We move the Adjournment of the House in order that I may make the following statement in accordance with the undertaking that I gave yesterday to give the House as soon as I possibly could an indication of the reply we propose to send to the Resolution of the Assembly of the United Nations.

I should first recall a statement which I made in the House in the course of my speech on 1st November when I said this :

"The first and urgent task is to separate these combatants and to stabilise the position. That is our purpose. If the United Nations were then willing to take over the physical task of maintaining peace in that area, no one would be better pleased than we. But police action there must be to separate the belligerents and to prevent a resumption of hostilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November. 1956 ; Vol 558 c. 1653.]

Since that statement was made, I have had consultations in London with the French Foreign Minister. As a result, Her Majesty's Government and the French Government are sending the following reply to the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly :

"The British and French Governments have given careful consideration to the Resolution passed by the General Assembly on 2nd November. They maintain their view that police action must be carried through urgently to stop the hostilities which are now threatening the Suez Canal, to prevent a resumption of these hostilities and to pave the way for a definitive settlement of the Arab-Israel war which threatens the legitimate interests of so many countries.

They would most willingly stop military action as soon as the following conditions could be satisfied :

(i) Both the Egyptian and the Israeli Governments agree to accept a United Nations force to keep the peace ;

(ii) The United Nations decides to constitute and maintain such a force until an Arab-Israel peace settlement is reached and until satisfactory arrangements have been agreed in regard to the Suez Canal, both agreements to be guaranteed by the United Nations ;

(iii) In the meantime, until the United Nations force is constituted, both combatants agree to accept forthwith limited detachments of Anglo-French troops to be stationed between the combatants."

We have been in consultation with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. [HON. MEMBERS : "And Canada?"] I am coming to that. The House will understand the difficulties of timing in these consultations, but I have good reason to believe that those Governments will welcome my statement. We have also communicated the substance of the statement at once to the Governments of Canada and the United States, and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The first paragraph of the Resolution carried by 64 votes to 5 in the General Assembly of the United Nations calls upon all parties now involved in hostilities to agree to an immediate cease-fire and to halt the movement of military forces and arms into the area

It is unfortunately perfectly clear, both from the reports of the continuing and, indeed, intensification of bombing by British planes and from the Prime Minister's statement this morning, that the British Government are not carrying out the recommendation of the Assembly. We are, therefore, faced with the position that our Government are defying a Resolution of the United Nations Assembly, carried by a majority which is larger, I believe, than that on any other Resolution previously carried by the Assembly. We can only say that, for our part, we regard this as utterly deplorable.

As regards the conditions laid down by the Government, it is no part of the business of Her Majesty's Government to lay down conditions in this matter. It is their duty, as loyal members of the United Nations—if they were loyal members—to accept that majority decision. [HON. MEMBERS : "And sell Britain?"]

I must ask the Prime Minister a number of questions on his statement. First of all, is he aware that the Egyptian Government have already announced that they are prepared to agree to an immediate cease-fire if all the other parties do so as well? Therefore, one of the combatants at any rate has already agreed to this.

Secondly, is the Prime Minister aware, as he should be, because the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has announced it, that the Suez Canal is now blocked and that the consequence of the intervention by Her Majesty's Government, far from facilitating the passage of ships through the Canal, has had precisely the opposite effect?

Is the Prime Minister further aware that the Israeli Government have announced that the fighting in the Sinai Desert area is virtually at an end, and that, therefore, the original situation, from that point of view, has substantially changed?

The Canal is blocked, there has been no rescue operation for British ships, no British lives have been saved, and all that has happened is that the intervention of Her Majesty's Government on behalf—or, rather, against Egypt—has no doubt prematurely brought the operations in the Sinai Desert to a close. [HON. MEMBERS : "Warmonger."] In those circumstances, what is the objection—[Interruption.] What Her Majesty's Government have undoubtedly done, of course, is to intervene against Egypt, which was clearly attacked by Israel. I do not know whether they regard that as a matter of which they should be proud. I do not know whether they regard that as separating the combatants. I do not know whether they regard that as settling hostilities. What they have done is to bomb a number of civilians as well as military installations in Egypt. What they have done is to destroy all faith in collective security. What they have done now, by refusing to accept the United Nations Resolution, is virtually to destroy that institution, which the Prime Minister once described as the hope of mankind.

I must also ask the Prime Minister this. He speaks of the United Nations force, which has been proposed by Mr. Lester Pearson, being brought in. [Interruption.] Never mind ; it was proposed in the Assembly of the United Nations. [Interruption.] We need not really go into this. We proposed this long, long ago. The Prime Minister speaks of the United Nations deciding to constitute and maintain such a force until an Arab-Israel peace settlement is reached and until satisfactory arrangements have been agreed in regard to the Suez Canal.

So far as an Arab-Israel peace settlement is reached, there is a case—in our opinion, a strong case—for a United Nations force to police the Armistice Agreement frontiers of the Arab States and Israel. Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that this United Nations police force should do that, and if they do that, what reason is there for such a police force to operate in the Canal Zone at all?

Secondly, I would ask why the Prime Minister has brought in the phrase about satisfactory arrangements being agreed in regard to the Suez Canal. Does he mean by that that Egypt is to be bound to accept, by force, the eighteen-Power proposals, or what does he mean by it, and why indeed should the settlement of the Suez Canal issue be brought into the matter at all?

Finally, by what right is the Prime Minister now proposing that, until the United Nations force is constituted, both combatants have still to accept the original ultimatum?

All this is unquestionably in defiance of the Resolution of the General Assembly. One cannot get away from that. For our part, we regard the Government's reply today as the most tragic statement that has been made in this House since 1939.

I know that passions run very high on both sides of the House in this matter, but I do beg hon. Members opposite to realise how terribly anxious we are about the implications of this action. It may be possible, and no doubt is possible and comparatively easy, for British and French forces to subdue Egypt—nobody ever doubted that—but do hon. Members not reflect in their hearts that the implications of this defiance of the Resolution of the Assembly mean that in future that Assembly can never hope to cope with any international crisis again?

Do not hon. Members appreciate that at this time above all, when the news of Russian aggression in Hungary is coming through, it is an immense tragedy that the moral strength of this country and of the United Nations, because of our action, is so gravely damaged? We have had a great opportunity—and even now it would have been open to the Government—despite all that has happened, to accept the Resolution of the General Assembly, to say that in the light of this and because we believe in international order and because we believe in the Charter of the United Nations, despite everything that has been said and done in the last few days, we are prepared to accept it.

The Government could, if they had done that, to some extent at least have restored our reputation and moral authority. They could, if they had done that, at once have made it a thousand times easier to deal with the Hungarian situation. [HON. MEMBERS : "How?"] I beg hon. Members—I repeat that I know how high passions rise—to listen to my words on this. We represent very many millions of British people. We represent on this issue the point of view of millions of men and women, not all Labour Party supporters, many of them of no political persuasion, and, I venture to say, many of them persons who have hitherto voted Conservative.

If only the Government had been prepared to accept the Resolution, much of the damage could have been repaired. Unfortunately, they have refused. They have not only refused but are continuing the war against Egypt, continuing the bombing and the destruction and the casualties. All that has been put forward today is a niggling, haggling kind of proposal, which is—[Interruption.]. Up to this moment, I for my part had hoped for a change in Government policy. I had hoped originally that the Government would have accepted our first proposal to defer action. They refused. I hoped then that the pressure of world opinion upon them would have made them change their mind, and I hoped finally that the passing of this Resolution by such a vast majority in the United Nations Assembly would have brought them to their senses.

Alas, that is not so, and we can draw only one conclusion. That is that if this country is to be rescued from the predicament into which the Government have brought it, there is only one way out, and that is a change in the leadership of the Government. Only that now can save our reputation and re-open the possibility of maintaining the United Nations as a force for peace. We must have a new Government and a new Prime Minister. The immediate responsibility for this matter rests upon the only people who can affect the situation—hon. Members opposite. I beg them to consider in their hearts to where we are being led at the moment. I beg them to consider the appalling international consequences of this grave error, and I ask them, having done so, to do their duty.

The Adjournment was moved at once, because I thought that that was the best way to proceed. Of course, I am entirely at the disposal of the House. There are one or two questions which the right hon. Gentleman put which I should like to answer now on points of fact, but I propose to give nothing but fact and not to reply on matters of controversy, and then my right hon. and learned Friend can later deal with the points, if that is an agreeable way to proceed. My points of fact will be short, but I want to make clear our attitude ; I am in the hands of the House, and I can speak only with permission.

Naturally, we wish the Prime Minister to answer our questions on the understanding that we may treat this, for the moment, as a kind of Question Time and that I may be permitted equally, if I see the necessity, to press further points on the Prime Minister

I have never made any objection to that procedure. The first of the two points on which I want to concentrate, because they are important, is our attitude to the General Assembly Resolution. I must say to the House that it is not true to say that countries are not allowed to make counter-proposals or other suggestions if the General Assembly has passed a Resolution. That has never been the position, because a General Assembly Resolution, as the House knows, is a recommendation to Governments. Action, of course, can be approved only by the Security Council. Therefore, I hold—only as a point of fact—that we are entirely within our rights in putting forward our views on the Resoluton. That is exactly what we have sought to do.

