asked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware that the Services charged a figure of £270, or more, as the cost to parents of bringing home the body of a Service man killed in Gibraltar, including £70 for a special coffin and £60 to £140 for sea or air transport; whether he is aware that these costs are excessive; and whether he will have special inquiries made with a view to drawing up a standard scheme under which simpler provisions and use of Services transport, when available, could bring these costs down to a reasonable level.

The figures quoted were commercial and not Service charges. I should be glad to consider any suggestions for simplifying the procedure.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he aware of the fraud which has been practised on the parents in this case? Is he aware that I have here the report of a reputable firm of undertakers on the £75 coffin, that it was doubtfully of oak, that it was probably made here, and that, with transport to Gibraltar, it is worth less than £30? Is he also aware that the zinc lining for which they were charged £35 is worth less than £10? Will he agree that the parents should not pay a single penny until he has had the opportunity personally to investigate the scandal in this case?

Of course I have not the information which the hon. Member has mentioned, but these are commercial charges and the matter is one between the relatives and the undertakers and others concerned.

No, that is not the case. Is the Minister not aware that the War Office does all the arranging on behalf of the parents because they have no means of making the necessary contact?

All I can do is to say that I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to find out what steps were taken to ensure that as far as possible the parents or relations were put in touch with a reputable firm.

asked the Minister of Defence if, in the light of Her Majesty's Government's claim to take independent military action in certain fields, he will instruct the Service Departments to keep equipment received under the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement separate from British equipment.

That would not be practicable.

Is it not a fact that we accepted this American equipment on the understanding that it was to be used only in pursuance of policies approved by the United States? Is it not a fact also that this agreement was violated in the case of the intervention in Suez; and, in the light of Her Majesty's Government's claim to independent action, how does the Minister propose to prevent further violation?

I feel that the United States Government are well able to look after their own interests without any help from the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor said that all the equipment was muddled up? Is it not about time that it was un-muddled so that the Minister of Defence may know what equipment he has got?

It is not a question of being muddled up, but it is very difficult to keep it separate.

Is it not a fact that the American Government made a protest about the use of this equipment, to which Her Majesty's Government were unable to make any reply?

That does not happen to be the fact.

asked the Minister of Defence what instructions he has given to the Service Departments concerning economy in the expenditure of moneys voted by Parliament for military stores and equipment.

The Service Departments are fully aware of the importance of economy. I am, however, considering what special action should be taken to deal with the points raised in the Third Report of the Select Committee on Estimates.

If the Minister has read the Third Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, is he not aware that a representative of one of the Service Departments said there that it was the policy to spend up to the hilt? Will not the Minister issue a directive to say that it is not his policy that the Service Departments should spend up to the hilt of the Estimates but that they should try to underspend the money voted by Parliament?

That is one of the points that I have in mind, but, as the House knows, the system of annual accounting for matters which really extend over longer periods has always raised difficulties of this kind, and always will.

asked the Minister of Defence what are his current estimates of the additional number of long-service volunteers required for each of the Services to enable him to abolish conscription.

asked the Minister of Defence when he intends to substitute a selective ballot for the present system of call up for National Service.

I propose to deal generally with the question of National Service and voluntary recruitment in the forthcoming White Paper on Defence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while a selective ballot may be an easy way out for the Government before conscription is abolished, there will be strong objection to taking two years out of a man's life as a result of a lucky or unlucky dip? Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the selective ballot is still under consideration?

Before making a lucky dip, the hon. Member would do well to await the publication of the White Paper.

But is the Minister now prepared to tell us—the Lord Privy Seal was not prepared to do last week—when this White Paper, now long overdue, will in fact be available?

As soon as possible, and in the course of next month.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the White Paper will contain the estimates asked for in my Question, No. 4, which asked for the

"estimates of the additional number of long-service volunteers required…"

Will the White Paper contain those estimates?

