asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the consultations between his Department and the British Broadcasting Corporation concerning British broadcasts to the Middle East; and what action he takes to supply material to counter individual points made in anti-British propaganda from Cairo Radio and Athens Radio.

Consultation is mutual: the British Broadcasting Corporation supplies the Foreign Office with monitoring reports on the output of Athens, Cairo and other radio stations. The Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Missions abroad provide the British Broadcasting Corporation with background information and comment when necessary on the contents of the output.

While I accept my hon. Friend's assurance that consultation is mutual, may I ask him if he is aware that there is growing concern and growing feeling in this country that our propaganda and information services in the Middle East are nothing like strong enough?

I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I think that he would agree, if he knew all the details of what was going on in this respect, that the situation is not nearly as bad as he fears.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in his tour of the Middle East, he will visit Israel.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will arrange to visit Israel, either on his way to or on his way back from the forthcoming South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Conference at Karachi.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to visit the State of Israel in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he does not intend to visit Israel during his coming tour of the Middle East; and if he will extend his itinerary to include Israel.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will visit Israel during his forthcoming tour of the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will include a visit to Israel in his forthcoming tour of the Middle East countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make time to visit Israel during his forthcoming tour.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the importance of a visit by him to Israel, whether he can yet state when he proposes to make such a visit.

I propose to visit Israel after my visit to Turkey on 13th March.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we, on this side of the House, view that decision with very great pleasure? We are glad that as a result of the pressure from us he has changed his schedule, which originally did not include Israel.

That is completely untrue, and I am glad to have been given the opportunity to deny it. This visit was always in my mind, but one does want to ascertain that one's visit would be welcome before one announces it.

Is not the Foreign Minister aware that in the schedule given by the Foreign Office Israel was left out?

For very good reasons; the matter had not then been fixed.

May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his announcement, which I am sure will be received with relief and great pleasure by the Israelis, who, I am quite sure, are most anxious for him to visit them?

I am obliged.

Is my right hon, and learned Friend aware that the announcement he has made will give equal pleasure to this side of the House and will be received with widespread satisfaction by the Jewish community?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange to visit Israel, as well as Egypt and Jordan, during his forthcoming tour.

As regards a visit to Israel, I would refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I have just given. It is my intention to visit Egypt on 1st and 2nd March on my way out to Karachi, but I deeply regret that it is impossible to fit a visit to Jordan into the programme.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his decision to have discussions with the members of the Government of Egypt as well as with the Government of Israel will give great satisfaction to all who believe that a peaceful settlement of the differences between those two countries is possible?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will indicate his schedule for his calls in the Middle East on his journey to Karachi for the meeting of the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty on 6th March.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries he proposes to visit during his forthcoming visit to the Middle East; and whether he will take this opportunity to visit Israel in order that he may obtain first-hand knowledge of the situation on both sides of the armistice-line guaranteed by the United Kingdom.

As the House will be aware, I propose to go to Karachi for the meeting of the Council of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. According to my present programme, I hope to visit Cairo, Bahrein and Delhi on my way to Karachi, and Bagdad, Tehran, Ankara and Tel Aviv on my way back.

I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we regard these visits to both the Arab countries and the State of Israel with very great pleasure, and we wish him every success in any negotiations he is able to conduct while he is there.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the statement made by a Foreign Office spokesman that Middle East affairs were the legitimate concern of every country, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, how far this constitutes a change in the Government's policy; and whether he is now prepared to invite the Soviet Government to consult the signatories of the Tripartite Declaration about delivery of arms to the Middle East.

The Foreign Office spokesman was acknowledging the concern which is legitimate for any member of the United Nations, and his statement represents no change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the last part of the Question. I have nothing to add to what was said by the Prime Minister and by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th December.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether this matter was discussed in Washington, and whether or not he would think again of inviting Russia to a meeting of the Tripartite Powers to discuss this matter of arms to the Middle East?

I must say quite frankly to the right hon. Gentleman that our experience of quadripartite consultations and control in recent years has not been such as to encourage us to extend it to this area. With regard to the Middle East in particular, I think the Soviet attitude over the supply of arms has greatly added to the tension there.

May I ask, then, whether the Foreign Secretary will tell the House how he is going to carry out the obligation of the Tripartite Declaration to have a balance of arms in the Middle East if he does not take into consideration the injection of arms from the U.S.S.R.?

When I spoke in the House on 24th January, I indicated that that was a matter which would have to be taken into account.