The second point which the right hon. Gentleman raised and with which I want to deal concerns his question of why we had included the Suez Canal in the second paragraph of our reply. We considered that carefully. The object—as I think hon. Members will see when they have had time to study the reply—is to show that we shall try to use this situation to deal with all the outstanding problems in the Middle East, and it would be unwise to leave any one of them unresolved.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me why we should operate in the Canal Zone. The answer, of course, is that it is in the Canal Zone that, in our judgment, the danger has lain and still lies.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that after this the United Nations would never be able to operate again. Each one of us is entitled to his judgment on that. I take exactly the opposite view. I am sure that a great many people in other lands share it. If the United Nations would take this example—[An HON. MEMBER : "This example?"]—this opportunity to build up an international force and take practical action to meet a situation which cannot be met by passing resolutions, then I am sure that the future of the United Nations would be assured and peace much strengthened.

We do not contest the right—in a legal sense—of the British Government to make what reply they like ; what we contest is their moral right to defy the Resolution of the Assembly. As for the Prime Minister's last remarks, let me remind him of this ; he spoke of the United Nations following our example—

No

Yes. Does not he realise that the whole essence of the United Nations is that countries should not act independently and without its authority? Does not he realise that other countries, acting independently [AN Hon. Member : "Korea."] Somebody raised the issue of Korea. In the case of Korea, action was taken under Article 51 of the Charter, in self-defence, whereas in this case an act of aggression was committed against another country. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite do not understand that, they understand nothing.

If I may complete what I wanted to say upon this point, does not the Prime Minister realise that this example of independent, aggressive action, under the guise of a police action—an excuse which nobody believes—may be, and almost certainly will be, followed by other potential aggressors in the world, and that we ourselves will be the greatest sufferers of all from what the Government have now done?

Sir Robert Grimston.

On a point of order. At this stage, Mr. Speaker, in order to elucidate points emerging from the Prime Minister's statement, are we not entitled to put questions to him? Would that not be more advantageous than to proceed immediately to a debate? May I ask the Prime Minister a question?

I understood that the Prime Minister had agreed to some questions being asked to elucidate his statement, and the hon. Member whom I called was, I thought, going to ask a question and not make a speech.

May I, as a not so very junior private Member, submit that this is a matter not for the Prime Minister to determine but for you, Mr. Speaker? Private Members are entitled to their long-established rights. If it is agreeable, one or two questions can take place between leaders, as it were, by the use of the phrase "Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down"—the usual old method that we find so convenient ; but that does not and should not open the door to what, with respect, I suggest is an abuse of the ordinary, long-established tradition of proper debate. There is now a Motion before this House. It cannot be right to let that develop from a debate into a series of questions and repeated speeches.

he hon. Member is quite right in what he says, and normally I should hold the House to that strict procedure. But a statement of great importance has been made, and the Prime Minister himself has expressed the view that he will be perfectly prepared to answer some questions upon it. Before the House proceeds to the Motion, it might help to elucidate the matter that it is going to debate. But when I think it right, it will be my duty to bring the House back to the Question which is before it. That is what I propose to do in this matter. If the hon. Member whom I called does not wish to ask a question, I shall not call him now.

It would be difficult for me to put what I have to say in the form of a question. Therefore, I defer to what you say, Mr. Speaker.

I want to put two questions to the Prime Minister in order to elucidate certain of the points that emerged from his statement. First, does the Anglo-French reply to the Resolution of the United Nations mean this, among other things—that in the event of the acceptance of the proposal for a United Nations force to intervene and to hold the peace until a final and peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute is reached—which we all desire—the Government are ready to have the Anglo-French forces replaced by United Nations forces as rapidly as possible? It obviously could not take place overnight, but would he agree to the change being made as speedily as possible?

My second point—[Interruption]—I understand that this assembly believes in free speech, and if I am asking a question that is disagreeable I cannot help it : I am putting it because I sincerely believe in the necessity for what I am asking in order to reach a settlement. Do we understand that while the reply is being considered the Government will cease to bomb Egyptian airfields or other parts of Egyptian territory? Do we understand that to be the position? It appears to me that if the Government agreed to that suggestion it might go a long way in the direction of a reasonable and final settlement.

As regards the first of the right hon. Gentleman's questions. the answer is "Yes". In our conception the United Nations force would go in and do that work. and we should naturally not expect to be excluded from it. We should want to be a part of it.

Oh.

That is natural. I do not want to mislead the House. If there is to be a United Nations force, this country, with considerable interests in the matter, could be part of it. I should hope that the House would feel that I was not unreasonable—[An HON. MEMBER : "Burglars."] We are not burglars. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has himself told us that we brought some fighting prematurely to an end.

The Prime Minister is perfectly right. What we did was to go in and help the burglar and shoot the householder.

I really do not think that the nations of this world, when they ponder this matter and all the history that has gone before this last Israeli attack, are going to say that all the blame is on Israel and all the credit is for Nasser, or say that one was the householder and the other the burglar.

As to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I could not give that undertaking because, in the meanwhile, there must be a continuation of the action which, in my original statement, I said was necessary in order to

"separate these combatants and to stabilise the position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st November, 1956; Vol. 558. c. 1653.]

I am not sure that I can put in the form of a question what I want to say following upon the answer which has just been given to the second question asked by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Perhaps I can put it in this way. Does not the Prime Minister realise that not only as signatories, but largely as the proposers and largely as the draftsmen of the United Nations Charter, our first duty is to obey the Resolution of the United Nations?

I asked the right hon. Gentleman yesterday if he did not regard that Resolution as an actual directive, and I put it for the reason that not only are we bound to follow the recommendations of the United Nations, but that under Article 2 we pledged ourselves to assist the United Nations in carrying out its actions. Therefore, it is much more than a recommendation. That being so, I think that the whole world will be disappointed with the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given.

What the Prime Minister ought to have done the moment that Resolution was passed was to say, "I obey that ; I cease fire, but I also now propose to the United Nations these proposals for discussion." It may be, as the Prime Minister said, that out of this evil good may come, that at last we may have an international police force to carry out the recommendations of the United Nations.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether these questions count as speeches, or are they merely questions?

That is a matter which I shall ponder. It depends to some extent, I think, on whether it is really a question or a speech. I am the judge of that, and I think I can form a pretty shrewd opinion.

I wish to put a question, and I think it is one which the Prime Minister will accept as relevant. The House of Commons has been given no official information, although we are in armed conflict with Egypt, as to the military situation. Surely this House is entitled to hear from the Prime Minister, or from somebody on the Government Front Bench, what exactly is the military situation, and, for example, what truth there is in the statement which we have read in the Press that the Suez Canal is blocked, and what the Government propose to do about it. Is anybody going to inform this House of what is happening to our troops who, in the name of this country, have been sent into action? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must give the House some information.

Certainly. The intention is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence shall make a statement on this in the course of the discussion. I thought, however, that what the House wanted to deal with at once was this Resolution in respect of which I undertook to make a statement at 12 o'clock. I think I ought to say that we are sending it now to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the Governments of Canada and the United States. I made the statement here first because I wanted to tell the House at once. I am sure those Governments will not regard it as a discourtesy that I have done so.

rose—

Does the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) wish to ask a question?

Yes, Sir. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, although many of his followers have had misgivings, there is not one of them who is not 100 per cent. behind him.

I also want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that in the unanimous opinion of the Conservative Party throughout the country the Government would have failed in their duty had they not taken this immediate action? I think that my right hon. Friend may have been aware of this. I think that the Leader of the Opposition is living in a world of his own imagination. If the Resolution of the United Nations means anything at all it must be backed up by a police force.

I merely want to remark that I think that the intervention of the hon. Member for Farnham, though couched appropriately in an interrogative form, would count with me as a speech.

I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the last part of his statement in which he intimated to the House that the Government had been in consultation with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. I think that the Government also communicated the substance of the statement to the Governments of Canada and the United States and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We are a member of a Commonwealth. Do the Government propose to communicate with other members of the Commonwealth, and, if not, why not?

Certainly we do, and probably already, mechanically, have done so. I particularly mentioned Canada and the United States in this connection because of Mr. Pearson's observations in connection with the contribution of an armed United Nations force when he spoke at the Assembly. Therefore, I immediately communicated in particular with him, but I trust, indeed I am sure, that by now communications have gone out not only to the Commonwealth Governments, but to a number of other interested Governments.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that to make a statement on this matter in the House and to exclude consultation with Asian members of the Commonwealth on the statement is another blow to Commonwealth unity?

My right hon. Friends tells me that messages have already gone to them. I told the House actually before, I think, the messages had gone to anyone in detail because I wanted to give it to the House. I repeat again that I sent the statement to Canada because of the speech of Mr. Pearson and because I thought the House would think it right to tell him at once.

Before we get on to the general debate on this statement, I understand there is an anxiety to hear a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the situation in Hungary.

rose—

point of order. May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that following the statement last night of the Minister of Transport with regard to the blockage of the Suez Canal, there is now very grave apprehension so far as industry in Britain is concerned? Would it not be improper if our questions on the Middle Eastern issue were to be discontinued until we had ascertained from the Government precisely what the position is as regards the flow of oil to this country?

I understand there is to be a statement about that which will take that matter into account.

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if we could separate these different issues and continue for the time being with the Suez and Egyptian question and have a statement by the Minister of Defence before we proceed to the question of Hungary. I have no particular timetable to suggest, but I am sure that so far as my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned they have a great many more points to put on the Egyptian situation before we go on to Hungary.

I am quite agreeable to any course which suits the House, but I think that if we get on to the Adjournment debate it will then be in order for all these points to be raised and answered. If we go on with questions which tend to adopt a rhetorical and persuasive nature, rather than a purely interrogative one, what we get is an irregular debate without a Question before the House. It is my duty to prevent that as much as I can, and I think I ought to, but if the House wishes to defer the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary it is a matter for him and for the House. If he chooses to rise I shall, of course, call him.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with respect to what you have said. Surely it would be for the convenience of the House that we should be told just what is the military position? We do not know yet if anybody has landed. Surely, we should be told whether troops are engaged other than from the air, and it would be a matter of convenience for us if the Minister of Defence makes his statement at an early time.

