asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position concerning war damage compensation for British and Maltese subjects in Tunisia; whether he is aware that many British subjects are still awaiting payment; what effect the transfer of power from France to Tunisia has had on the Anglo-French Agreement; and what steps he is taking to secure expeditious payment of compensation.

Under the Anglo-French War Damage Agreement of 1954 British nationals receive the same treatment as French nationals as regards compensation for war damage in French overseas territories, including Tunisia. I am informed that the Tunisian authorities are in fact handling claims without distinction of nationality and that a number of British claims have already been partly or wholly settled. The French Government have been asked to ensure that the interests of British claimants do not suffer in the process of the transfer of power.

As regards the last part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government could only consider intervention on behalf of a British claimant if it appeared that he was demonstrably receiving treatment inferior to that accorded to a French national in similar circumstances.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1954 the present Foreign Secretary assured us that this was to be dealt with very soon and very quickly? That is now two years ago and there are still many British subjects, especially Maltese, who are not receiving payment; and is it not a fact that many French people are?

If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind which he would wish to bring to my attention, I will consider it, but my information is that payments are proceeding.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the visit of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Middle East, he will make a statement on the action to be taken by the Security Council to deal with the Israel-Arab dispute.

I cannot forecast what further action the Security Council may decide to take. The United Nations Secretary-General has fulfilled the mission entrusted to him by the Council on 4th April, and his final report is now being considered. I am placing copies of this Report in the Library of the House.

Is it the view of the Government that the danger of a conflict in the Middle East has receded as a result of the visit of the Secretary-General? Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the Security Council should deal with these Middle East problems with a view to working out a peaceful solution?

On the latter part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, I can assure him that we are in very close contact with the United States and French Governments. At the moment consultations are proceeding in New York between the three delegations. As to the first part of his question, I think the whole House would wish to join with me in congratulating Mr. Hammarskjold on the success of his mission and the easing of the tension on the Israeli-Arab borders.

We should certainly wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing our appreciation to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the excellent work he has done in the Middle East. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the report that Czech arms have been or are about to be delivered to Syria? Has he any information about that, and if it be the case, will it not make the task of the United Nations much more difficult?

All these arms deliveries undoubtedly make the task of United Nations and all of us a good deal more difficult. As to the particular question of Czech arms deliveries to Syria, I believe some arms are on the way, but I would prefer not to say anything more in the existing situation. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Mr. Hammarskjold.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the achievements of Mr. Hammarskjold will be applauded by the whole House, they can only be palliative? This situation has drifted on for eight years, and unless some steps are taken by some outside body, such as the Security Council, to suggest—if not to impose—a settlement, a situation which has been inflammable for eight years might burst into flame at any moment? Can my right hon. Friend give the House and the world a little encouragement in this matter?

I should dearly like to give the House and the world more encouragement on the prospect of an Arab-Israeli settlement, but at the moment I prefer to say that the immediate danger of an outbreak of hostilities in the region seems to have receded. We hope that we have been able to make some progress in the matter both as a result of the visit of the Secretary-General and as a result of the visit from the Soviet Union to London.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British Desert Locust Team has been asked to leave the Arabian Peninsula by the Saudi Government; and what action he has taken in the matter.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) on 7th May.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer is satisfactory to no one, least of all to his own side of the House? Is he further aware that this uncivilised action of the Saudis is causing great concern, not least in Kenya? Is not this one more snub by the Saudis to the Commonwealth? Can the hon. Gentleman take up the matter in the United nations— in the Food and Agriculture Organisation, for example?

I can assure the hon. Member that the reply gave me no satisfaction either. The matter is of great importance to a considerable number of nations in addition to the British countries concerned.

Is it not a fact that the breeding place of locusts is to a large extent in the Saudi-Arabian district? If that is the case, is it not quite hopeless to do anything of value to eliminate this plague except by dealing with the breeding ground?

I think the remarks of the hon. Member are correct.

In view of the fact that the whole of the Saudi-Arabian economy is maintained by oil royalties from Aramco, the American oil company, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the American State Department to see whether Saudi-Arabia would accept an American team for this purpose?

I will certainly consider that; but my right hon. and learned Friend has already been in touch with the United States Government on this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now review the list of manufactured goods and materials, the export of which is prohibited on strategic grounds, in the light of the White Paper on the talks with the Soviet leaders.