It will contain as much information as I can usefully provide to the House.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will give consideration to the setting up of a joint training college for the basic training of young officers of all three Services.

Any scheme for closer understanding between the Services has obvious attractions, but it raises quite a number of practical difficulties.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to consider this matter seriously, in view of the fact that the basic elementary training of young officers and officer cadets is much the same in the three Services, and in view of the undoubted success on a higher level of such inter-Service training as the Imperial Defence College and the Joint Services Staff College?

I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I do see the advantages, but I also see the difficulties.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will now announce what proposals he is making to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for a reduction of the British forces in Germany.

I cannot at present add to my Answer to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on 20th February.

Could the Minister clarify the issue? Bearing in mind that we are making a disproportionate contribution to N.A.T.O. defence in comparison with our allies, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is our policy to seek a reduction of our burden, not only our manpower burden, but also our economic burden, in view of the fact that, unlike our allies, we have to incur the cost of stationing troops abroad?

I think it is public knowledge that we are at present in the course of consulting our allies on this question.

Does the Minister realise that so far as one can discover, this House is the only place which does not know officially what he is proposing? The other nations all know; the Press is pretty well informed. Would it not be a good thing if he told the House what is being put forward ultimately in our name?

I really think that it is not customary, nor is it really a good plan, to precede diplomatic negotiations with other Governments by publication of one's views in the House of Commons.

While not seeking in any way to weaken N.A.T.O. defence in the present circumstances, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be unwise to allow the United Kingdom Government, in these negotiations, to be intimidated by other Governments which have not made so valuable a contribution as has the United Kingdom?

I do not think that anybody who attended the conference of Western European Union yesterday had any impression that Her Majesty's Government were being intimidated.

asked the Minister of Defence what agreement has been reached with the French Ministry of Defence for pooling research and production on guided missiles and rockets.

I have nothing to add at present to the statement I made on 20th February.

Would the Minister confirm that strategically our position is almost identical with that of France, and therefore the closest possible integration between our defensive efforts and those of France is essential?

Our defence problems have much in common and that is why, as I said in my earlier statement, we are examining with the French Government what further scope there is for closer co-operation.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is yet in a position to make a statement concerning the proportion of defence requirements which will be met by industry in the United Kingdom.

It will always be a high one.

Will the Minister bear in mind, when considering that "high one," that in Coventry we have a greater armament production capacity than any other city, and that that capacity includes more than one Service, which is why I am bringing the problem to the right hon. Gentleman? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft Ltd. are shortly to turn off 600 men because of the cut-back in defence orders? As we should like to keep those men in the city, could the right hon. Gentleman do something about this soon?

I recognise the importance of Coventry, and I have no doubt that the hon. Lady's supplementary question will be noted by her constituents.

While being quite sure and very glad that it will be noted by my constituents, may I ask the Minister whether, much more important, the supplementary question will be noted by him and by the people concerned with contracts?

I always take note of the hon. Lady's remarks.

asked the Minister of Defence if he has completed his examination of the possibility of introducing a contributory scheme for officers' widows' pensions; and if he will make a statement.

This problem is at present being studied by the Service Departments on the basis of the Pay Code introduced last year.

Does my right hon. Friend expect that the examination of this problem will soon be completed? Is he aware that his Department wrote on 17th December to the Officers' Pension Society saying that the matter was still being examined?

It takes quite a number of months to examine a problem of this kind. The Pay Code was introduced only last year. I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter is being considered most seriously.

Does the right hon Gentleman's previous reply denote that he is either a fathead or a bighead, or a combination of both?

asked the Minister of Defence if he will introduce regulations to provide that widows of officers who married after retirement shall be eligible for widows' pensions.

I am afraid not.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that I inadvertently worded my Question wrongly, and that such Regulations are already in existence? Is it not a fact that, provided that the officer was serving before 30th August, 1907, and had served for twenty years and he was married not later than three years afterwards, his widow was able to get such a pension? Could he not, perhaps, bring those Regulations a little more up to date?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that question down.

asked the Minister of Defence what recent action he has taken to reduce the staff employed in his Department, and to reduce the cost of administration; and to what extent these efforts have proved successful.