That is arranged for. If the House is patient, the Minister of Defence will make a statement on the whole subject.

rose—

Order. How many points of order are being raised? Mr. Silverman.

Further to that point of order. One realises that this is an unusual situation with probably no precedent. But would it not be in your view, Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the House if we could be told at least one fact which the Prime Minister must know and in the ignorance of which most of our questions may be almost pointless? Without waiting for the Minister of Defence to give us an appraisement of the whole military situation, cannot we be told now by the Prime Minister whether one of his junior Ministers was correct last night in a statement which he made in his constituency, and which is reported in the Press this morning, that troops are actually on the point of landing? Have they landed, or are they on the point of landing?

rose—

Order. At the moment, I think that all these points are premature. I understand that the Minister of Defence is to make a statement about his own affairs, and we shall certainly get all these things later.

Further to the point of order which I was endeavouring to raise earlier, Mr. Speaker. Surely you would agree that it is much better that we should deal with this defence issue quite separately from a statement on Hungary, and that if we get the statement on Hungary, the whole thing will get into a muddle.

Not necessarily. I do not think so.

rose—

Order. I wish to remind the House that we have a very short time for this debate. I hope that hon. Members will not try to anticipate their chances of asking questions later by raising points of order. We should really get on. The conduct of business is only to some extent in my hands. I wish to try to do what pleases the House and what hon. Members find convenient, but I am bound to say that if the Government wish to make a statement on Hungary now, there is no reason why the House should not listen to it.

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see why there should really be any difference of opinion about this. It is obviously extremely inconvenient to have the Hungary issue thrust in the middle of the discussion on Egypt. It would be much more satisfactory for all hon. Members if we could stick to the same subject. What I venture to suggest is that we continue to the conclusion of the debate—whether it is questions or debate is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide—on the Egyptian question, and that the Foreign Secretary makes his statement on Hungary at about half-past two ; because I think that if we were to apportion time, that kind of distribution would be appropriate.

The difficulty which the Government are in is that we were asked for a statement on Hungary, and it so happens that we were not asked for a statement on defence—[HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."]—but the House need not get worried. Hon. Members are to have a statement on defence in a very few minutes. But the Minister of Defence will not be ready to give his statement before about a quarter-of-an-hour or twenty minutes from now. He is trying to oblige the House, and he is still collecting the latest facts, and will oblige the House by giving that statement as soon as possible.

As the Foreign Secretary is ready with his statement on Hungary, I suggest that we should ask him to give the statement on Hungary and then we could have the statement on defence when it is ready. Then we could revert to the general debate on the Question before the House. [HON. MEMBERS : "No."] I think that is the best way to avoid a scrappy interchange and to give the House the information which it desires.

The last thing in the world that we on this side of the House wish to do is to waste our time in a wrangle on procedure. But I submit to the Leader of the House that there are a number of questions to be asked and comments to be made on the Prime Minister's statement. I think it would be far the best course, therefore, if we were to spend the next twenty minutes or so continuing our discussion on the Prime Minister's statement. Then we could have the statement by the Minister of Defence and after that, and when the discussion has finished on that, we could have the statement on Hungary.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that that course would be most unfair to back bench Members, particularly hon. Members on this side of the House.—[HON. MEMBERS : "Why?"]—because Mr. Speaker himself has said that a question, if it is in the nature of a speech, would rank as a speech, and would preclude the hon. Member asking it from intervening further in the debate. I have myself had experience of that in the last two or three days. I am most anxious that those hon. Members who wish to speak, and who have an argument which cannot be put in the form of a question, should have an opportunity of doing so. If the debate is limited solely to the interrogation of Ministers and points of order, if it is cast solely in an interrogatory form, it will be highly unsatisfactory ; and an opportunity should be given for speeches as well.

rose—

Order. I hope that the House will bear with me if I try to come to a decision on this and advise the House. Otherwise it is my experience that we shall waste a great number of precious minutes on this matter. Is the Minister of Defence ready to make his statement?

indicated assent.

Then I think we should have it. Mr. Head.

rose—

Sit down.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that only Privy Councillors have had an opportunity to question the Prime Minister? Is there to be no opportunity for private Members to be able to ask the many questions which are in their minds?

If the hon. Member and others like him make no further inroads on our time, I think that we can enable a fair sprinkling of private Members to take part in the debate.

The air plan, carried out by the Royal Air Force, the Fleet Air Arm and the French Air Forces, has been to neutralise the Egyptian Air Force. This has been largely accomplished by means of bombing attacks on airfields by Valiants and Canberras, followed by low level ground attacks. The object of the bombing attacks was to prevent the Egyptian Air Force from operating during the low-level ground attacks, in which Venoms of the Royal Air Force, together with Naval aircraft and French aircraft took part. The plan was devised to achieve the maximum destruction of Egyptian aircraft with the minimum loss of Egyptian life. A very high degree of accuracy was achieved.

After this phase, the attacks are being switched to other military targets, particularly armour, and successful attacks have been made in the past 24 hours.

Many hundreds of sorties have been flown. One Venom aircraft is so far unaccounted for.

Four blockships have been sunk in the Port Said approach to the Canal. [HON. MEMBERS : "By whom?"] By the Egyptian Government.

Reports indicate that Egyptian forces are withdrawing in some disorder to Kantara and Suez, and there are indications that some have reached the Canal area. Egyptian armoured units are moving from the Delta to the Canal area.

Repeated warnings have been given to the Egyptian civilian population to keep away from airfields and purely military installations.

Will the Minister of Defence give some indication of the degree of success of the air attacks? Has he yet been able to ascertain how many aeroplanes of the Egyptian Air Force have been destroyed? Can he give any information about the Canal base and the material which we have there? Has that now been occupied by the Egyptians and have all the British people who are normally resident there gone away? Are we to understand from the absence of any comment on the matter that up to the present moment there has been no landing of army units, whether French or British, in Egypt?

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give an estimate of how many Egyptian planes had been destroyed. The photographic reconnaissances to see the result of these attacks are still being analysed, and I would rather not give a precise number now because it is not yet at hand from Nicosia, but all indications are that the vast majority of these attacks were very successful, and I think that the destruction of planes has been high.

So far as the base is concerned, during the period of the original Suez crisis, before fighting broke out between Israeli and Egyptian forces, the base was evacuated of all families and all personnel who were not essential to the minimum running of the base. When this sudden occurrence took place, a rapid warning was sent to the British personnel in the base, but we do not know how many got away or what the position is. There are indications that some have been taken into custody by the Egyptian authorities.

The answer to the last part of the question is that no landing has taken place.

Has the Egyptian Army taken charge of the base? Further, has the Minister any information as to the position of our own nationals in Cairo? Has there been any trouble there at all?

When these British personnel, who were non-combatants—civilians—left, the base was empty and in the hands of the Egyptian authorities, but, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the vast majority of the really valuable and important material in the base has been removed. I think that the question of our nationals in Cairo is a matter more for the Foreign Secretary than for me.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions of which I have given him notice? Would he tell the House what equipment has been used in these operations which was supplied by mutual security aid and whether the permission of the United States Government has been obtained for the use of that equipment?

The second question is whether he would be good enough to tell the House at what time the first warning was given to the residents, not only to the Egyptians but to the Greek, Italian and French communities, of the possibility of an attack upon Egyptian airfields, and how long was there between the first warning and the attack upon the Heliopolis national aerodrome? Is the Minister aware that the statement made by the Government caused complete panic among the 200,000, many of them foreign, nationals in the vicinity of that aerodrome?

My third question is whether he will confirm that among the first objects hit was the Almaza hospital at Heliopolis?—

Shame.

The warning went out at 16,00 hours and the first attack went in at 16.15—

Oh.

Order. There is no purpose in asking questions if the answers are not listened to.

On the question of warning, I would remind the House that there were a very large number of MiG fighters on the ground in Egypt. To give early warning of impending air attack is to put our own airmen in considerable danger. Secondly, I would remind the House that these attacks did not take place simultaneously. They were phased one after the other and, because of some doubt about casualties, one attack was cancelled altogether.

Thirdly, I would say that, so far as all our information goes, the one thing that has been extremely marked in these attacks is the very light loss of life so far as we know. [HON. MEMBERS : "How do you know?"] I am told that the Egyptian Government themselves have stated that the total loss of life does not exceed 100.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked me about Almaza hospital. There is on the edge of the airfield at Heliopolis a large building which was a hospital but which I understand is now a military school. It is right on the edge of the airfield and, although I am not 100 per cent. certain, the last information we had was that it was not used as a hospital but was a military school.

The hon. Gentleman asked another question about American equipment under the mutual aid programme. It is operationally quite impossible and impracticable to segregate items of equipment one from the other throughout a force like the Royal Air Force. It would be perfectly impossible to have such a force—it could not be done—segregated in two parts in that way.

The condition on which the American Government supplied and paid for this equipment was that it should not be used without the prior permission of that Government. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while it may be operationally necessary in fact to limit the time of warning, if the warning is limited the Government have no right whatever to boast of the fact that they have given a warning unless they are using the technique followed by Hitler of giving air-raid warning in order to create chaos among the community?

On the question of equipment, it is manifestly impossible—indeed, we could never do anything under those conditions. This equipment is mixed up throughout the whole pattern of our force. On the question of warning, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If a warning causes panic, that may be so on one side ; on the other hand, what it causes in panic may be better so far as saving life is concerned. What I think has been valuable is that throughout these operations every attempt has been made, and when the radio station was taken out recently we gave three warnings for sixty-five minutes before the operation and, as far as I know, there were no casualties.