The scope of the list of items under embargo for the Soviet bloc is based on security considerations and is under continuous review in consultation with our Allies. No question of special action therefore arises.

In view of the fact that about one-third of Russia's prospective purchases are on the strategic list and the relevance of many of them to modern warfare is extremely doubtful, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a review of the list now might increase the scope of our trade with Russia?

The important thing is to get on with the two-thirds—if it is two-thirds—of the Soviet list which is free of restriction. The Board of Trade is already in touch with the Soviet trade office in London on that matter.

if the Soviet strategic list is reviewed without at the same time reviewing the China list, will not the Government be in danger of making this country and other countries look extremely ridiculous? Would not the result be that we would be able to supply China via Russia instead of direct?

There are later Questions on the China list and I should not wish to anticipate them.

Does the continuous review of prohibited goods to which my right hon. Friend referred take into account the great deal of "know-how" that has been gained behind the Iron Curtain, and is the prohibition lifted on goods when we realise that they have the "know-how"?

Such matters are, of course, taken into account. As my hon. Friend will recollect, a substantial reduction in the security controls on trade with the Soviet bloc was carried out in 1954 as a result of the review of the list carried out by the Paris Consultative Group and Her Majesty's Government at that time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose further talks on mutual trade and improved relations between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Her Majesty's Government at an early date.

We have just had an extensive and valuable exchange of views with the Soviet leaders. The task now is to follow up and see what progress can be made on the subjects covered by the joint statement issued after the talks. The Board of Trade are already in touch with the Soviet Trade Representative in London about the Russian programme of purchases.

May we have an assurance that nothing which has happened recently will stand in the way of further talks in order to promote greater understanding with the Soviet Union? In addition to the proposed activities of the President of the Board of Trade, is anything being done by the Foreign Office through diplomatic channels to restore relations which may have been disturbed?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing which has happened recently, or which happened during the visit, will prevent us from having further talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the Egyptian Government to stop the handing of anti-British propaganda to passengers on British aeroplanes which are on the airport at Cairo for refuelling.

I have no knowledge of anti-British propaganda being handed to passengers at Cairo Airport. If the hon. Member will provide details, I shall be glad to look into them.

I shall be only too happy to give the details, not only the name of the individual, but also the number of the flight and the date.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when a medium-wave broadcasting station will be installed in Cyprus for the purpose of broadcasting British views to the Near East.

Consideration has been given to the installation of a medium wave station for the British Broadcasting Corporation in Cyprus. Apart from the question of cost, however, Cyprus lies within the area of the Copenhagen Plan of 1948 for regulating the allocation to European broadcasting stations of medium wave frequencies, and it would be difficult for the British Broadcasting Corporation to transmit from Cyprus without infringing this Plan, to which Her Majesty's Government are signatories.

In view of that, would the hon. Gentleman consult the Postmaster-General with a view to having the Copenhagen Plan reviewed in the light of present-day requirements? There cannot possibly be a question of jamming from a station in that area— the distances are too great.

I shall certainly look into that.

May I ask my hon. Friend how long consideration is going to last? Is not this rather a matter of urgency?

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are giving all these matters close attention all the time.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the same considerations apply to the establishment of a station at Aden and whether that might not be done?

That is another question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the numbers of persons employed in the Passport Office and the Passport Visas Office are being increased in the year 1956–57 over 1955–56; and why the salaries are being increased from £292,747 in 1955–56 to £316,765 in the year 1956–57.

The opening of the Foreign Office Passport Agency in Belfast with a staff of two accounts for the increase in staff. The increase in salaries is due to awards affecting the whole of the Civil Service.

In view of the announcement by the Chancellor that Government expenditure is to be reduced by £ 100 million, would it not have been possible to transfer people from England to Ulster to improve this service? Would I be correct in saying that £60,000 was the total amount of fees collected by the Passport Office last year?

I could not give an answer without notice to that question, but I think we might congratulate the Passport Office, which has dealt with an increase of 30 per cent. in the number of passports issued since 1953 without a corresponding increase in staff.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his conversation with Herr von Brentano included a reference to the matter of German payments towards the cost of our forces while in Germany.

Yes, Sir. But I cannot yet add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 7th May.

Is not the position very unsatisfactory? Why should the British taxpayer be called upon to contribute in large measure to a service which is as much to the benefit of Germany as to anybody else? How long is this matter to drag on? Ought we not to consider whether it is really worth while maintaining our forces in Germany at the expense of the British taxpayer?