I have not yet got round to that.

Can the Minister be a little more forthcoming and tell us what he anticipates doing? Is he in fact going to make some economies? Is he going to take some action to cut down the Department, and if he does, will he consider reducing the forty-five major-generals, and putting them in the ranks, perhaps?

In his Question the hon. Member referred to the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence is a small Department, and I am at the moment after rather bigger fish.

asked the Minister of Defence the total number of staff employed in his Department in February, 1952, as compared with the latest convenient stated date; and what the total salary and wage bill was on these two stated dates.

This perhaps will give the hon. Member the Answer he wanted. In February, 1952, the number of staff borne on the Ministry of Defence Vote was 1,247. Salaries and wages amounted to £900,000. The corresponding figures for February, 1957 are 1,175—a reduction—and £1,200,000.

An increase.

From that it would appear that there has been a reduction in staff, and yet an increase in the salary bill. Can we understand why? [HON. MEMBERS: "The cost of living".] I am asking whether we can have an explanation, as there really should not have been any salary increases because there has been no increase in the cost of living, according to what we have been told by the Government. Why, then, the salary increases?

It is almost entirely due to increases in the pay of civil servants which were awarded during that period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They were awarded because there had been a very long time-lag in increases of pay to civil servants.

asked the Minister of Defence what powers he proposes to take to direct that disciplinary action should be taken against those serving in the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force or against officials whose salaries are borne on Votes other than those for which he is responsible.

I see no need for such powers.

In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the Minister made it quite clear that he had considered whether disciplinary action was justified or not. Therefore, is it not very necessary that, before making replies of that kind, he should be aware of the limitations upon his own powers, unless he propeses to increase them?

My feeling is that the Service Departments are well able to look after discipline themselves. That does not mean that I am not perfectly entitled, in reply to the right hon. Member for Easington, to make such comments as I think desirable.

But is not the right hon. Gentleman getting away from his original Answer? Originally, he answered the Question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington on the basis that he had decided whether disciplinary action should be taken or not. Has he the power to decide, or is there a power which rests with his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State? If it is the latter, should he not have phrased his original Answer quite differently?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has my Answer in front of him.

I have.

I have not. Anyhow, we cannot deal with it in that way now at Question Time. I certainly do not think that I gave an Answer which implied that I had powers of disciplinary action.

The Minister did.

I did make a comment on whether or not I thought disciplinary action was called for, which is quite a different matter.

indicated assent.

rose—

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington nods his head in agreement with me.

I will not be provoked into saying whether that intimidates me or encourages me; that is for the House to decide. Will the Minister look again at the original reply which he gave and see whether it accords with the powers which he has in fact got?

I will see whether it accords with what I have just said.

As I put the original Question and I heard the original Answer, I really have no comment to make other than to say that I do not want to cause a row.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he envisages the inauguration of closer joint staff training between the Services.

I should be glad of any suggestions from the right hon. Gentleman for further improving the present excellent arrangements.

I shall be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman any advice which I possibly can; but is it not his duty as a Minister of the Crown himself to take the initiative, particularly in view of the fact that in the future, probably the very near future, there will have to be a closer integration of the Services because of the weapons which they will use, and therefore the staffs themselves should start by having closer staff college training than at the moment?

The right hon. Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State for War, knows full well the very extensive arrangements which already exist, the various colleges and specialist schools, etc., for this precise purpose. But, as I say, I shall be very happy to consider any further suggestions which he may have in mind.

asked the Minister of Defence what discussions he had in Washington on the subject of joint preparations for Civil Defence.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that I did not ask him what plans he had for defending the civil population? Did it not occur to him at Washington to think of the civil population as an afterthought, just as an accident, and is he still responsible for a scheme to evacuate 12 million people from this country? In view of the fact that we are 2,000 miles nearer the rockets he spoke about than is New York, ought he not to have some plans for evacuating these 12 million people to a safer part of the United States?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, there are already good arrangements for close consultation between members of the N.A.T.O. alliance, including, of course, the United States.

asked the Minister of Defence what steps are being taken to equip the air defence forces of Great Britain with atomic weapons.