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the serious problem in international law caused to the aircrews who are ordered by the Government to carry out operations of this kind where they are likely, however skilful they may be, to kill civilians?

Would my right hon. Friend, or perhaps the Foreign Secretary, say whether the sinking of the block ships in approaches to the Canal constitutes a breach of the 1888 Convention? [interruption.]

Order. I ask hon. Members to restrain themselves.

I suppose the Foreign Secretary will answer that question in a minute. I want to return to the warning. Does the Minister of Defence seriously tell us that he thinks a quarter of an hour's warning to a civilian population of a country with whom we are not at war is sufficient to enable them to take measures of self-preservation? Surely it is outrageous that only a quarter of an hour's warning should be given. Does the Minister really say that a quarter of an hour is enough?

I suppose the ideal warning would have been to name the airfields some five or six hours beforehand. The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that when we gave the requirement we said that we held ourselves free to take such military action as was necessary, and that had happened some hours before. Secondly, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the action was restricted entirely to those airfields which were well away from highly-populated centres. Thirdly, although this might not be the optimum amount of warning, I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows enough about military operations to know that if we gave such a warning some considerable time in advance we would run increased risk for our pilots.

Is it not a fact that the aerodromes bombed were military aerodromes with a large concentration of MiG 17s and as military aerodromes they would not be occupied by civilian population? Do not the photographs show that the bombing was concentrated on the aerodromes? Finally, have the Egyptians been issuing warnings to Israeli civilians before lobbing shells into Israel?

The photographs that we have so far seen showed that the bombing was extremely accurate. By what we can see on the photographs there was an infinitesimal amount of damage done to private dwellings. There was one airfield in which there was, we thought, a serious risk of civilian casualties, and, as I have said already, that operation was cancelled, for that reason.

In view of what the Minister of Defence has just said, is it not time that we stopped this bombing in Egypt? The Prime Minister has said that we are taking police action, but could there be a more complete mockery of the word "police" and of the use of police action than to authorise the bombing, even of military airfields? I asked the Prime Minister yesterday a question, in reply to which he said that he could not give any undertaking. He was today asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to give the same undertaking. Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider his refusal to stop this bombing, which is giving great concern not only to the people of this country but to people in other countries, and is also a defiance of the Resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly?

Some days ago I think I told the House of the action that it was in the Government's mind to take. That action we have carried through and are carrying through. I can only add that, so far as the action against Egyptian airfields is concerned, I do not believe it would have been possible to take more precautions in respect of the actual targets than were taken by the Royal Air Force. That has been our purpose. I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has said, that when we were informed that there was likely to be a large civilian population in the neighbourhood of one aerodrome. which had a large number of Russian bombers on it, we immediately, in spite of that fact, cancelled the arrangements we had made.

May I make one last appeal to the Prime Minister? We really have a new situation. So far as we understand the position, the fighting between Israelis and Egyptians in the Sinai Desert is virtually at an end. Would it not be wise, in the light of that fact, of, the Assembly's Resolution, and of the proposals, which we all welcome, for a United Nations police force, that instructions should now be given, in accordance with that Resolution, to cease all further military action? I beg the Prime Minister to understand that upon his answer to these questions public opinion will judge him.

Answer.

I made plain in the debate, when we were supported by the House after a Motion of censure had been moved by the Opposition, the reasons why we were taking the action that we had to take. The Government remain absolutely convinced that to proceed with this action is the best way of limiting hostilities and of getting an early separation of the forces on both sides. Therefore, we consider it our duty to fulfil that obligation.

On a point of order. In fairness to the Minister of Defence, may I point out that he made what I think must be a slip of the tongue? I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the words which he used. He said that the Heliopolis aerodrome was not a populous area. He knows that that is not true.

I think we ought now to get on with the debate. The House has had a very good run of questions, much more than I would normally have thought it my duty to allow. There is a Motion before the House. I would ask hon. Members who catch my eye to remember that the time of the House is short and that if they confine what they have to say to a very few words it will be gratefully received by the whole House. There is no necessity to go over the whole ground again. Hon. Members should confine themselves to special points which interest them. Mr. Head.

On a point of order. May I ask that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should now make his statement on Hungary? He came here at the request of the Opposition—[Interruption.]—to make a statement on Hungary. If he does so now I think it will enable us to have a clearer debate on both statements. [Interruption.]

I could not hear exactly what the Lord Privy Seal said, but I understand it is not that we should bring finally to an end our discussion on Egypt and the statement of the Minister of Defence, but that the Foreign Secretary should now make his statement on Hungary, that we should have a brief period of questions and discussion on it, and then return to the other subjects. In that case, speaking for my hon. and right hon. Friends, I am prepared to accept that.

The Foreign Secretary.

On a point of order, before the Minister of Defence slips away. The right hon. Gentleman promised us further information about the sinking of the frigate by the "Newfoundland." We did not get the statement from him until we had had some interchanges here this morning. May I ask him and the Prime Minister to take note of the fact that the Opposition and the country will expect regular reports on the military situation as soon as the House of Commons commences every day.

It is my intention to make a further statement on Monday.

The Foreign Secretary.

On a point of order. We have had a statement from the Prime Minister, but not one back bencher has had an opportunity of asking him questions. In the interests of private Members I ask you. Mr. Speaker, to consider that fact.

The hon. Gentleman should address his complaint to the Privy Councillors on his own side of the House. The Foreign Secretary.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Hungary.

On 1st November, Her Majesty's Minister at Budapest was called urgently to the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was told that new Soviet forces were entering Hungary from subCarpathia. He was also told that Mr. Nagy, acting in his capacity of Minister for Foreign Affairs, had protested against this to the Soviet Ambassador. Mr. Nagy had demanded the immediate withdrawal of these troops. Mr. Nagy had also informed the Soviet Ambassador that the Hungarian Government were withdrawing from the Warsaw Treaty, proclaiming the neutrality of their country, appealing to the United Nations and asking for the aid of the four Great Powers for the protection of the neutrality of Hungary.

Aide-mémoires setting out these facts have been handed to the American, French, Yugoslav and British representatives in Budapest. Later, on 1st November, Mr. Nagy made a broadcast in which he proclaimed Hungarian neutrality and asked that all countries should respect it. He said that Hungary would not join any bloc. She was now independent and neutral.

My information is that although Soviet tanks and troops appear to have withdrawn from Budapest, some units have dug in not far from the city. The airfields near Budapest are under Russian control. Movements of Russian land forces in Hungary are not entirely clear, but on balance they seem to have been reinforced in the last three days.

By latest information is that the Soviet and Hungarian Governments are considering a proposal for the establishment of a mixed commission to discuss the question of Soviet forces in Hungary.

Her Majesty's Government welcome the proclamation of Hungarian neutrality. [HON. MEMBERS : "Humbug."] In the United Nations' discussion of the communications addressed to the Secretary-General by Mr. Nagy, the United Kingdom Representative—[Interruption]—is supporting Hungary's request for the recognition of her neutrality.

On a point of order. Whenever a Minister has spoken from the Government Front Bench this afternoon, he has been subjected to considerable Opposition interruption. Is it not possible to make Socialist Members of Parliament behave themselves?

Order. Some hon. Members in one part of the House keep on talking when other hon. Members are making a speech.

I am sure the whole House will be with me, whatever its views on other points may be, when I say that the further progress towards freedom and independence made by the Hungarian people during the past week has deepened the profound admiration already felt for them in this country.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition the other day expressed on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House admiration for the people of Hungary in their desire to establish their freedom and independence. We welcome the statement now made by the Prime Minister of Hungary that he desires his country to be neutral and independent. We welcome the fact that this is a matter which is to be referred to the United Nations. I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary what action the British Government are physically and actually going to take in the United Nations in this matter. Secondly, will they very severely disapprove of any nation which vetoes any resolution seeking to enable the Hungarians to have their neutrality and independence?

We shall certainly do what we can to support any resolution put forward with regard to this matter. Incidentally, I may say that if the Soviet Government were to accept an international force in Hungary, we should gladly support that, too.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether at any stage the Soviet Government have claimed to be acting as a kind of advance guard of a United Nations police force? Secondly, is it not in general the case that the independence and neutrality of Hungary depend upon a strong Western Europe, which in turn depends upon the security of the Canal to some extent?

May I appeal to the House not to get the two things mixed up?

The Foreign Secretary has indicated that the British Government intend to support the Hungarian appeal to the United Nations. Can he tell us on what conceivable grounds this Government can defend the claim of the Hungarian Government, and can he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not proceed to bomb Hungarian hospitals in the meantime?

Cheap.

Order. The hon. Member has disregarded my plea not to get these things mixed up.

In view of the many tens of thousands of injured in Hungary, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider increasing the grant of £25,000 to a considerably larger sum in the immediate future?

We will certainly consider that.

What instructions has the right hon. and learned Gentleman given to our delegate at the United Nations to deal with the situation which will be created when the Russians pretend that they have done what they have done only to protect Russian ships with Russian crews sailing along the Danube?

is again mixing the two things. These are all points which can be made in the debate.

On a point of order. While we respect the Ruling which you have made, Mr. Speaker, that these two matters are to be treated separately, is it not a fact that both these affairs are happening on the same world, on the same globe, and that it is quite impossible to talk intelligently about the one without referring to the other?

Lots of things are happening in the world at this moment, but they are not all in order on a Parliamentary question. It would be quite in order in the debate—or might be in order.

Would it not be highly inconvenient if the House were to be prevented, even by its own rules, from relating one thing to another when everybody knows that all over the world, and particularly in the United Nations where the right hon. Gentleman has to speak for the United Kingdom, these matters will inevitably be discussed together?

