asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals have been made to the Committee of 18 Nations in Geneva for the agreed limitation of military expenditure pending the signature of the disarmament treaty.

In a Memorandum presented to the Geneva Disarmament Conference on 28th January, the Soviet Government proposed an agreement "to reduce the military budgets of States by 10 to 15 per cent." On 13th February the Brazilian delegation submitted a draft resolution which requested all Governments to make reductions in their military expenditure comparable to those recently made by the United States and the Soviet Union, and to devote not less than 20 per cent. of the savings to a fund for the benefit of developing countries.

Will the Minister of State represent to his right hon. Friend that, even if these more ambitious proposals do not succeed, a simple freeze of expenditure would be much the most important preliminary or partial measure that could be adopted and the most likely to be carried through? Will he instruct the Committee of 18 Nations to prepare a resolution for the General Assembly to adopt a plan?

I do not think it is quite as simple as that. We would naturally be very happy to see military expenditure either frozen or reduced all round, but we think this should come from concrete measures of disarmament as part of an agreed programme providing for the comprehensive and balanced disarmament of all nations. The budgetary questions are very complex and we have proposed to the Geneva Conference that we should set up an expert study group to look into them.

We shall be grateful if budgetary limitation is studied, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that as a preliminary measure my suggestion would be very simple and important?

I agree that it is a matter well worth looking at, but, as a preliminary, we should go into the very complicated question of the study of the various budgets, and this we have proposed to the Geneva Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the other Governments concerned for a conference on the neutralisation of Cambodia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is now taking in support of the neutrality of Cambodia.

I am continuing my efforts to establish a basis acceptable to all concerned for an international conference on Cambodia. Unfortunately, not all the Governments concerned are yet ready to take part in such a conference.

In view of the very critical issue of the neutrality of Cambodia in this dangerous area of South-East Asia, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so many months have passed since Prince Sihanouk first proposed a 14-Power conference? Could he also say why the proposal is now being made that this should be limited to a four-Power conference of the United States, Thailand, South Vietnam and Cambodia, when three of those nations would not accept the position of neutrality and are tied to one of the Power blocs? Would the right hon. Gentleman really give his earnest attention to try to bring about a solution to this problem?

Yes, Sir. There has been a great many exchanges, and Prince Sihanouk himself has now acknowledged that it would be difficult to call a conference. He has postponed his demand for one at any rate till after his visit to France in June. The idea of a preliminary conference was not an alternative to the main conference at Geneva. The idea was that these nations principally concerned might get together on such problems as frontiers which might be dealt with preparatory to the main conference.

Is it not plain that the desire for neutrality is genuine and understandable? How does it come about that by resisting the Prince s procedural suggestions for the conference we have incurred his very strong resentment and suspicion, when our interests are in common?

Our interests certainly are in common to obtain the neutrality of Cambodia and to reassure the Cambodians in this respect. But there is a difficulty in summoning a conference when certain people do not wish to attend it. It is better to try to obtain their concurrence to attend a conference before one calls it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the view that North Vietnam is not a principally interested party in this matter?

I would not like to comment on North Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will make an approach to Great Britain's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies to obtain agreement to the earmarking and training of 2,000 British troops in Germany for a possible future United Nations Organisation force, and to a contribution on a similar basis from those ships of the Royal Navy now allocated to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation;

We are ready to discuss with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and with our allies the idea of earmarking British units for United Nations peace-keeping purposes. Where these troops would come from would be one of the things which we would need to consider; the Secretary-General has himself made no proposals to Her Majesty's Government.

Is it not essential that before these proposals go any further there should be an absolutely clear distinction in everybody's mind between earmarking and allotting these troops? Whereas the Leader of the Opposition has given his support for the earmarking of troops from N.A.T.O., is he aware that his position with regard to the ships of the Royal Navy is still far from clear?

The question is not intelligible. As put forward it asks Minister A whether a member of the Opposition, a person called B, is aware of something or other. It cannot be answered.

Can my hon. Friend give any indication of what might be the attitude of our N.A.T.O. allies towards this, and whether we can expect any form of support from them—from all of them or from some of them only—in a project of this kind?

The matter so far has not been discussed with our N.A.T.O. allies, and I should not like to anticipate what might be their reactions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we intend to discuss this matter with them and also with the Secretary-General.

Although the concept is an admirable one, is the hon. Gentleman aware that France makes a negligible contribution, if any, to N.A.T.O.? Is she likely to make any contribution to the United Nations?