I have no statement to make at present on this subject.

In view of the announcement by the Americans that they are deploying aid for weapons for home defence, has the Minister really nothing to say about whether he discussed the question of bringing to our aid for home defence in these very vulnerable islands at least the most up-to-date weapons which are available?

On atomic matters, one has to be very careful what one says and when one says it.

That seems to be a rather silly answer.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the cuts in maximum number of the forces as shown in Estimates represent any change of the policy announced in Command Paper No. 9608 of 1955.

Not at all.

As a comment on my previous comment, that might have been intelligent; but, as an Answer to Question No. 17, it seems to require a little understanding. If I understand that Answer to mean that these cuts mean no change at all in the policy announced in 1955, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped hinting to the Press that he has in fact been slashing the forces all over the place? Had he not better "come clean" pretty soon as to what he is in fact doing?

There seems to be some misunderstanding about these figures. As was made clear in the Vote on Account, they are ceiling figures, that is to say, they are figures beyond which the size of the forces will not rise during the forthcoming financial year. They do not provide any indication of future policy; they are, in effect, more or less the present size of the forces today. The only indication of future policy which they give is that we do not contemplate an increase in the size of the Forces during the next financial year.

So that the headlines, for example, in the Daily Express, "Forces get Slash No. 1", are quite inaccurate and untrue?

Order. I do not think that the Minister is responsible for headlines in the papers.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that the ceiling figures in no way indicate that the Forces cannot be reduced. and that there is an opportunity for him to tell us, when he produces the White Paper, that he proposes to reduce them?

That is the very nature of a ceiling.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will exempt National Service men from serving in military operations, undertaken in pursuance of the Bagdad Pact, or at the instigation of the United States of America under the Eisenhower doctrine or under South-East Asia Treaty Organisation to put down alleged Communist subversion in the territories of Middle Eastern or Far Eastern States.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister's reply mean that the Government believe that they are entitled to use, and could get away with using, British forces, let alone National Service men, to put down popular risings in countries like Iraq, Iran and Vietnam, with reactionary dictatorships in charge? Do they not realise that we would get stuck in a situation far worse than that facing us in Cyprus today. and that the Government might end by provoking popular resistance of the kind that put an end to intervention in Russia?

The hon. Member's Question referred to Communist subversion. Happily, the hon. Member's attitude towards Communism is shared by very few people in this country.

Could the Minister use his powers of persuasion with the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), with his unique qualities and contacts, to make representations to the Russian Government so that they could adopt similar proposals and prevent a recurrence of the recent events in Hungary?

Now that the right hon. Gentleman has had his fun, will he direct his mind to the substance of the Question which my hon. Friend asked: namely, whether British forces are to be used in order to intervene in revolts or rebellions of any kind in any country which anyone may choose to describe as Communist?

The Question dealt with Communist subversion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Alleged."] "Alleged" does not alter it. Somebody has to form a view about it and it must be the Governments who are responsible for the time being in the countries concerned. I think it is generally accepted that straightforward military aggression is not the only form of threat with which the free world is faced.

asked the Minister of Defence what he is doing to prevent overlapping between the Royal Air Force and the other two Armed Services in the procurement, storage, and maintenance of guided missiles, their components, and ancillary equipment.

This matter is being watched.

Is the Minister not aware that in spite of assurances given on this point by at least two of his six predecessors, there are alarming signs of increased overlapping and empire-building in the Services at this point?

I should be very glad indeed to look into any points that the hon. Member has in mind.