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that recent Soviet action in the Middle East has done nothing to encourage opinion in this country to have any confidence that their good faith can be relied on more if they were in a quadripartite agreement than at the moment?

I think that is the effect of the Answer I have given.

Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, nevertheless, it is necessary to be very realistic about this question? If it is conceded that the Western Powers have a legitimate concern in this area and that the U.S.S.R. also has a legitimate concern in this area, what is the practical good purpose to be served by refusing to invite mutual consultations about common legitimate concerns?

The reason why I have answered as I have is because in October and in November attempts were made to persuade the Soviet Government not to add to the tension in the way in which they have done. That is the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that the reference in paragraph 3 of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 to action outside the United Nations is within the provisions of the United Nations Charter; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that paragraph 3 of the 1950 Declaration is consistent with the obligations of Her Majesty's Government under the United Nations Charter, particularly having regard to Article 51.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give a list of the Arab States referred to in the Tripartite Declaration of 1950.

The Arab States which gave the assurances referred to in paragraph 2 of the Declaration were the following: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

When so many mutually suspicious Arab States are involved, is it not all the more necessary that the three Western Powers directly concerned should agree on a common policy and not pour trouble waters on the oil there and then go fishing in them? May I have an answer to that question?

I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made his point in his supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what principles and factors are being taken into consideration by the parties to the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 in arriving at decisions as to whether the balance of arms in the Middle East is being maintained and, in particular, in regard to the possibilities which are to be afforded to a State to defend itself in the event of an attack by a neighbouring State.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations take place between the three signatories of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 before any of the signatories delivers arms to the Middle East.

Her Majesty's Government are in constant and close consultation on the supply of arms to Middle East countries with their cosignatories of the Tripartite Declaration.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two questions arising out of his reply? First, are the same considerations being given in so far as the supply of arms to the Middle East is concerned as we have regard to when we are making arms or obtaining arms for the purpose of defending ourselves against attack? Secondly, does he not think that it is a useful thing for a courageous people, prepared to defend themselves without asking anybody else to make sacrifices on their behalf, to be given an opportunity of defending themselves against attack, as is the case with regard to Israel?

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is what I have said before. We are trying to act in the letter and the spirit of the Tripartite Declaration, and I think that up to date a balance has been kept.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that at the present time each of the three partners of the Tripartite Declaration has information about what is being supplied or about to be supplied by the other two?

I think that the exchange of information takes place in good faith, and I should say that on the whole it is adequate.

May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he can clear up the mystery about the application of the Government of Israel for arms to the value of 50 million dollars? The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said that Her Majesty's Government had no knowledge of such an application. Is it or is it not within the knowledge of the Government that such an application has been made to the United States Government?

I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would put down a Question about that.

Was there any consultation between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government about the supply of arms to Saudi Arabia, which is one of the Arab States, more particularly in view of the fact that we are apparently engaged in a dispute—

They are all after the oil.

with Saudi Arabia at the present time? Is it appropriate, on the part of one of the signatories to the Tripartite Agreement, to send tanks to a country where there is a dispute?

I think there is another Question down on the Order Paper relating to that point.

Rather than oblige either party, or to help both sides to attempt to defend themselves by arms, would it not be better to try to contrive some kind of international police force which could take care of the border, particularly if both sides would move back a kilometre?

The hon. Gentleman will know that that is an idea which I put forward in the House on 24th January, and we are still awaiting the considered views of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on that matter. Whether he calls it a police force, observers or a United Nations delegation does not matter much, so long as they are people who would help to keep the peace; but we must wait for what is said by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange that the recent shipment of eighteen United States tanks to Saudi Arabia is taken into account at the next meeting of the signatories of the Tripartite Declaration in considering the implementation of the Declaration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange that the recent supply of tanks to Saudi Arabia by the United States of America should be taken into consideration when the signatories to the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 make future plans for the implementation of the Declaration; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now be prepared to supply Israel with suitable arms to protect themselves against any attack by a neighbouring country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will place the supply of eighteen light tanks by the United States of America to Saudi Arabia upon the agenda for the next meeting of the Tripartite Declaration Powers, summoned to discuss the implementation of the Declaration.

Specific items are taken into account in the regular consultations on paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Tripartite Declaration which take place between the signatories. This item was no exception to the rule.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is a little difficult for the public to believe in effective coordination in the delivery of arms by the three partners when they read of events such as occurred in New York last week, when a decision to ship eighteen tanks to Saudi Arabia was first made, then suspended and then reaffirmed, all within a space of about forty-eight hours? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in fact, there was any consultation in regard to these switches of decision by the United States?