The right hon. Member ought not to be so gloomy and to anticipate that the negotiations going on will result in the British taxpayer having to pay the cost of British forces in Germany. Negotiations are proceeding, and meanwhile interim arrangements have been made with the German Federal Government to continue support costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Chief Mohammed Begorreh, a British Somali subject, was brought before the Ethiopian Supreme Court and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment on 11th April in the absence of defence witnesses; and what representations he has made to the Emperor Haile Selassie in this matter.

Yes, Sir. The Ethiopian Supreme Court reviewed the case of Mohammed Begorreh and reduced his sentence of imprisonment from two years to eighteen months. I am advised that under Ethiopian law only the Supreme Court, and not the parties to the case, has power to call witnesses in a review of this kind.

I raised this matter during my recent visit to Addis Ababa with the Ethiopian Government. The Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs informed me on 24th April that His Imperial Majesty intended to exercise his prerogative of clemency so as to remit the remainder of the sentence. I understand that Mohammed Begorreh was released on 12th May.

Whilst welcoming the act of clemency on the part of the Emperor and thanking the Minister for the part he played in Addis Ababa, may I ask if it is not a fact that the Ethiopian Government handled this case in a manner which suited them—in other words, in order to confer most prestige on themselves in the eyes of the Somali people and in a way to humble Her Majesty's Government?

I cannot accept that. The important thing is that Mohammed Begorreh has now been released, and I hope that that will improve relations between the Ethiopian Government and the Somalis.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what political considerations, other than the settlement of the future of Germany, prevent his agreement to a disarmament plan involving a level of less than 750,000 men under arms for the United Kingdom.

None, Sir. The debatable question is how far a disarmament plan can be carried out without any political settlements.

Does that mean, as the Minister of State implied last week, that the determining factor in agreeing to such an interim disarmament plan is the level of troops which enables the United States to continue to station forces in Europe? Is that the determining factor, or is it the conclusion of a political settlement?

What I said last week and what I say again now is that nothing prevents us from concluding a disarmament agreement at any time. The question at issue is how far that disarmament can be carried out, and how far the reduction of forces under it can be carried, without a political settlement.

Can the Minister explain how a political settlement will be facilitated by an increased number of troops facing each other over the border?

If the hon. Member had listened to my statement last week he would have heard that we are ready to carry out some measures of disarmament by international agreement prior to a political settlement. What we cannot do is to break up the defence structures, such as N.A.T.O., which form the shield of this country and the free world until such issues as Germany and Europe have been resolved.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the great advantage for the Western Powers which would accrue from the reduction of the forces of the Soviet Union and China to 1½million men each, or less?

Of course I have taken all those factors into account, and I have also taken into account that quite a lot would result from a reduction to 2·5 million.

Would the adoption of the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) affect the question of disarmament and the number of troops in the various sectors?

I do not know which suggestion the right hon. Gentleman means. The right hon. Member in question has made a number of suggestions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give an estimate of the numbers by which the forces of each of the five great Powers would be reduced if the forces of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China were immediately reduced to 2,500,000 and the forces of France and Great Britain were reduced to 750,000; and whether he will propose to the United States and French Governments that such reduction should be carried out unilaterally.

If we include paramilitary forces in the cases of Russia and China (but not militia) and colonial forces in the case of the United Kingdom, the reply to the first half of the Question is, according to our estimates: about 400,000 for the United States of America; about 120,000 for China; about 86,000 for the United Kingdom; about 1,500,000 for the Soviet Union; assuming of course that they have carried out the reduction of 640,000 announced last year. I am unable to give the figures in respect of France. As regards the second part of the Question, Unilateral disarmament can only be taken unilaterally.

Would not such reductions, limited as they are, at least show that the three Governments were genuinely desirous of starting the process of disarmament, and might they not well help to break the present disarmament deadlock? Will not the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give serious consideration to the proposal contained in the Question?

I always give serious consideration to anything the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests to me, but as to the first part of this particular Question, I would inform him that we have said at the Disarmament Conference that we are ready to go down to these figures, prior to the making of any political settlement, as a first step to disarmament. That is a completely new position, and one which we took up in order to meet the Soviet Union. But the problem we have to face in connection with a disarmament agreement is not so much a question of willingness or unwillingness to disarm, but willingness or unwillingness to accept the necessary control machinery.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that he has the very broad support of this country—and certainly of hon. Members on this side of the House—in resisting the suggestions coming from hon. Members opposite that we should engage in unilateral disarmament without first getting some gesture of good faith from the Soviet Union and her satellites?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the White Paper on disarmament policy is to be published.