I would not like to anticipate what France's reaction might be until the question has been discussed with her.

Is there any particular advantage in earmarking any troops for any particular mission in the future? Would it not be better to undertake an obligation, if that is desired, and allocate troops as they are necessary at the time?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when answering Questions the other day, he foresaw difficulties in earmarking particular troops in particular areas for this purpose; nevertheless, it was something that we would look into.

Is it not a fact that at least three of our N.A.T.O. allies have already agreed to the ear-marking of troops for a stand-by force—Canada, Denmark and Norway? Why does the Minister of State suggest that none of our allies has yet stated its position?

I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I said that the matter had not been discussed with our allies in N.A.T.O. as yet. There are difficulties, because it has been considered inappropriate in the past for permanent representatives on the Security Council to earmark troops for this purpose, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, we shall look into this matter and discuss it with the Secretary-General.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is now taking to help secure payment of their dues by defaulting members of the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the position at the United Nations of those member nations who have failed to pay their contributions to the major peace-keeping operations; and what policy is being pursued by Her Majesty's Government on this issue.

In Her Majesty's Government's view, any member State which, by declining to pay its due share of the expenses of the United Nations, falls two years in arrears will, under Article 19 of the Charter, forfeit its voting rights in the General Assembly.

What were these proposals and why were they made public? Was it wise to make these proposals formally before getting any indication that the Russians would respond favourably?

The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is wise to make these proposals public. They were referred to in certain newspapers, and I can assure him that they were not made public by Her Majesty's Government. I agree with him that full details of these proposals, which in any event were tentative, should remain confidential pending a reply from the Soviet Union to the Anglo-American approach.

Would the Minister confirm that, under Article 19, if countries are more than two years in arrears the Chairman of the General Assembly would be in order to refuse them voting rights without any Motion being necessary? Would the Government support that? Would the Minister also make it clear that that attitude applies to all countries; in their words, that we take the same view of the French arrears as we do of the Soviet arrears? This is not a cold war question. It is a question of our wanting to uphold the Charter and the rule of the International Court in these matters.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not intended that this should be a cold war matter, and I know that it would be the wish of everyone to try, if possible, to reach a solution of this matter. In our view, Article 19 applies equally to all countries which might be in arrear for two years with their payments.

Is the Minister aware that we are sympathetic to the intention of the Government, but certain proposals were made to the Soviet Union which have now been published? They are important. Will he put them in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Do they not involve some form of strengthening the Security Council against the General Assembly?

I do not think that it would be appropriate to put these proposals in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Perhaps I can say that, in general, the proposals would involve the General Assembly initiating a peace-keeping operation only after it had been discussed in the Security Council and the latter had been unable to act on it. Financial assessments for the peace-keeping operation, perhaps according to some special scale, would be recommended to the General Assembly by a peace-keeping finance committee on which the larger financial contributors would be adequately represented.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the changed arrangements for the provision of travel visas for citizens from East Germany who wish to travel to the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision was recently reached by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council about travel facilities for East Germans to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries; and when it will take effect.

I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on 9th April. The adjustments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation policy came into effect on 2nd April.

The answer which my hon. Friend had the other day requires further definition. Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the invitation from the Durham Miners' Association to East German miners to attend the miners' gala on 18th July will now be acceptable to the Travel Bureau in West Berlin, and can he say as a matter of definition what is meant by "non-political"? Does it mean that nobody can come to this country from East Germany unless he has divested himself of all political ideas?

On the question of the particular case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, each application will be treated by the Allied Travel Office in West Berlin on its merits and I cannot, of course, anticipate what decision will be taken. I do not know whether the miners concerned are trade unionists, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Communist trade unions are highly political bodies. The right hon. Gentleman also asked what "political" means in this sense. It is a general description. I should say that purporting to represent the Soviet zone as a sovereign or national entity would be considered by the Travel Office as undesirable, and so would public propaganda on behalf of the zonal régime.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Durham miners' gala has had representatives from the Soviet Union, from Hungary and from various satellite countries—from Yugoslavia, for example—on many occasions? What is the difficulty about a few miners coming to attend the Durham miners' gala? Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that it will start a revolution in this country?

As I have said, this is a matter which will be decided by the Allied Travel Office.

Why?