This process of consultation is quite voluntary as between the three parties, and each of the three parties retains its rights as a sovereign independent State. What we seek to do is to exchange information and try to achieve a common policy. I am certainly not going to be drawn into discussing or into disclosing the attitude of the States concerned on individual items. I think that would destroy the benefit of these consultations and would make the continuance of them on a confidential basis quite impossible.

Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into consideration the fact that Saudi Arabia has expressed her intention, together with other Arab States, of attacking Israel? Will he not realise at this stage that the Israeli people are prepared to defend themselves without endangering the life of any person in this country or in any other country, if they are given the opportunity to defend themselves? What is he prepared to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman did not pay regard to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) on 24th January, in which he said that in his opinion the Israeli forces were well capable of coping with any forces which the Arab States could bring against them. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that similar statements have been made before. We are satisfied that up to date a balance has been kept.

In view of reports that dollars spent in Saudi Arabia were used for fomenting anti-British and anti-American riots in Jordan, is it not foolish to send arms to Saudi Arabia as well? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that will help to preserve the peace in the Buraimi Oasis or other places nearby?

Her Majesty's Government are not sending arms to Saudi Arabia.

But our Allies are.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to explain why there was no consultation between our Government and the United States Government about sending arms to Saudi Arabia at a time when there is a dispute between Saudi Arabia and this country? Was it not a most improper action to take in the circumstances?

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said there was consultation about specific items and that this was no exception to the rule.

If there was consultation, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman make any protest against the action of the United States Government?

The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my previous Answer. I said that I would not be drawn into disclosing the attitude of the Government on particular items, because that would prevent consultation.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that he is satisfied that these tanks will not be used against our Allies? Will he bear in mind the importance of maintaining the balance in the Persian Gulf as well as in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Regarding the first part my hon. Friend's supplementary question, there are certain logistic difficulties which would make it impractical for them to be used for that purpose. The other question is a matter which we have in mind, and it has guided our attitude on this sort of item.

A very unsatisfactory reply.

They are all after the oil.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what Ordinance 1,000 Africans alleged to belong to the passive wing of Mau Mau in Nairobi and the emergency zone have been arrested; and what opportunity they will be given of answering the charge against them.

During the week ended 28th January, 927 Africans were arrested and charged before the courts for various offences including vagrancy, trespass, theft, offences against Emergency Regulations and offences against byelaws. Eighty-two Africans were arrested as Mau Mau suspects, of whom 77 were released, four are still under investigation, and one was made the subject of a detention order.

While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him whether it is the case that a movement along non-violent lines is now developing in Kenya, and whether the Government will differentiate in their treatment of those who adopt non-violent methods and those who are concerned in Mau Mau atrocities?

I do not think that that is really quite part of the original Question. I should like, if I might, to make a detailed list of all the thousand cases, from which the hon. Gentleman will see the proportions. If I may, I will send it to him.

I thank the Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Chege alias Kinyungu, son of Gakungu, Ngethe, son of Mutumbu, Kamau, son of Ngethe, Harrison, son of Kamau, and Wamungu, son of Karaungu, who were arrested in Nairobi on 25th August last and sent to Manyani detention camp, are still in detention; what charge has been brought against them; and what is the evidence on which it is based.

These men are detained on grounds of public security because of their complicity in Mau Mau activities. No charges have been preferred against them. The Advisory Committee on Detainees has reviewed their cases and has recommended that they remain in detention. The Governor has accepted this recommendation.

As the military campaign against Mau Mau is now practically closed, and in view of the very suspicious circumstances concerning the arrest of these men, which I raised in this House on 21st December, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be advisable to have a public trial of men detained so recently instead of merely giving these vague and unproved grounds for their detention?

The evidence concerning the complicity in these Mau Mau activities was really sufficient to satisfy the Advisory Committee, who are under the chairmanship of a judge, and they were quite clear in their minds that there was every justification for detaining these men.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the decisions of the Kenya Government on the recommendations in the Coutts Report regarding the enfranchisement of Africans.

The proposals of the Kenya Government on the recommendations in the Coutts Report have been published in a Sessional Paper which is now being debated in the Legislative Council of Kenya. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, no statement to make at present.

Is the Minister aware of the very deep resentment that there is among Africans towards these proposals, and particularly the proposals that there should be plural votes for certain persons, and an income restriction upon other Africans; and will he urge reconsideration of these proposals?