That is all very well, but this is a Question. All these things are quite in order in debate, and I should not dream of checking them, but I was trying to save the time of the House. I think we should now get on with the debate. Mr. Harvey.

On a point of order. I want to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order concerning procedure at this day's Sitting. We have been sitting today for practically one-and-a-half hours and there have been some most amazing and shameful statements from the Government with practically no opportunity for back bench Members to ask questions or express opinions. In view of the fact that there is only a very brief time left, according to what the Leader of the House has laid down about this day's Sitting, may I ask your guidance how an hon. Member may seek to prolong the Sitting, or to obtain another Sitting, in order that back bench Members may have an opportunity of expressing themselves?

I sympathise, as always, with the hon. Member in his main statement, but the Sitting of the House is covered by the Resolution yesterday, and it will last until three o'clock and no longer.

Further to that point of order and your reply, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for an hon. Member to ask the Government to put down a Motion today before the House adjourns and in that Motion to state that on Adjournment the House shall resume two, three or four hours afterwards and continue, if need be, all night? I understand that under the rules the House must adjourn for two hours before it resumes. If the Government so desire, cannot they put such a Motion down and thus meet the point which my hon. Friend has raised?

It is in order for the hon. Member to make any request to the Government—and I think he has made his request from his point of order. Mr. Harvey.

rose—

rose—

Mr. Lewis. What is it?

Further to that point of order. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that you have misunderstood the question which I put to you and the request which I made for guidance. When you replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), you said that when the House adjourns that was the end of the matter. What I wanted to make clear was that if I or any other hon. Member asked the Government to put down such a Motion, and the Government agreed, is it not a fact that we could continue in session, subject to the Government's putting in that Motion however many hours they desired the Sitting to last?

On a point of order—

The House can do what it likes if the Government put forward a Motion to that effect. Has the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) really got a point of order?

I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, out of your great knowledge of the rules and regulations of the House. Is there no way by which, in this very important matter, we can either prolong the present Sitting today or arrange for a Sitting tomorrow to continue this debate?

We arranged this special Sitting by a Resolution passed by the House yesterday. At present I am bound by that.

It is just an hour, Mr. Speaker, since you were first good enough to utter my name and I had begun to wonder whether, with all these points of order, we would ever get started on the debate. I cannot help reflecting that hon. Members have wasted the opportunity of at least two back benchers so far.

I should like to begin by observing that the Leader of the Opposition suggested to the Prime Minister a short time ago that he would be judged by world opinion according to his actions at this moment in time. I do not accept that suggestion for one moment. Her Majesty's Government will be judged by world opinion and by opinion in this country when it is possible to get the events of this moment into some sort of historical perspective. It is manifestly not possible to do that at this time. I would, therefore, say to hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House that it would advantage us all if we remembered that the moment at which to try to judge history is not the moment at which it is being made.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that the action of Her Majesty's Government has undermined the work of the United Nations organisation. I do not accept that suggestion either, and I feel that in time it will be seen that the action which we have taken now has, on the contrary, served to strengthen the whole function of the United Nations organisation in the world.

I should like hon. Members—with due deference, Mr. Speaker, to the Ruling that we should try to avoid mixing the Hungarian issue with that of the Middle East, and I do not want to do that—to ask themselves what would be the reaction in the United Nations organisation or anywhere else to what is happening in Hungary or what is said to be happening in Hungary if nothing had happened in the Middle East. Clearly it would be debated. Resolutions would be passed and nothing would be done. [Interruption.] The United Nations has on no occasion so far been able to do anything at decisive moments, with the sole exception of Korea and in that case only because Russia was not there at that time to prevent it. Therefore, I would say that, far from it having undermined the work of the United Nations organisation, it will in fact be shown, in the course of time, that this moment in history may well have strengthened the work that that organisation can do. So much for that particular point.

rose—

May I say, with due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that if I give way I shall lengthen the proceedings and make it more difficult for other hon. Members to take part.

The Leader of the Opposition asked in his statement earlier, "Why police the Suez Canal ; why bring the Suez Canal into this issue at all?" May I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with every possible respect, that if he would care to re-read his own speech of 2nd August he would find the best possible reasons in the world for bringing it in.

I should like to make one or two brief comments on this issue because it is one which I know something about and on which I feel very deeply. It has been decided right through the free nations of the world that more and more, year by year, they will have to rely upon oil as the prime mover in their industrialisation. More and more, year by year, the standard of living of all people in all countries of the free world—indeed, one might say, in all the countries in the world—will depend on the use of oil. In ten years from now, if no other difficulties present themselves, the Suez Canal will be handling all the traffic with which it can cope as a result of the incredible expansion of the need for oil which will take place.

In ten years from now we shall need not only the Canal and pipelines to other ports in the Mediterranean, not only super-tankers, but we shall need to think very definitely as a European community about pipelines across Europe to keep the economic power of Europe at work. But it is not a selfish matter for Europe alone. The economic development from which the countries of the Middle East can benefit over the next ten years and, even more, over the next twenty-five years, will be such as to bring to those countries in a matter of a generation conditions which have taken very nearly five hundred years of economic development for the rest of the world.

Consider what has already been done in the greatest oil-producing area of the Middle East for the little State of Kuwait. There, already, they have a health service for all the people, and a great technical college which is well on the way to becoming the first university of the Arab world. There, a few years ago, they had to import every drop of water they drank. Now they have the largest salt-water distillation plant in the world, and they are earning at the moment more than £100 million a year out of oil royalties. Those countries will have increasingly year by year more money than they can spend, and thus the most wonderful opportunity available to them, provided that no undue interruption takes place.

In this situation, it is quite clear that in ten years from now the economic activity of Western Europe could be paralysed at one point on the map—the Suez Canal. When we consider that over the last twelve months the Nasser régime has been flirting dangerously with Moscow, and when we consider that Communism has never made any secret of its intention of wanting eventually to communise the world by wrecking the capitalist system from within, one may well ask at what easier point could they do it than at that Canal? The Leader of the Opposition showed himself well aware of that, and sensitive to it, in his speech on 2nd August. It was the right hon. Gentleman who was first uncomplimentary enough to compare the Egyptian dictator with a former dictator who caused us a lot of trouble not long ago.

The hon. Member has referred several times to my speech on 2nd August. Does he remember that at the end of that speech I gave a most solemn warning against the very thing which has now come to pass, namely, that if we used force in conflict with the United Nations and against the majority of the United Nations Assembly we should be arraigned before the Assembly as an aggressor?

The right hon. Gentleman could put that interpretation on the last paragraph. I have re-read it in the last three hours or so—[HON. MEMBERS : "Read it again."] There is no need to worry about that. The right hon. Gentleman also said in the clearest terms of Nasser and his régime and technique that the pattern was all terribly familiar. I have no doubt at all that he remembers saying that. How much more familiar did that pattern become when, in the last week or two, an Egyptian general was appointed to command a ring of steel around the State of Israel? Yet, at this moment, many hon. Members opposite have put themselves in the position of supporting Nasser—[HON. MEMBERS : "No."]—oh, yes ; Nasser, whose avowed aim, as the right hon. Gentleman said in the same speech, is :

"…to create an Arab empire from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August ; Vol. 557, c. 1620.]

How we would pacify the Middle East and ensure its development if that were to happen is beyond me.

Is that the Government's justification for bombing them?

I regret as much as anyone the necessity that has compelled us to take the action that we have taken. I would, however, remind hon. Members opposite that there was a previous moment in history when action by this country might well have stopped something much worse later. I refer to 1935. I understand that at that time the French Government sent a message to London requesting that we should join with France in flying two squadrons of bombers over Berlin, and dropping leaflets saying "Withdraw from the Rhineland in 48 hours or we shall be back with bombs." The British Government did not think that the then hon. Members opposite would agree to that course in those days, and it was not done. Four years later we had to go through six years of war to sort things out.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not agree with my diagnosis, but I say to them that it will, in the event, quite probably be found by future historians, reviewing what has happened at this moment, that it was the moment at which decisive action was taken which averted the outbreak of a third world war. I believe that courage was necessary in these circumstances—and, goodness knows, no Government likes to court unpopularity. I believe that courage was necessary transcending any thought of partisan popularity.

Though I regret what the Government have found it necessary to do, I support them. I certainly think that with the new offer which the Prime Minister has made this morning to the United Nations organisation, he has given that organisation an opportunity of taking real responsibility for the first time, and that that, in the end, will redound to our credit. It will be shown in time that had we not taken this action now the conflagration and the loss of life in the Middle East would have been much greater than it now will be. It may be shown in the course of time that this was the point in history at which the world steered away from the danger of a third world war.

The United Nations Assembly has presented the Prime Minister with a golden opportunity for retrieving the honour of the nation, of the Government and of the Prime Minister himself by ordering a cease-fire in Egypt. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister's speech demonstrates to this House, to the nation and to the world that Great Britain is in a state of war with Egypt, whether war has been declared or not. That opportunity has been missed, and the anger that the nation will feel will not fully rebound upon the Government until such time as British soldiers' lives begin to be lost in mortal combat when they invade the territory of Egypt. That is the time when the lesson will fully and finally be brought home to the Government.

If ever there was a time when the moral authority of the United Nations needed all the support it could gather to itself, it is now when such tremendous events are occurring in Hungary. There are some of us on this side of the House who, during the last ten years, have fought in our own country to the best of our ability to bring freedom to the oppressed people of Europe, to the subject satellites. It is at this moment, when they are struggling to regain their freedom, that Great Britain is put in the position of not being able to speak with her former free and unfettered voice and moral authority in the counsels of the United Nations.