The White Paper will, I hope, be published on the day the House reassembles after the Whitsun Recess.

Why is the publication of this document to be delayed until after the Whitsun Recess? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that incorporated in it is a statement by Her Majesty's Government on the speech by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)?

The speech of the right hon. Member for Woodford was not made in the Sub-Committee and, therefore, will not figure in the White Paper. As for the delay, it has taken some time to produce a consecutive and reasonably readable account of the Sub-Committee's proceedings, but there has been no intentional delay in any way.

Can we take it that there will be published as soon as possible the verbatim record of the recent discussions at Lancaster House?

As to the verbatim record, that is another reason why the White Paper has been slightly delayed. It would be an extremely expensive matter to publish the verbatim record as a White Paper. Therefore, I would hope that the House would be content to have the verbatim record made available in the Library and that a consecutive account of the Sub-Committee's proceedings should appear in the White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the American Secretary of State about strategic controls on trade with China.

No, Sir. These discussions are not yet concluded. In the meantime, however, more use will be made of the exceptions procedure to permit reasonable exports in appropriate cases to China of goods which are not on the Soviet lists.

The Question referred to the talks which the Secretary of State had at the N.A.T.O. meeting with Mr. Dulles. Cannot the Minister make a statement at the moment about the progress of these discussions, which we know have been going on in a general way for many months? Have they not reached any conclusions?

I have already answered the Question which the hon. Member has now repeated. I have said, "No, Sir. I am not prepared to make a statement about the talks with Mr. Dulles." The discussions are not yet concluded either with the United States or with other countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further progress he can now report on international discussions regarding the ban on export of commercial vehicles to China.

As I have just informed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), the discussions about strategic controls on trade with China are not yet concluded.

But does the Minister's earlier reply mean that the exceptions procedure will now be used to enable the export of commercial vehicles, because he gave an overall guarantee that that procedure was to be used to a greater extent?

Yes, Sir. I did give that undertaking, but decisions as to what cases and what items will figure under the extended use of the exceptions procedure must be taken on the merits of the individual items concerned.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if we delay too long we may lose the Chinese market altogether?

Yes, Sir, but I must also bear in mind that we must proceed in consultation with our friends and Allies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with which countries Her Majesty's Government have concluded alliances, treaties or pacts of mutual defence at present in force.

As the list is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Minister aware that the United States has agreements with 45 countries? Since the United States is our principal Ally, I should like to know whether we are committed in any difficulties which might arise with the 45 States. If two of the 45 Powers declared war on each other, on which side should we fight?

I think the hon. Member had better sort out that rather involved supplementary question and put it on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the discussions at the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what reassessment there has been of the military position.

As is customary, this meeting was attended by Foreign Ministers only and was concerned primarily with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's non-military activities. Nevertheless, the Council noted that Soviet military power continues to increase and agreed that the Alliance must continue to give priority to the maintenance of their unity and strength.

As we were recently informed by the right hon. Gentleman that in the discussion there would be some military reassessment of the position of N.A.T.O., can he say whether any consideration was given to the excessive contribution made by the United Kingdom compared with the contributions made by other countries, equally involved, particularly on the Continent? Is there no prospect of a reduction in our defence expenditure as a result of the co-ordination of the activities of N.A.T.O.?

The right hon. Gentleman had better put the question about a reduction of defence expenditure to the Minister of Defence. As I have informed him, this meeting was not concerned primarily with defence matters but, as is customary and was customary in the right hon. Gentleman's day, was concerned with the non-military activities of N.A.T.O.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It was customary to discuss military matters when the N.A.T.O. Council met, and we are led to believe that military matters were under discussion when the N.A.T.O. Council met recently. May we not have some indication of how far we were affected by those discussions? Is there an upward or downward trend in expenditure?

The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about reviewing defence expenditure. It was customary in his day, and it is certainly customary today, for the review of the Budget of the N.A.T.O. nations to take place at the December meeting and not at the meeting in the spring.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us from this House and from another place who met the Secretary-General last Friday were depressed to find out the poor shape into which the N.A.T.O. organisation has fallen?