My information is not the same as that of the hon. Member. I have arranged for copies of the Coutts Report and of the Sessional Paper to be put in the Library. I think that hon. Members would be interested to read them. The discussion in the Kenya Legislature should be over by the end of the month, and I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that it would be better to wait until we have had all the information before reviewing this.

Is it not a fact that these proposals have been very well received in certain quarters, and is it not very much to the advantage of Kenya that the proposals should be given a chance to be worked out without interference from this House?

I think that my right hon. and gallant Friend is quite correct. On the whole, the reaction has been very favourable, and I still think that we must give the proposals a reasonable chance.

May I ask the Minister to look again at the so-called loyalty test, which has caused enormous ill-feeling among the Kikuyu and Embu and Meru peoples, and which can lead to discrimination and abuse by administrative officers in certain cases?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that a debate is going on at the moment in the Kenya Legislature and that this is one of the points that is to be taken up in that debate. I would much rather discuss this when we have had full details of the debate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many children are estimated to have died in the Kikuyu Reserve in Kenya during the last year from causes aggravated by malnutrition; and how far feeding arrangements have been established to save child life.

No estimate is possible. A sample survey in the Central Province in 1955 revealed some malnutrition among children, due mainly not to shortage of food but to incorrect diet. Supplies of free milk, feeding centres and staff to promote health education have been provided to tackle this problem.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen statements by a Minister in the Kenya Legislative Assembly quite recently about hunger in these villages among children? I ask him again, what steps have been taken to meet this situation?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing up this Question. First of all, it gives me a chance to pay a tribute to the wonderful work that the Red Cross and the missions have done to assist our own administration. I should like to make two points on what the hon. Gentleman has said. Supplies are being distributed where necessary, and the district officers who observe food shortages in their districts can call on resources at the disposal of the Provincial Administration to provide free food for children and other forms of relief in case of need.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the result of the inquiry by the Governor of Kenya into the conduct of Mr. Richmond, the administrative officer concerned with the case of Kamau Kichina.

Mr. Richmond's appointment has been terminated.

While warmly welcoming that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that I was perfectly justified in the charges that I brought against this man's professional conduct, for which the Colonial Secretary bitterly attacked me? Would the right hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend that it would be wise to be more sympathetic in future when matters like this are raised?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend always wishes to be sympathetic to the hon. Lady. In fairness to my right hon. Friend, I think I should say that it was he who caused the investigation to be made into this case.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how soon atomic energy will be available for industrial purposes; and what will be its estimated cost as compared with coal and oil at today's prices.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Government's White Paper on Nuclear Power, published last year, in which it is stated that the first commercially operated nuclear power stations will come into operation in 1960–61. It is estimated that the cost of electricity generated in these stations will be about six-tenths of a penny per unit; this is approximately the same as the cost from a modern coal or oil-fired station.

Since those estimates were published about a year ago, may I ask whether everything has been done to expedite this new source of power, since we are so dependent upon increased power for industrial purposes and the output of coal does not seem to meet our needs?

Yes, Sir. I have consulted my noble Friend, who has now returned to this country. It would appear that the estimates which I have given are up to date, but I will, of course, inform House if there are any changes in these estimates.

Would the Lord Privy Seal emphasise that whatever acceleration programme takes place, the main requirement and the main source of fuel for power in this country is going to remain coal for a very long time? We need as much coal as we can get. Would he also bear in mind that, as far as costs are concerned, the cost of oil is in any case quite fictitious?

The best thing I can do is to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said yesterday, that after visiting certain stations he had come to the conclusion that the best way to enlarge and increase atomic power was to support the production of coal, as coal was at the basis of the production of atomic power. I should like to endorse that on behalf of the Government and to show how wise my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary was in that remark.

In view of the extreme urgency of the position, will it not be possible by means of extra priorities to bring this scheme into operation before 1960?

Under this Government we have taken especial steps to develop this new source of atomic power, and I am satisfied that, despite the various difficulties which we are experiencing at the present time, it is the Government's intention to press ahead with this new source of power.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how soon he expects that British firms which accept contracts to build nuclear reactors in foreign and other overseas territories will be able, in cooperation with the Atomic Energy Authority, to supply nuclear fuel as part of the contract.

If the reactors in question require natural uranium, the Atomic Energy Authority are confident that this will be available as soon as it is required. Supplies of enriched uranium are limited, and have to be shared between defence and civil needs. Some of the civil share will be reserved to meet export requirements, although, as I have indicated, the quantity which is available will be limited.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Americans are likely to offer research reactors and appropriate fuel—