It is a damnable thing that while young Hungarians, with tremendous bravery, are prepared against enormous odds to give their lives in Europe so that tyranny can be overthrown, by this action in Egypt it is clearly shown that what the Prime Minister is concerned with is his personal quarrel with Nasser and not with issues of peace and war. The Israelis have shown in the space of four days that, left alone in conflict with Egypt, they could in a month have cleared up the position for themselves, and we might then have been called in by the Egyptians to protect the Canal from further interference.

We, on this side, admit that during at least the last four years Nasser, with his propaganda and in other ways, has given us more trouble than we wanted. This present action, however, is not the way to deal with that. When Hitler's representative in 1936 "cocked a snook" at the League of Nations he destroyed its moral authority. The Prime Minister, by not accepting this golden opportunity today, has done precisely the same thing, and when Poland and Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Hungary rise, as they certainly will in their own time and moment, against the tyranny opposing them, Great Britain will no longer have her voice or the righteous authority which she formerly exercised. That is the Government's principal crime. They have put the name of the nation in the gutter, and the nation will not forgive them. They have no mandate for this action. Their Election promises were to the contrary. If they wish to contest this issue, I say to them. "Have the guts to go to the country."

There are very few of us here today who were here in 1935 when Hitler walked into the Rhineland. I was here and well recollect the atmosphere that then prevailed, and I think that I would do well to recall that atmosphere to the House when it is considering the present situation. I say there were few here then. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot). He was here, and so was my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. So was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who has now gone out—but, looking round the Chamber, I do not believe there was anyone else who was here at that time.

I remember when that news broke. The French reaction was immediate—to walk in. Over here we had the atmosphere of the Peace Ballot, that the Covenant of the League of Nations must be observed and so on. There was a very prevalent view that the French were warmongers, that they wanted to start another war, and in the end nothing was done and Hitler's coup was successful. Who can doubt today that if Hitler had been frustrated in that move, the whole course of world history would have been different and we should have ben spared the Second World War? We know from the writings of German generals and from the information which has come out of Germany since those days that Hitler would have been crushed at the outset.

rose—

Let me develop my argument. Let us exercise our imagination a little. Suppose the French had gone into the Rhineland and had turned those German troops back. They would have done so under the obloquy of most of the world, just as the present Government today are getting a great deal of obloquy from many quarters.

But suppose that, following that, they had turned Hitler out and had said to the League of Nations, "Come and police this area. We have frustrated this tearing up of an international agreement," although the man was only walking into his own country ; I say that the League of Nations would have then been given a chance to function. I believe it would have functioned, and nobody today can doubt that we should have saved ourselves from a Second World War.

Today we have got similar circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS : "No."] I am trying to draw the lesson of the past, which many hon. Members opposite—I do not believe all of them—refuse to do. We are today giving the United Nations a chance of performing the office which the League of Nations was never able to do, namely, to acquire teeth and give us a real police force in the world.

rose—

I am not going to give way. That is why I support the Government in the present action that they are taking—

rose—

I am not giving way.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman does not give way, no other Member should be standing.

I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is a Privy Councillor. He asks a great many questions. I think he should defer for once to someone who has a very limited amount of time in which to speak.

I will merely conclude what I was going to say. I believe, as a previous speaker has said, that when we get a little further away from this and history comes to be written, it will be found that by paying some attention to the lessons of the past we shall have saved the future.

I do not know if the hon. Baronet the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) really believes what he has been saying, but if he does he can believe anything. There is no comparison between Hitler, with the mighty force of the German nation behind him, and the Egyptians. There is no comparison between action which involves invading another's territory, bombing and seizing their property, and the enforcement of the Locarno Treaty. The weakness of the League arose because we failed to stop aggression in Abyssinia. That is what ruined the League.

Now we shall see the new climate of orderly opinion destroyed by us, as Mussolini destroyed it, at the very moment when that idea had proved effective in Central Europe, and when suddenly liberty under law began to make its appearance.

What about 1931?

As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, I have throughout the years fought for a bipartisan policy in international affairs. I have done so because I believe that we, as the most experienced country, must lead the West in wisdom, and we can only do that effectively if we speak with one voice. It is not with any happiness that I find that destroyed. Even on Tuesday I abstained from voting because even then I could not bring myself to divide on a question of foreign policy until everything had been heard, but what a story when it was heard.

I have always taken the view, right from the Nurembourg trials, that international law must not be pushed too far or it would be destroyed. I take the view that the function of the United Nations must be limited. It is really, rather than collective security, the operation of great Power concert. I certainly have never agreed with the proposition that we should never adopt self-help or forcible action except with the authority of the United Nations. I do not think such a proposition would be in conformity either with peace or order.

After all, the laws of nations can be enforced either by international authority or by one's own self-help. International authority that cannot enforce law but can only prevent one enforcing the law oneself is not necessarily operating for peace. But what have we done? We have acted in a manner which has destroyed the whole growing opinion in favour of orderly behaviour—in favour of recognising not in particular the orders of the United Nations Charter or anything of that sort, but the opinion of the world which has been built up in support of order.

In August the situation was entirely different. If the Government had taken strong action then, I certainly would not have opposed them. If somebody picks my pocket and spits in my eye I am entitled to knock him down. By doing so I am not opposing but asserting the law. But it is an entirely different matter if I do not decide to knock him down ; if, instead of that, I decide to take him to court, and in court, if the decision goes against me, I still do not do anything until he is attacked by somebody else a month afterwards, when I then jump on his back and slug him. That is conduct which nobody in the world can respect. That is the position in which we have put ourselves.

Again, so far as the Jewish situation is concerned, I do not agree for a moment that Israel is the aggressor here. Israel is in a situation where she has seen an assault being mounted against her. She is not in the position of North Korea. North Korea had depth into which to retire and to absorb any attack which came. Israel has no depth into which she can retire. She can only in a military sense defend herself by taking action. She has got to anticipate the build-up and then smash it before the effects of the build-up can be delivered. That is what Israel has done.

It is plain from what has emerged that the situation in Sinai, with all those great arms dumps, was not a defensive position. It was a build-up for an assault against Israel, and Israel was entitled to anticipate it. I have no doubt about that.

Equally, I do not say for one moment that we should not have been entitled forcibly to intervene to bring that war to an end. If we had issued an ultimatum to the two countries, saying to the Israelis, "You go back within your boundaries", and to Egypt, "You go back 50 miles and leave this offensive build-up which you have been creating", saying to them both that if they did not do that we should intervene and force them to separate, not 160 miles behind their lines, but where the fighting and the real danger was—if we had taken sincere action of that sort, and if the Security Council had then sought to tell us what to do, and we had said to the Security Council, "Here is real war. Here is a real danger. We are stopping it. Either come and do the job yourself or get out of our way", and if we had used our veto—which, after all, we are given to use—I should have supported it.

But that is not what we have done. We took the excuse of an invasion not to separate the forces, not to take action to stop a war, but as a pretext to seize a Canal which we had sought to seize legally and which we are now seizing illegally, 160 miles behind the lines. This is destroying our whole reputation in the world. It is patently bogus.

We said we acted—and this was the pretext—to defend our shipping and to defend our nationals. The only danger we brought to that shipping and to the Canal came from the fact that we attacked and it is now blocked. The only danger we brought to our citizens came from the fact that we bombed Egypt, and they probably are in danger now. We told the Russians that they could go to the defence of their property and their citizens in Hungary, because that is the effect of putting forward this utterly bogus proposition.

This lying has injured our reputation. We have divided the country. Gone is my dearest hope, that the country should not be divided. We have divided the Empire. I welcome that Menzies and New Zealand have come to our aid. Thank God we have friends who are strong enough to stand by us when we are wrong ; that is when we need friends. None the less, that does not alter the fact that we are desperately wrong. We have destroyed the Bagdad Pact and discredited the emergent system of law and orderly opinion in the world.

There is one remedy in this ineptitude, an ineptitude in diplomacy which really has not been equalled since the days when "Kaiser Bill" used to run Germany. This folly, whereby we are put into this situation, can be corrected now only by the resignation of the Prime Minister. I say that in utter seriousness. If the Prime Minister resigns, then we pay tribute to the international law which has been strong enough to break our folly.

We should form a new Government. Of course, we cannot have an election in war-time ; the Government would have to be—though many of my hon. Friends would not like this—a Coalition Government. It would have to be a Government which represented the majority in this House which believed that international law should be observed, that the spirit of law should be observed, and that this war should be stopped. It is available.

I do not for a moment say that the Prime Minister has not given great service to this country and to the world. He has an opportunity now to give an even greater service. He can resign, and have done with this folly ; and that is what we call upon him to do.

wish to follow for a moment the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It seems to me that he is with the Government so far as he says that if somebody knocks one on the head, picks one's pocket and spits in one's eye, one is entitled to retaliate in order to protect oneself. In fact, I think he used more forcible words than those. But let us take that argument to the point of military practicability. At the time when the initial assault took place, we were not in a position to hit back. As to whether hitting back is justified under U.N.O. rules there seems to be considerable doubt in legalistic minds, but the fact remains that we were not in a position to protect our own interests or other people's interests either. We are now.

When the hon. and learned Member says that the correct method of putting that policy into operation would presumably be to land a force on a difficult coast on a barren desert somewhere between Port Said and E1 Arish, on the north-western shore of the Sinai Peninsula, I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member has ever been there but it is a very impracticable military operation to try to do that.

rose—

There are no reasonable water supplies in the area and no methods of supporting troops or keeping them supplied there. If we had done as he suggested and landed our troops between the two opposing, conflicting armies, probably under fire by both of them, it would have been an act of military folly.