Am I correct in thinking that there has been no public statement of the attitude of N.A.T.O. to its military commitments for about a year, and that whereas in the Defence White Papers issued by the Government in two successive years there was a very noticeable change of attitude to the military requirements for the defence of Europe, there has been no corresponding change in N.A.T.O.? Is he aware that the public are worried about this and feel that no strategic thinking is going on in N.A.T.O.?

That is quite untrue; it is a popular misconception, if it exists. Speaking off the cuff, my recollection is that an appreciation of this kind was made after the annual review meeting of N.A.T.O. last December.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he made at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the purpose of reducing expenditure.

So far as military expenditure was concerned no specific reductions were proposed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the military contributions of N.A.T.O. countries are reviewed at the December meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council. The recent meeting was concerned primarily with the non-military aspects of the North Atlantic Treaty.

In view of the heavy burden of Government expenditure, why did we not make specific proposals for a reduction of this amount? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Wednesday last, at Aachen in Germany, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said that the time had come to stop violence and he made certain proposals about bringing Russia into N.A.T.O.? Did the right hon. Member for Woodford speak for the Government, or are the Government to wander on with their negative policy?

So far as stopping violence is concerned, her Majesty's Government have never engaged in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cyprus".] So far as the reduction of the defence budgets is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will have read the N.A.T.O. communiqué which drew attention to the fact that Soviet military strength continues to increase.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British firms are liable to be boycotted by Arab countries if they own an assembly plant in Israel; and what steps he proposes to take to defeat such boycotts.

Yes, Sir. This is another manifestation of the Arab League boycott, which, as the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government neither accept nor condone. Their views on all aspects of this boycott have frequently been made known to the Arab Governments concerned.

Will the Minister have consultations with the President of the Board of Trade to discover whether this boycott by the Arab countries is not contrary to the G.A.T.T.? Secondly, would he not make it clear to British manufacturers who may be intimidated by this behaviour that it is reported that Mr. Henry Kaiser of the U.S.A. and the Renault Company of France are reported to be setting up agencies even in the face of this threatened boycott?

I will certainly look at the point made in the first part of the supplementary question. I have no responsibility for the matter raised in the second part.

Would the hon. Gentleman also enter into consultation with the American Government to find out how far this type of blackmail and menace is being practised in their country and to see whether some action may not be taken by both himself and the American Government in a vicious matter of this nature?

We are, of course, in constant consultation with other Governments concerned, but the fact is that we cannot force Arab countries to trade with individual firms against their will.

Is it not a fact that this boycott has its origin in the fact that the Arab countries consider themselves still at war with Israel? Is not the moral to be drawn that the Security Council, urged on by Her Majesty's Government, should take urgent steps to secure an end to the state of war, which at the moment is only interrupted by an armistice?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, that the important thing is to get a settlement of the deplorable conflict between the Arabs and Israel.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is not a matter with which Israel is concerned at all—that the origin of it being the state of war between the Arab States and Israel has nothing to do with it? This is discrimination against the Jewish citizens of other countries, and will the Government not do anything about it?

If the hon. Gentleman looks into it he will find that that is the reason given by the Arab League for the boycott.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what documents dealing with the report of Sir Roger Casement into the conditions in Putumayo are still kept at the Foreign Office.

All the relevant Foreign Office correspondence is kept either in the Foreign Office or at the Public Record Office. It is not available for public inspection, but a great deal of it has been published.

In view of the fact that Sir Roger Casement investigated conditions in Putumayo some fifty years ago, will not the Minister consider allowing authors and historians to have access to these documents?

No, Sir. There was a very full Blue Book published in 1912, and the other documents, of course, are all documents which at the moment fall within the closed period, which is after 1902.

Would it not be better to let sleeping traitors lie?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to obtain restitution or compensation from the Spanish Government for the recent seizure by officials of its Ministry of Information of 36,189 volumes of the New Testament and some books of the Old Testament belonging to the British and Foreign Bible Society in Madrid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid following the seizure of copies of the New Testament and other books from the British and Foreign Bible Society's premises.

I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on 7th May, that the Spanish Ministry for Foreign Affairs has been requested to investigate the matter with a view to the restoration of the property seized.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the first time the property of the British and Foreign Bible Society has been confiscated without a shadow of justification? In addition to looking into the question of compensation, would he try to obtain some assurance from the Spanish Government that they will not commit unfriendly acts of this kind in the future?