Will the hon. Gentleman clear up the question about groups as against individuals? There was a reference to permission being granted only to individuals. The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I raised this matter on the Adjournment some weeks ago I had particularly in mind the question of a children's choir. May we take it that such a group is now likely to meet with no difficulty? What about football teams? Does it mean that each player must make an individual application? If this is so, is a right-winger likely to have better consideration than a left-winger?

It can, of course, include groups if they can satisfy the Allied Travel Office that the intention in sending the group is not an intention by the so-called D.D.R. to make political propaganda. As regards East German sporting teams, national teams, I apprehend, will not, on the whole, get permission whereas local teams will, and so will individual sportsmen and groups from East Germany who are participating in an all-German team.

Have not the Government got into an awful mess by these attempts to make very fine and unreal distinctions? If it is decided that it is right to move in this direction, why do not the Government move to a rather more logical position?

This is the result of a decision in N.A.T.O. after very long and very full discussion and consultation. The right hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind that we are making it easier, not harder, for East Germans to travel out of East Germany. It is the East German authorities who refuse six out of seven applications by giving no exit permits; they are imprisoning the mass of their population.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish in HANSARD the total number of civil servants employed in the Foreign Office on 1st October, 1951, and 1st October, 1963, together with their respective costs.

The staff employed in the Foreign Office on 1st October, 1951, totaled 1,722, at an annual cost of £1,003,250. The corresponding figures for 1st October, 1963, were 1,761 staff, at an annual cost of £2,168,000.

In view of the fact that, for the past thirteen years, and getting on for fourteen years now, we have been promised that the Government would drastically reduce the whole of the Civil Service, including the Foreign Office, and its costs, may we have some idea of when this is likely to happen? Is it likely to happen before the election, whether in the autumn or whenever it may be?

I think that the hon. Gentleman can answer that as well as I can. What he must bear in mind is that, although the period for which I have given the figures has been most difficult in international relations, and although Her Majesty's Government have entered into diplomatic relations with 22 additional countries during that time, the extra work at home has been largely absorbed by the existing staff at the Foreign Office.

Mr. Arthur Lewis, for the next Question, please.

The Minister read that brief very well, but will he answer my supplementary question?

I called the hon. Gentleman for the next one, please.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now agree to the publication of all papers and documents in the possession of Her Majesty's Government in connection with the Suez operations.

No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman in answer to a similar Question on 26th November last, the general rule is that official documents are not normally opened to public inspection until they become fifty years old.

But as, since then, the Prime Minister has said, "Let us have frank speaking", and, of course, the electorate would like to know all about it, may we have it before the election?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is this rule. It has been in operation for only a comparatively short time. I think that we had better give it a trial before we succumb to any modifications urged by him or anybody else.

At the same time as considering this point, will my hon. Friend consider whether he might include the Cabinet documents which resulted in the decision of the Labour Government to go ahead with the manufacture of nuclear weapons?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the Security Council that steps be taken to seek to give the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus legal competence over individuals on the island when the latter are impeding the United Nations mandate.

No, Sir. I do not think this necessary. The Secretary-General has it fully in mind that the United Nations force must have adequate powers to fulfil its functions and he has concluded a Status of Forces Agreement with the Cyprus Government which defines the relationship between the force and the Cypriots. This agreement, which has been circulated as a Security Council document, is available in the Library of the House.

Since none of us knows what the mandate is which the Secretary-General of the United Nations has given to the United Nations troops, could not Her Majesty's Government at least say that they think it desirable that the troops should be able to disarm persons who are against the peace in the particular area to which they are called? Must they just wait to be shot at before they can act?

That question was Question No. 13 which was not called, but which I shall answer with Question No. 22. I am referring only to the Status of Forces Agreement in this matter. I shall be answering the hon. and learned Gentleman in a few minutes.

How was it decided whether the Foreign Secretary should answer this Question or whether it should be handed over to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be better if he were left to deal with this Cyprus problem instead of having the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations barging in on it?

Cyprus is a Commonwealth country and my right hon. Friend is Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations; hence, he answers Questions on Cyprus. When Questions relating to international relations concerned with Cyprus are put to me, I have great pleasure in answering.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with the creation of a peace-keeping force for Cyprus; what are the terms of reference to guide the mediator; and whether the terms have been agreed by both Cypriots and Turks.