I never suggested that for one second. What I suggested was that the ultimatum should require the separation and require them to permit us to occupy there. If they did not accept the ultimatum, any of the actions we have taken would have been justified.

Whatever the hon. and learned Member might say now, that is not what he said at first and not what he implied. The fact remains that we intend to put our forces in in the only militarily practicable place where it could be done. Nobody can deny that.

I want to turn for a moment to the legalistic side. I am not a lawyer and I do not understand these things, but it seems to me, as a simple man, that there is far too much high-hatted talk about moral principles while cities are burning and people are dying. [HON. MEMBERS : "What about the bombing?"] I am coming to that if hon. and right hon. Members opposite will restrain themselves.

There has been a lot of criticism and a lot of heat and dust on the Opposition side on this very subject of the bombing. We all know—no one can deny it—that bombs have been dropped on military targets, particularly specified military targets—and for what purpose? It is to ensure that those hundreds of aircraft which have recently been supplied to Egypt by Russia cannot be used against our men when they go in on this police operation.

hey did not attack us.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), whom I do not see present at the moment, said in the early part of his speech that if only we had left well alone the Israelis would have settled this matter in a few days or so. I would certainly concede that present events seem to prove that there is a deal of truth in that. But can we not remember the past history of this case, the retaliation and the counter-retaliation? Can we not imagine what all that would have led to? Those very Russian aircraft which our bomber crews have been in the course of destroying might, and very well could, have been employed in obliterating Tel Aviv and other Jewish cities, even the Holy City of Jerusalem itself. What would have ensued from that? Retaliation upon Cairo and Alexandria.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North accompanied me not very long ago on a visit to the Middle East. He must know as well as I do the temper of people in those parts. If what I have just described had taken place, he can imagine what very likely would have followed. Jordan, Syria, Iraq, all those Arab countries would have been drawn into the conflict. Bagdad might now be in flames.

What does the hon. and gallant Member think they are going to do now?

I will tell the hon. Member if only he will be patient for a little while.

I was saying what present action has prevented and what intended action is likely to prevent, because of the state of affairs which I have described. What would that state of affairs have led to? Each country in turn in the Western world, and eventually throughout the whole world, very probably might have been drawn—indeed, probably would have been drawn—into this conflict.

Hon. and right hon. Members opposite deplore the bombing of Egyptian military targets. We all do. There is no doubt about that. Nobody likes having to do these things even if we are sure of the necessity of doing them. Just now, in answer to a question, the Minister of Defence said that the warning of the bombing of a certain airfield in Egypt was fifteen minutes. That created an uproar on the benches opposite. I suggest to hon. and right hon. Members opposite that public opinion in Britain and in France is getting sick and tired of this sort of attitude.

Test it in the country.

The Labour Party said that in 1955.

Those people who are vocal because a short length of time was given of that bombing by implication suggest that longer warning should have been given.

No, that there should not have been an attack at all.

What would have been the effect if we had given the Egyptians five hours' warning? Just imagine those MIG 17s getting into the air and shooting down our own aircraft. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite are very fulsome in lip-service at the time of the Service Estimates about the welfare of Service men, but when it comes to a matter like this they put those who are conflicting with us before our own men.

It is shameful.

If the hon. Member has any comments on that I will certainly give way so that he can make them.

I am much obliged. The point I wanted to make, with which the hon. and gallant Member will surely agree, was that it was a lunatic Government who put British soldiers and airmen in that position.

I am afraid that the hon. Member's point is quite irrelevant to what I was saying. The Government may, in his opinion, be a lunatic Government, but that is only his opinion.

rose—

Oh, give the back benchers a chance.

rose—

I cannot give way again, for I do not want to prevent other hon. Members from speaking in the debate, and I shall unnecessarily take up other people's time if I keep on giving way.

Who sent our men there?

I have one last point I want to make, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay some attention to what I am just about to say because many people seem to be a little worried about it. It is a point which has been put to me by many people, and by a good many constituents last night. [HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members opposite would only wait for the point, they can find out whether they can shout about it.

We heard today the Prime Minister's statement concerning the reply of the British and French Governments to the United Nations Resolution. A great many people in this country are most anxious that we do not get bogged down in long arguments over legal points and are convinced that, if the United Nations eventually comes to the reality of forming a police force and sending it in, the British and French Governments must make certain that their forces are not withdrawn from the area before United Nations forces are there on the ground, on the sea and in the air in such force as will be able to prevent a recurrence of this conflict.

Many hon. Members wish to speak and I intend to be extremely brief. I have not spoken in the debate or even interjected so far, which is unusual for me. The matter that we are discussing is of grave importance to the country and to the world, and we should not look upon it with hilarity or try to settle it by hissing and booing and taking advantage of debating points.

I served in the Sinai Desert during the First World War, and I thought then that the crosses marking the number and names of the men who died would be the last erected there, but apparently I was wrong. I was one of the many who took part in what we thought to be the war to end all wars. My heart goes out to the parents of those who are fighting today, be they Jew or Arab or our own people, because of the misguided policy not of one particular Government but of a world that has gone mad.

We are all in this business—England, America, France, and lawyers, politicians, theorists, pacifists, militarists and all the lot, and there is not one party or country that is to blame for the unwholesome, unholy mess that we are in. [AN HON. MEMBER : "Question."] I should be prepared to answer that, given time. The world itself is responsible, and the events which have led up to this situation are deplorable. I usually try to inject humour into the debate but this is not a debate of that kind. I remember writing letters for some of the boys who fought in the First World War. I had to write for one, who was dying, "Dear Mother, I am now in the land where the good Lord was born. I wish to the Lord that I were in the land where I was born. I am dying."

I am concerned with the facts as they are. I do not intend to add my small and humble voice to the splendid speeches made against the action that has been taken and the position that we are now in. I am concerned with the ultimate results of it all. At seven o'clock last night I was on the premises of the steel corporation which I have had the privilege to serve since I was a boy. I was looking at a 300-ton new Talbot furnace which after next week should be producing 2,500 tons of steel. I saw a range of other furnaces which last week produced about 10,000 tons of good steel that are vital to the British economy, regardless of who is in power, and vital to the salvation of Britain. Every ounce of that steel was produced with the help of oil which not many days previously was in a tanker coming across the sea from that part of the world. This is a very important matter.

I raise my voice to ask the Leader of the House to make very certain that the Minister of Fuel and Power, seeing that the Canal is blocked and that oil supplies will not be forthcoming in the amount which they should be, makes sure at once that the economy of this country is safeguarded to the extent of priorities being given first and foremost to our basic industries, particularly the steel industry.

The Labour Party may be returned at a snap General Election. Whatever the position is after the next General Election, whichever party is in power will have to take over the control of the country as it then finds it. No one should seek at this time to make the position worse than it is today. Goodness knows, it was bad enough without this business in Egypt.

I returned a few days ago from Western Germany where I had spent ten days with colleagues of all parties in the House. I saw what was going on there. I saw the economic pressure, and I saw the production. Six weeks previously I was in Eastern Germany, where production is going on at the point of the gun. The pressure on our nation is more than sufficient to bring it down economically without starting this present unholy business in the Middle East.

I ask the Leader of the House to make certain that when rationing takes place, as rationing will, priority is given to the industries which need vital commodities, so that at the end of hostilities, when peace is restored, if peace it is to be, whichever party forms the Government in this country will find it in the best possible state that it can be put in today.

In his opening sentences the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said one of the most important things which has been said during the whole of these discussions. It is no use our criticising the United Nations, any more than we used to criticise the League of Nations, because these organisations have no existence without us, and in so far as they have failed, it is largely because we have failed to measure up to what was required of us.

I am one of many who have accepted the necessity for this bombing and other military action with the gravest reluctance and only after the most desperate heart-searching that one could imagine.

What was the hon. Member looking for in his heart?

I have come to the conclusion, having had the privilege of working with colleagues on this side of the House for over 18 years, that the motives and objects of the Prime Minister and his colleagues are wholly and completely honourable and that they seek only to make effective the machinery of the United Nations upon which so much depends.

What has been done in the last few days may well soon be seen to be one of the greatest examples of courage and statesmanship that the world has ever seen. As was said today in one great newspaper, one may question the judgment of the Government and of the Prime Minister, but one cannot question their courage.

I ask only one question of the Prime Minister, and it will be of great help to all hon. Members on perhaps both sides of the House who are willing to listen if he will make one point clear today or on some other occasion. I believe that the desperate measures which have had to be taken and which have caused heart-searching are justifiable if they are based upon a determination to keep the combatants apart to bring hostilities to an end or to ensure police action being taken. I want the Government to make it clear that the military action which they are taking and still have to take will be directed solely to the fulfilment of those objectives and that, as soon as those objectives have been reached, there will be no question of military power being exercised for the settlement of the dispute over the Suez Canal.

I ask the Prime Minister to make that clear. If he can do that, he will make it clear, as it is clear to most of us, that the Government's intentions are based upon an effort to provide an effective means of international control. If it can be made plain that our military efforts are directed not to any self-interest embodied in our interest in the Canal, but directed solely to police action or separating the combatants or the termination of hostilities, there will be overwhelming support and gratitude for the courage he has shown.

At this moment thousands of young English men are sitting in landing craft moving from one destination in the Mediterranean towards the shores of Egypt. I spent some time in the last war in exactly that situation. When I was sitting in a landing craft waiting to fight against a known enemy, I did not need to worry my mind in the least about what I was fighting for, or about the honour of the cause I was defending. I know that there are many hon. and right hon. Members opposite who sincerely believe that our cause is just. I respect their convictions, but they must know also that there are many men in those landing craft who do not believe that our cause is just.

