortly by publishers in London who state that they are satisfied with the authenticity of the information received from Russia? They are publishing this. Could the Foreign Secretary give us some information about the publication of this book?

I do not know about the book. I have no other information about Commander Crabb than that which I have given to the House. I have no reason to think that there is any truth in the suggestion that the coroner was wrong.

Has not the time come when the Government should come clean with the House about this case, and ought not the House to know who was responsible for giving the instructions to undertake that rather shady escapade?

That is quite a different matter from the two Questions on the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with other interested Governments of Great Britain's obligations in Laos under the Geneva Agreement of 1955.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Gentleman's question of 10th February.

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least assure the House that he has reached no undertaking with the United States Government for joint military intervention in Laos in conditions and in circumstances which have been defined?

The hon. Gentleman in a supplementary question last week referred to a certain newspaper article, which I have read. There is no secret Anglo-American agreement for military intervention in Laos, but, of course, we are both members of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, which is a defensive organisation with a military planning office. Such a planning office, obviously, considers plans for a wide variety of contingencies, but such plans are without commitment, and there is no commitment by Her Majesty's Government.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling the House that our commitments in S.E.A.T.O. apply to circumstances which may arise in Laos, whose international status has been defined as neutral in an agreement to which the Government are a party?

So far as any military plans are concerned, I have no intention of being more specific. I think it would be quite unwise for me to be more specific. If a planning office is doing its duty it is making plans for a wide variety of contingencies. So far as our obligations under the Treaty are concerned, we are under an obligation to resist aggression.

But surely the Treaty defines quite clearly the area in which it is relevant, and Laos is not included in its area of operation?

Laos is a designated area under the Treaty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what date he expects to be able to report to the House on his discussions with the Federal German Government on the agreements for compensating Nazi victims.

I cannot yet add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 10th February.

Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that, while the Federal Government have given tardy and somewhat inadequate compensation to Jewish victims of Nazism, they have used a legal artifice to bar the claims of non-Jewish victims of Nazism? Will he not now say to Dr. Adenauer's representative that if the Federal Government really want to represent themselves as among the civilised nations they ought really to do something to treat alike claims on behalf of all people who were victims of Nazism?

I do not accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I do agree with him that this is a matter which should be looked at from the ethical point of view rather than the legal point of view. It is a matter which I shall certainly continue to pursue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will join the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration.

I am afraid that I cannot yet add to what my hon. Friend told the right hon. Gentleman last month, namely, that the matter is under consideration.

Since the Committee has up to date sent overseas more than 400,000 refugees, would it not be very appropriate for the Government to join during World Refugee Year?

That is certainly a consideration not absent from my mind.

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

There is as yet not much to add to what was said in the debate on 9th February. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies left Cyprus on 10th February after delaying his departure for a few hours at the request of Archbishop Makarios. Since then the Governor has continued conversations with the Cypriot leaders with a view to clarifying certain questions that arose on the various subjects under discussion. I believe that some progress has been made. We are waiting for the Governor to complete his report. Meanwhile the position of Her Majesty's Government remains as it was stated in last week's debate; we are working for a settlement within the terms of the Zurich and London Agreements.

In view of the fact that it is now public, the accusation which Archbishop Makarios has made against the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, can the Secretary of State say precisely what the Under-Secretary of State did agree to?

I do not know that the word "accusation" is quite the right word to use, but I have certainly read the reports. They are at variance with my understanding, and that of my hon. Friends and others, of what took place at this meeting, but really I do not think it is wise to go into that matter today.

Why?

It simply shows some of the difficulties of the negotiations.

My right hon. and learned Friend says that the position of the Government remains as it was stated. Will he bear in mind that very many people in this country are anxious that that position should continue to remain as it was stated?

I am aware of that point of view.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his hon. Friend's view is not shared by everybody in this House, and that there will be a widespread feeling that the precedent set by the Foreign Secretary himself in revealing an ex parte account of what happened in private negotiations is not a desirable one to be followed?

That is a point of view and I take note of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) wheher, in conjunction with the other parties to the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, he will make representations to the Government of the United Arab Republic, with a view to terminating the state of war between the United Arab Republic and Israel;

(2) to what extent belligerent rights are accorded by Her Majesty's Government to the United Arab Republic and Israel, in view of the fact that a state of war exists between these two States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the other signatories to the Tripartite Declaration regarding the effect of the formation of the United Arab Republic upon their obligations under the declaration.

At discussions held since the formation of the United Arab Republic, the signatories agreed that the Tripartite Declaration remained a valid declaration of policy. The termination of the state of war between Israel and the Arab States was called for by the Armistice Agreement of 1949. For Her Majesty's Government to call on the United Arab Republic to terminate that state of war would be to admit that it still exists, which we do not.