I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, when we see what the reply of the Spanish Ministry is.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further consultations have taken place between the United Kingdom, the United States and French Governments on the supply of arms to Israel following the recent supply of arms by Czechoslovakia to Syria.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, there is close and frequent consultation with our Allies on the question of arms supplies to the Middle East.

Is there any truth in the report appearing in the various newspapers that, following conversations in Paris between the Foreign Ministers, it has now been agreed that the Government of Israel should be allowed to purchase 24 Mystères from France and 12 Canadian Sabre Jets from Canada? If so, is this country making any contribution to the armaments of Israel?

I do not think it would be in the public interest for me to go into the details of individual items which may or may not be on their way to Israel, or which may or may not be sanctioned as exports to Israel.

Whilst it may be inadvisable to furnish details of arms that have been sent to Israel, or to any of the Arab countries, is there any harm likely to be done by now announcing that arms are being sent to Israel by some of the Allied countries, and that it may well be that arms are being sent from this country? Is it not a good thing that that should be told to the world, and particularly to the Arab countries?

Of course, Mr. Speaker, and I have told the right hon. Gentleman that on a number of occasions in the House of Commons.

Is it or is it not Her Majesty's Government's policy that a qualitative balance of armaments should be maintained in this area, and can that qualitative balance be maintained while tanks or any other weapons equal to those supplied from Czechoslovakia are not made available to the Israelis?

It is Her Majesty's Government's policy to maintain a balance of arms, and quality is taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Article 8 of the 1954 Agreement with Egypt confirming freedom of navigation of the Suez Canal will be put into effect.

I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in reply to Questions on this subject on 7th May.

Has the hon. Gentleman in the meantime looked at Article 8 of the Agreement in which both England and Egypt express their determination to uphold the 1888 Convention guaranteeing freedom of navigation of the Canal? Is this article worth the paper on which it has been written? Has there been the slightest bleat of protest on the part of Her Majesty's Government as a result of Egypt's complete disregard of this article?

The 1954 Agreement is between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government, but the obligation which it confers is an international one. The responsibility for maintaining it does not rest on the British Government alone.

asked the Attorney-General if he will consider the effect of the recent judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council dealing with the jurisdiction of our courts of law to question the validity of a compulsory purchase order where the order has been obtained by corrupt or fraudulent means; and if he will take steps to introduce legislation to deal with the situation disclosed by this decision.

asked the Attorney-General if his attention has been drawn to the recent judgment of the House of Lords on the jurisdiction of the courts to question the validity of a compulsory purchase order even when the order has been obtained by corrupt or fraudulent means; and if he will consider the introduction of legislation to deal with the unsatisfactory situation resulting from this decision.

As I appeared in this case I am, naturally, aware of the terms of the decision. I do not think that it discloses any need for legislation at this stage.

Does the Attorney-General not realise that this decision discloses a wrong without a remedy? Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not taking urgent steps to see that the wrong is righted?

I do not agree that this discloses a wrong without a remedy. The Crown Won

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the judgments?

Of course I have read the judgments, and in my view they do not give rise to any need for any new legislation at present. There were some dicta delivered by a number of their Lordships about the possibility of bringing an action to quash a compulsory purchase order made in bad faith before the compulsory purchase order was confirmed, but the point at issue in that case was whether a compulsory purchase order could be challenged years after it had been made when the Statute provides that a challenge can only be made within six weeks.

asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that the rules requiring a contribution towards costs by an assisted litigant operate harshly; that certain prospective litigants, unable to find money to make such a contribution, are thereby debarred from seeking and obtaining redress from grievances; and if he will consider and propose some remedy for this.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 6th February.

Does the Attorney-General not realise that this is also an urgent matter, and will he not have it investigated by the appropriate tribunal so that a remedy can be found?

As I said on 6th February,

"the Advisory Committee recommended that the public money available should go first towards extending the scheme to parts of the Act not yet in force rather than to amending the parts that are already in operation"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 1316.1

asked the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to amend the law of criminal procedure relating to the preferment of indictments.

None.

Does the Attorney-General remember that, with the permission of the House, I introduced a Private Members' Bill to ensure that every accused person shall have notice of all charges against him before trial and that this desirable reform has been blocked by objection each Friday, and will he discontinue this vicarious opposition to it?

I cannot regard this as a beneficial Bill. Alterations with regard to procedure in relation to indictments do not require a Bill. Alterations to such procedure can be made either by a practice direction, or by a rule under one of the indictments rules.