I ask hon. Members to believe that I do not want to make a party issue of this problem. It is not too late. The fact is that, unless those landing craft are redirected to another destination in the next few hours, thousands of young men may carry on their souls for the rest of their lives the feeling that they faced personally the same sort of problem as soldiers in the German Army in the last war faced and that they failed to meet it rightly. [Interruption.]

On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Essex, South-east (Mr. Braine) to refer to my hon. Friend as a traitorous defeatist? It was said within the hearing of all of us.

If that expression was used, it was certainly out of order.

rose—

I forgive the hon. Member. I know how strong feeling is—

Withdraw.

In view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will certainly withdraw. May I just—

No.

I certainly withdraw.

I know how the hon. Member feels, but I ask him to accept as a fact that there are millions of people in this country who feel as I do, and that presents a problem, whether he agrees with them or not.

I believe that today the Prime Minister has missed an opportunity of saving the reputation of this country and the consciences of many of our people from a mark which will last for at least a generation.

rose—

The Prime Minister's statement this morning was one of the most appalling which I have ever heard. Here he had an opportunity, even if he was not prepared to accept every word which has been said in New York in the last few days, at least to call a halt to acts of violence which he has undertaken in defiance of the expressed opinion of the vast majority of the world and of a large section—I put it no higher—of our own people and of the basic principles of international law. He refused to take that opportunity.

I should like to address some questions to the Prime Minister on the statement he has made. He said that his aim throughout this operation had been to separate forces which were in hostilities against one another. At present a large part of the Egyptian Army is still north of the Canal. The British representative at the United Nations has already asked for the withdrawal of Israeli troops to the armistice lines. The question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this : does he agree that the only place in which United Nations police forces should be located is along the frontiers between Israel and her Arab neighbours?

I should point out that news has come over the tape in the last few minutes that Syrian and Iraqi forces have entered Jordan. We have heard a great deal from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in the last few days of statements made by Colonel Nasser in the past expressing the determination to wipe out the State of Israel, and the Government have justified their support of Israeli actions in the last few days on the ground of provocation. I am prepared to give the Government a list of statements by the Prime Ministers both of Syria and Iraq expressing exactly the same sentiments as Colonel Nasser. The second question I wish to put to the Foreign Secretary is : does he believe that Israel would be no less justified in entering Jordan at this moment than—according to him—she was justified in entering Egypt?

I should like to put a third question to the right hon. Gentleman. In the statement made by the Prime Minister he made great play of his willingness to treat this whole episode as an opportunity for establishing a United Nations solution of Middle Eastern problems. We on this side of the House have always wished for such a solution, and if it is possible within these tragic days to achieve it none will be more happy than we are. I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary this question. Included among the issues on which he asked for a United Nations solution is that of the Suez Canal. Can the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister give this House and the United Nations an undertaking this afternoon that Her Majesty's Government will accept any settlement of the Suez Canal which is agreed by the United Nations without using the British veto? Unless the Foreign Secretary is prepared to give that undertaking, the whole of the statement of the Prime Minister was a tissue of hypocritical nonsense.

There has been some discussion today of the Hungarian problem and, in making his statement, the Foreign Secretary referred to events since 31st October. I should like to refer to an event on the morning of 30th October. On the morning of 30th October the Soviet Government made an official statement of its readiness to withdraw its troops from Hungary and to seek in conversations with the Governments of the Eastern European States a new basis for relationship between them and the Soviet Union. Twenty-four hours later Soviet policy changed. Did anything happen between the first event and the second which influenced that change in Soviet policy? I put it no higher than to say that it is impossible for any hon. or right hon. Member to maintain that there is no connection between the somersault in Soviet policy between Tuesday and Wednesday morning and the action of Her Majesty's Government.

I will finish by saying that there has been a great deal of talk in this House during the last few days about the rights and wrongs of the Middle East situation as it affects our action. There has been far too little talk of the consequences of our action on the general disposition of relations between the Powers in the world as a whole. It cannot be denied that our action. whatever may be the ultimate consequence—and we may have disagreement about that—has shattered the pillars on which British policy has rested since 1945. There can be no argument about that as far as the situation goes at the moment. I do not see how it is possible to rebuild a viable British foreign policy so long as those responsible for this action remain in office.

Last night I spoke to a large meeting at the Oxford Union. Never have I seen such feeling expressed in a gathering in Oxford since I was an undergraduate there in 1938 when a similar meeting was held to celebrate the courage of one of His Majesty's Ministers in resigning from the Government in order to demonstrate his respect for international law and for the rights of small nations. The name of that Minister is the name of our present Prime Minister.

I want to ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite whether there is none of them today who is prepared to show the same courage in defence of what we know to be their views. I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will take the smirk off his face.

rose—

Sit down.

Order. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way it is disorderly to remain standing.

On a point of order. Is it right, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member opposite to make a comment of that character because I was smiling? I am perfectly entitled to smile, and I submit that my smile is far less open to censure than many of the remarks and much of the behaviour of hon. Members opposite today.

I do not think that is a point of order.

I wish to appeal to hon. Members opposite who raised grave doubts about the wisdom of the Government's policy to demonstrate their feelings in action and to show today that there are still Members of one of our two great political parties in this country who are capable of showing the same integrity as that other Eden.

rose—

The new Foreign Secretary.

If hon. Members opposite will be good enough to lend me their ear for three minutes, I promise not to take longer.

I am one of the hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe deeply in the United Nations, and this problem has perplexed my mind and given me a very sore heart. I want hon. Members opposite to believe that not only they but many hon. Members on this side of the House feel terriby perplexed and worried about it. Nevertheless, I want to say that my perplexities and the burden which is on my heart have been considerably eased by what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this morning. However, I want to ask one question.

I believe that among the ordinary people the fact that bombs have been used has caused more distress than almost anything else. And since we have been told that the bombing has obliterated the Egyptian Air Force, could I now appeal to my right hon. Friend that in so far as it is possible—I hope it is possible immediately and completely—bombing shall cease?

I feel that the many people who think as I do would not be nearly so much shocked if paratroops had been dropped on key points—

And all killed?

—and I am asking, in view of the fact that we have been told by the Minister of Defence that the Egyptian Air Force has been put out of action—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sit down.

—will the Prime Minister and the Government consider, in so far as possible, the possibility of ceasing bombing as soon as possible?

Time is running out, and I wish to give the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs an opportunity to answer some questions. First, I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will make a statement on the very important matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that there are troop movements obviously intended to attack Israel? What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards that, and what action do they propose to take?

My hon. Friend put another question to the Government. Will the Government give an undertaking that they will accept the United Nations solution of the future of the Suez Canal, and give the undertaking now, at this time?

The third question that I wish to ask, once more, is whether the Government will say "Yes" or "No" to the request made by the United Nations General Assembly, in very specific terms, of all engaged in these hostilities—that includes Her Majesty's Government—to agree to an immediate cease-fire. That word "immediate" was used many hours ago. We are asking the Government now ; will they now, before this House rises, agree to an immediate cease-fire and to the holding up of troop movements.

We ask those three questions of the Government before we leave, and we say again—I say, and I say it for many millions of people in this country—that this is the end of a shocking week for our country.

May I deal first of all with the suggestion that hostilities have terminated. I think that that comment—which I think came from the Leader of the Opposition—is a little naïve. It is clear that unless we intervene in the situation, there will be more major battles between the combatants. Israeli forces are now advancing on the Canal. That is continuing. Egyptian forces are also advancing on the Canal from the other direction—[HON. MEMBERS : "Because of you."] It is not because of us—[HON. MEMBERS : "Yes."]—and if someone does not intervene to separate the combatants, I am perfectly certain—[HON. MEMBERS : "Humbug."]—that there will be sustained hostilities, and the chance of them spreading will be very much greater.

The request of 30th October was addressed to both sides—

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that it is necessary to continue with this operation in order to keep the combatants apart, and that Israeli forces are now advancing towards the Canal. Does that mean that British forces, if they are landed, will be used to fire on the Israeli forces too, if they approach the Canal, and on the Egyptian forces, if they approach the Canal? Are we going to face our men with a war on two fronts?

We are certainly going to separate the combatants. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] That is certainly the object of the operation, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Israeli Government have notified their willingness to withdraw ten miles from the Canal provided the other side do the same. [HON. MEMBERS : "What is the danger then?"] The danger is because the other side have not agreed to that request.

I am trying quite honestly to follow what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He says in one breath, "The Israeli forces are advancing towards the Canal ; the Egyptian Forces are advancing towards the Canal ; we are going to put our forces in between to stop them and therefore, presumably, to fight both." When I ask him about that, he says that the Israeli troops are not advancing on the Canal. [HON. MEMBERS : "No."] If the Israeli Government and troops have accepted the proposition to stop ten miles short of the Canal, what is the danger?

Because there was a very important condition which they applied. They said "If the Egyptian Government would also accept"—

rose—

The Egyptian Government have not accepted our request. They have not said that they would withdraw ten miles from the Canal and they have not said that they would accept the ten-mile limit.

rose—

Order. I cannot have two right hon. Gentlemen on their feet at the same time. One at a time is quite enough.

I think that the Foreign Secretary kindly agreed to give way to me. I am much obliged to him. This is an extremely important point. As I understand it, the Foreign Secretary is resting his answer to my hon. Friend on the ground that the Egyptians have not accepted something. The something to which he referred was our ultimatum, but what I understand the Egyptians have accepted is the Resolution of the United Nations Assembly. It was reported in the Press this morning that they had agreed to the cease-fire providing the other parties to the dispute did so too. If it is the case that the Israelis have also said that they will agree to the ceasefire, all possible justification for armed intervention by us disappears.

Hear, hear.