The question of according belligerent tights by Her Majesty's Government to the United Arab Republic or Israel has not arisen. If the point did arise, the Government concerned would have to establish, as a matter of law, that it was entitled to exercise such rights.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the position whereby this situation in the Middle East has been allowed over many years to drift is extremely dangerous, especially when it is accompanied by such belicose statements as we have seen in the paper by President Nasser today, and that the danger in the future will get worse and worse until some definite action is either taken by the United Nations or not?

I am aware of what my hon. Friend says.

Does this mean that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned his interpretation of the Tripartite Agreement of 6th March, 1957, namely, that the Government did not consider it applicable in the case of an attack on Israel by Egypt? Would he answer Question No. 23 in my name on the Paper? Does he consider and do his partners in the Declaration consider the Declaration as being applicable in the case of war between Israel and that part of the United Arab Republic which used to be Syria?

That is a wide question. Perhaps the Answer which I gave was an over-simplification, but as the United Arab Republic is a State in the area it must be taken into account—for example, in regard to the arms race and the operation of that part of the Tripartite Declaration which deals with the supply of arms in the area. But if the question is, do we regard ourselves as under an obligation to go to the help of a State which does not want our help, I would say, "No."

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman declines to admit that the U.A.R. and the State of Israel are is a state of war, why did his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to a Question relating to the interference with shipping through the Canal, reply by saying that it was related to a state of war and was a legal issue? What is the legal issue involved if the Government decline to admit that there is a state of war?

What I have said is the actual truth. We do not agree that there is a state of war now, but the Government of the United Arab Republic maintain that there is. As far as I understand the position of the Israeli Government, they say that there is not. That is what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was referring to when he said that it was a legal issue.

Could my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the United Nations Resolution which stated that neither nation should exercise a right to search and seizure is still valid?

I should like notice of that specific case, but my recollection is that that is the well-known Resolution of 1951. In our view, that is a Resolution to which regard should be had. It does not lie in our hands to see that it is complied with.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Tripartite Declaration made by the three Governments, without agreement or consultation with any of the Governments in the countries of the area concerned, included a commitment that the three Governments, should they find any of the States preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would immediately take action within or outside the United Nations to prevent such violation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government recognise an obligation to take such action in the case of a violation of the armistice line between Israel and the United Arab Republic?

We do not regard ourselves as under an obligation to come to the help of a State which says that it does not want our help.

Is not that interpretation now given by the Foreign Secretary in plain violation of the text of the agreement which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has just read out, and also in violation of the view held by the United States?

I do not know about the latter matter, but I do not accept that it is in violation of the text. I have been saying this for three years.

In view of the deliberate defiance by Her Majesty's Government of the Tripartite Agreement in 1956 and the denunciation of the main clause which the Foreign Secretary has now enunciated in the House, would it not be wise to scrap this altogether, so that all know where they stand?

That is, of course, a possibity, but the Declaration has some validity with regard to contributing to stability in the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent proposals of the United States Government at the Geneva Conference on Tests, he will make a further statement on the conference.

As I informed the House last week, the United States Delegation as the Geneva Nuclear Tests Conference put forward on 11th February a new proposal for the suspension of tests on the surface of the earth, in the oceans, and up to the greatest height at which effective controls could be agreed. The United States proposal would also ban those underground tests at present capable of being detected and identified, and proposes joint research to extend this ban. The United Kingdom Delegation have given general support to this proposal. Yesterday the Soviet Delegate rejected the United States proposal, but he put forward on behalf of the Soviet Union new proposals on criteria for initiating inspections of suspected underground tests. These are very technical and will require careful study.

Is it not a fact that the main outstanding difference is the problem of the uncontrollable lower-range underground tests and that there is broad agreement on the need to ban all other tests? If this is so, why should not Her Majesty's Government propose that there should be a ban on all tests other than small underground tests, that there should be a declaration by the three Governments not to resume any small underground tests, and that there should be the appointment of scientists by the three Governments to investigate the possibility of achieving an effective control system for dealing with small underground tests?

As to the first part of the supplementary question, that already is our position. The United States Government and we have stated that we are willing to make such an agreement forthwith. What we are now trying to do is, by negotiating with the Soviet Union, to find out whether an acceptable control system can be set up to deal with the remaining range of underground tests which, on present information, are difficult or impossible to control. We must continue to examine very carefully the Soviet proposals which, I think, are designed for the same purpose, because it is much better, if we can, to get a comprehensive agreement straight away.

Can the Foreign Secretary say down to what level of explosive power in kilotons the American proposal would forbid tests?

No, Sir. The magnitude was put in another measurement. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me notice, I can give the actual measurements which the United States have given.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now given further consideration to the possibility of monitoring suspected underground nuclear tests with a small number of unmanned seismic instruments; and what conclusions he has reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the addition of small, unmanned, auxiliary seismic stations along the periphery of known seismic areas to the control system, already substantially agreed upon as capable of detecting all major nuclear explosions, would make it also 98 per cent. efficient in distinguishing minor underground explosions down to one kiloton from earthquakes, whether he will urge the adoption of this method of control at Geneva in preference to a resumption of nuclear tests.