The United Nations force was established operationally on 27th March. It will be composed of contingents provided by Britain, Canada, Ireland, Finland and Sweden. Of these, the British and Canadian contingents are already carrying out their duties. I understand that the bulk of the Swedish contingent is in the course of joining the force in Cyprus, together with advance elements of the other contingents. The force is expected to be fully constituted later this month.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, since the United Nations accepted responsibility for peace-keeping activities in Cyprus, we have been kept completely in the dark about the rôle of our troops in Cyprus? Nor have we any information about whether both the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have accepted the terms of reference. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in these circumstances, and particularly in view of the build-up of 30,000 Greek Cypriot troops, it is time that the United Nations declared publicly what the terms of reference are and what the rôle of our troops there is likely to be and, if not, to withdraw our troops from Cyprus?

I was to have dealt with this matter in answer to Question No. 13, but the hon. Member who put it down was not here to call it and I shall, therefore, be answering it with Question No. 22 and some other Questions on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman will wait until then, he will get the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will seek to secure the agreement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to publication of the note outlining the functions of the United Nations force in Cyprus, sent by the Secretary-General on 17th March to all the Governments concerned; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has approached the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the publication of the terms of reference of the United Nations force in Cyprus.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was consulted as to the general objectives of the United Nations Emergency Force in Cyprus; and if he will now give the terms of reference in support of which British troops have been committed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what directives have been given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to its force in Cyprus; and what are the mediator's terms of reference.

As the House will be aware, the general scope and purpose of the United Nations operations in Cyprus are laid down in the Security Council resolution of the 4th March. On the basis of the mandate contained in this resolution the Secretary-General has prepared a general directive to the United Nations force commander in Cyprus and the latter has issued an operational directive to his troops.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is at present no world law under which United Nations troops should act if called into a particular trouble spot, and do not recent uncertainties in Cyprus, and before that in the Congo, indicate very strongly that it is desirable to have that world law known in advance—for instance, when they may disarm people who are disturbing the peace? Will the Government take steps to initiate discussions with a view to an agreement on minimum world law, which is necessary if these troops are efficiently to carry out their functions?

I think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the aide mémoire he will find the answer to most of the points he has raised, and secondly, if he will read the Status of Forces Agreement, which I can make available to him, he will see the relationship of the forces to the ordinary civilian population of Cyprus. These two documents do, I think, go a very long way to answering his question.

Whatever the aide mémoire may or may not say, is it not revolting to the average thinking British people that British troops should almost daily be arrested by Cypriots? If this cannot be rectified, are we not justified in withdrawing our troops to the base and letting them get on with it?

Our troops have had a great many most aggravating circumstances to put up with, but on the whole I am sure that up to date we have done the right thing both in going into Cyprus and now in taking part in the United Nations force. We must hope and pray that the circumstances and the aide mémoire will enable our troops to act with dignity and with success.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will welcome the answer he gave and will look forward to having an opportunity of studying the aide méemoire, but could he say at this stage whether this aide mémoire will cover intervention from outside by reinforcements for the dissident elements, notably any which may be coming from other N.A.T.O. countries?

No. It relates to the activities of the United Nations forces, and these are broader questions which I shall be glad to answer if my hon. Friend will put down a Question.

We must, of course, read the aide mémoire before making up our minds about this, although from what the right hon. Gentleman has said I am not sure whether this is going to be altogether satisfactory. Is he not aware that the House does attach very great importance to knowing and being able to discuss the terms of reference which govern the use of our own troops in any capacity whatsoever? I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to say a word about the possible use of British police there? I appreciate that he may want notice of this, but, on the other hand, he is not going to answer Questions for quite a long time. Would they go under this directive? Thirdly, can he say whether the Greek and Turkish Cypriots agreed to this directive which has been issued by the Secretary-General to the United Nations?

The answer to the latter point is that the directive was issued entirely upon the authority of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Could the right hon. Gentleman remind me of his other point?

The police.

On the question of the police, I am aware that I am not answer- ing Questions first for some time, but as we have only just received this request, I think it would be irresponsible to give an answer since we are just giving it consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer a simple question, if I may be permitted to put one to him, namely, does the aide mémoire provide that our troops in Cyprus are to adopt a passive or active role? Surely that question should be answered? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the situation has become highly critical in Cyprus with the rapid build-up of Greek Cypriot troops, and what is to be the position of our troops if they are attacked?

Certainly the aide mémoire provides for an active rôle in support of peace, and I think it is for each to read and form his own conclusions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the anxieties of this House will be graver if the directive does not clear up the position of the police who go out if they are asked for? Would it not be very unsatisfactory if they should be made to look as ridiculous as our British troops have been? Will he ensure that any police who do go out will be entirely volunteer?

We shall have to look further into the question of the police and I could not answer any Questions on it today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the situation on the borders of Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indonesian guerrillas continue to operate in Eastern Malaysia. By 6th April there had been no less than 55 violations of the cease-fire of 24th January. There is ample evidence that the period of cease-fire has been used by the Indonesians to increase their guerrilla strength.

Is it not evident that President Soekarno's policy of confrontation has created a very dangerous situation which might erupt into full-scale war any time? Is it not time that the matter was referred to the United Nations for them to act under Article 35 to investigate the situation? Surely the time has come for some action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with the Government of Malaysia.

I am very glad that the right hon. and learned Member mentioned those last few words, because whether the matter is referred to the United Nations must surely be a matter for the Government of Malaysia to decide. I understand that they have recently sent a letter to the Secretary-General surveying the history of the dispute.

Since we have British troops in Malaysia, is it not open to us to urge on the Government of Malaysia that they should ask for United Nations observers to come to control the frontier and to report when violations occur?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty of observers on the frontier of this difficult terrain. The Malaysian Government were anxious that Thai observers should come, but, so far, it is extremely difficult because the Indonesian interpretation of what a cease-fire should be is not very clear at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the position reached at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva.

The Disarmament Conference has, at its Tuesday meetings, given further consideration to proposals for the reduction of nuclear delivery vehicles, and its Thursday meetings have been devoted to the study of various confidence-building measures. On 26th March, I circulated a United Kingdom paper designed to facilitate discussion of the technical problems involved in a system of observation posts.

Could the Minister of State define those aspects of the discussions which the Government feel ought to have particular attention in the weeks ahead? Arising from what he has said about last Tuesday's meeting, could he say something more about the progress made at the discussions on delivery vehicles? Is it not a fact that most of us recognise that President Johnson's proposal on this is one of the most hopeful in the current session? What specific steps are the Government taking towards any agreement on delivery vehicles—their numbers and types? Or are they inhibited by their intention to have Polaris submarines?

No. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about the importance of President Johnson's proposals for a freeze. The Disarmament Conference has not as yet received full details from the American representative. We hope to have that before very long. As to the other matters which are being discussed, we are dealing with what are sometimes called the Gromyko proposals. There is a lot of detail to discuss, and it looks as though this will carry on for two or three weeks. Thursday's discussions are on collateral measures, and there is no restriction on what collateral measures we refer to.

Would the hon. Gentleman say what action he or other representatives have taken to give full support to President Johnson's freeze proposals?

Yes. I and my right hon. Friend when he was at Geneva both gave our support in terms.

Dame Irene Ward.

rose—

We must try to make some progress, although I appreciate the importance of the matter. Dame Irene Ward.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, for the purposes of negotiation with the Federal German Government on compensation due to British nationals imprisoned illegally in German concentration camps, he will ask the International Research Organisation for their list of such persons.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the International Tracing Service at Arolsen. An inquiry has already been addressed to this body. The reply has, unfortunately, made it clear that no list exists of British victims persecuted in concentration camps, and that the International Tracing Service could not compile such a list. Their records, which are not complete, consist of an alphabetical index of many million names of former inmates of concentration camps, which is not broken down into nationalities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now supplement the existing official histories of the late war with an official account of the United Kingdom's contribution to the resistance movements on the Continent.

Her Majesty's Government have given a great deal of thought to this question. Some three years ago, they commissioned a professional historian to write an account of the achievements of the Special Operations Executive in France. The draft has now been completed and Her Majesty's Government have decided in principle that it is suitable, subject to further detailed scrutiny, for publication by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Will my hon. Friend convey to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) the appreciation of, I am sure, those connected with the Special Operations Executive and the resistance people whom they helped in Europe of the fact that this decision has been taken? Would he also convey my thanks and those of my two friends who were associated with me in this, Elizabeth Nicholas and Jean Overton Fuller, and pressed the former Prime Minister to take this action? Will he convey how grateful we all are that at last the Government have decided to let the world know something of the work done by the British in conjunction with our European friends?

Yes, Sir.

While the hon. Gentleman is helping us with the writing of past history, would he also help us with the writing of current history and place in the Library an aide mémoire explaining what directives have recently been sent by his right hon. Friend to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations?

I suggest that that is probably another question.