Her Majesty's Government have been studying this idea for some time and it is still being examined by our experts. The results of this work when complete will have to be carefully considered before we can decide whether to propose the incorporation of such stations in an inspection system. It is still too early to say whether we can satisfactorily solve the practical difficulties of designing such stations, ensuring communications from them to control posts, and guaranteeing them against tampering.

May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving a rather more forthcoming reply today than he gave last week on this point, and for recognising the value of the Berkner Commission's Report in making a contribution to a solution of this question? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate the importance of ensuring that we achieve an agreement covering all forms of tests and that it is hopeless and impossible to get one if one country is allowed to continue any form of tests, even underground?

I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said. The difficulty about this proposed new mechanism is that nobody has yet designed it. It is not at all certain whether one could have communication from it to the control post, or that one could prevent its being tampered with by some unauthorised person. Although I think there is a useful germ of an idea in this business of unmanned posts, we would have to go a little further on the practical issue before we could support it.

While appreciating the difficulties which the Foreign Secretary has mentioned, may I ask whether he is aware that this Berkner Commission's recommendation was recently put forward at an East-West unofficial conference here by an American Congressman and a nuclear physicist and was strongly supported by two members of the Supreme Soviet Foreign Affairs Commission? In view of the consequent likelihood that a proposal on these lines would be accepted and of the dangers of a resumption of tests as compared with an imperfect control system, would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman press for very serious consideration of this proposal?

I have said that our experts are examining this very seriously, because there may be some value in some unmanned apparatus of this sort.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a report by British scientists on the Berkner Report proposal?

These are British scientists who are now examining it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Austrian Foreign Secretary.

I have nothing to add to the Communiqué issued on 9th February, the text of which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and to what I said in the debate last week about Dr. Kreisky's visit.

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the subject of South Tyrol was discussed and whether he was able to assure the Austrian Foreign Secretary that he supports the view that the Italian Government are under treaty obligation to provide genuine autonomy to South Tyrol?

Dr. Kreisky did explain the point of view of the Austrian Government on this question. Our view is that it is a matter much better settled by bilateral discussion between the Austrian and Italian Governments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now propose to the Government of Spain, following the recent Agreement, that the design of any nuclear reactors to be built in Spain by British firms shall be submitted for approval to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that this Agency shall be invited to control the operation of the reactors to ensure that no fissile material is produced for military use.

Our Agreement with Spain provides for the contracting parties to consult in order to determine in what respects and to what extent controls and safeguards should be administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Agency has not yet worked out its detailed arrangements for safeguarding the use of fissile material.

In view of the dangers, as I think them, of supplying the Franco Government with fissile material, would it not be desirable to ask the Agency to undertake this task at the earliest moment, and if not, why was the Agency set up?

According to my information, no British firm is at present building nuclear reactors in Spain, and, so far as I am aware, no agreement for erecting them is being negotiated. I think it is rather a hypothetical question.

Is it not the case that the most up-to-date and most efficient reactors are bound automatically and incidentally to produce plutonium and fissile material? Is there not a great danger that, unless we get some world control of these nuclear fissile materials, little countries might be used by bigger countries as a means of producing these materials, thus enabling them to defy the agreement which we hope will be reached?

Without precisely identifying myself with the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, I am, broadly speaking, in agreement with him. The question is how to work out the necessary safeguards. The body known as I.A.E.A. has not yet worked out these safeguards, but it is engaged in that task. There is another body, the European Nuclear Energy Agency, which is also working out safeguards. I very much hope that these further safeguards will be worked out.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now consider the reopening of a British Consulate in Nice.

I am considering this question.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that nearly three years ago he told me that he wanted to try out covering the area from Marseilles? Does he not think it is now time that the British Consulate was brought back to Nice?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's point of view about this matter, and it will be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent French atomic explosion in the Sahara Desert, he will propose that the French Government be invited to participate in the Geneva Conference on the discontinuance of nuclear tests.

This is a matter which has to be considered in the light of previous statements of policy by the French Government and also of the fact that the negotiations have been going on for fifteen months on a tripartite basis.

My own present feeling is that it is better to try to complete our work on a tripartite basis in the hope that other countries will accede afterwards.

As, according to reports, the French Government intend to carry out more nuclear explosions, can we take it that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to ensure that the French Government will at least adhere to any agreement that may be reached at the Geneva Conference?

I have stated our position with regard to that matter. I do not think that to introduce a fourth negotiator at this stage of the conference would tend to speed up its conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the French Government concerning a Channel tunnel; and when he expects to receive the report of the Channel Tunnel Study Group.

I believe that the International Study Group intend to send Her Majesty's Government a copy of their report in the near future. No worth-while discussions can take place with the French Government until this report has been studied.

Will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking that he will not encourage the proposal in view of the urgent needs of the British people for capital expenditure for housing and so on, which should come before a proposal of this kind?

I certainly think that before a decision is taken in favour of the project all the relevant considerations should be taken into account, and I think that one of them is the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.