Do not the Minister's answers to Questions today make it perfectly clear that he is neither bighead nor fathead, but just simply blockhead?

Withdraw.

An hon. Member should not use the opportunity of a supple. mentary question merely to indulge in abuse. Mr. de Freitas.

Question No. 20.

I take no exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I regard them as typical of what I would have expected from him.

On a point of order. While everyone would respectfully agree with the observation which you have just made, Mr. Speaker, about the wrong use of supplementary questions, is it not equally true that if a Minister makes a wrong use of the opportunity to answer Questions in order to be unreasonably and deliberately provocative, he may get the kind of response that he did not want?

That is a purely hypothetical question. [Interruption.] I did not think the Minister abused his position. After all, he was the first one to be attacked.

Further to that point of order. May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it has occurred to many of us, and, I suggest, it may have occurred to you, that the Minister has used every Answer today, on a subject that should be outside the ordinary frivolities of this House —[HON. MEMBERS "Oh."]—to make what he, no doubt, thought was a clever answer? You, Mr. Speaker, chose to rebuke my hon. Friend, and we do not dispute your right to say what should be done, but may I not submit that that applies both ways and that the Minister has abused his position this afternoon?

That is not a point of order for me. What I think happened was that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—I think I must honestly say with no evil intent—used a series of expressions which hon. Members should not use to each other, such as "bighead", "fathead", and so on. I think that that was wrong. Perhaps the Minister may have been technically out of order when giving his reply, but if Members on either side of the House are provoked I always give them a certain amount of latitude in how they react. We have to remember that we are human beings here.

On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the Minister of Defence would like to have another shot at answering Question No. 21?

Mr. Dodds. Question No. 22.

You called on me to ask Question No. 20, Mr. Speaker. Since then, there has been a wide exchange of remarks from one side to the other and I have not had an answer to my Question.

I am afraid that the House put me out of my count.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough to say that I had no evil intent. May I be allowed to say that I had every evil intent? But if in having an evil intent I was out of order, naturally I should wish to withdraw.

I do not know whether to believe that or not. Can we now have Question No. 20?

asked the Minister of Defence whether, as a result of his discussions in Washington, we shall receive air-to-air and ground-to-air guided missiles of the types used by the United States armed forces.

I cannot add at present to my statement of 6th February.

Although the Minister has been most reluctant to give us any information on this important matter, can he at least deal with this point? Are the weapons that are coming to us up-to-date or are they obsolescent and inferior to what could be obtained on this side of the Atlantic?

I propose to make a statement as soon as I can, but if the hon. Member reads my earlier statement he will see that I cannot do so immediately. These are matters which, as I said in my earlier statement, are being considered by the two Governments. Until a conclusion has been reached, it would be quite impossible for me to enlarge upon what I said before, which was in accord with what was agreed between myself and the American Secretary for Defence. If I were to enlarge on it, he might do the same, and we might get into difficulties.

Are we to wait until the White Paper for the Minister's statement or does he propose to make a statement beforehand? On the last occasion when he answered Questions, after two or three exchanges the right hon. Gentleman somewhat reluctantly said that he would make a statement in advance of the White Paper. Another week has now gone by. When are we likely to have a statement?

I think I said "I hope" before.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are taken by the United Nations organisation to check the qualifications of the representatives of the non-administering members of the Trusteeship Council.

None, Sir. The choice of representatives is a matter for the member Governments which appoint them.

Does not Article 86 of the Charter of the United Nations lay down that representatives shall be qualified to speak on colonial administration. or know something about it? Is it not a mockery if they are not properly qualified?

I do not think it is for us to say whether they are qualified or not.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who are the present representatives of the non-administering members of the United Nations Trusteeship Council.

The representatives of the non-administering members on the Trusteeship Council, as at the last regular session of the Council, were:

U Mya Sein (Burma).

Chiping H C. Kiang (China).

M. E. Arenales Catalan (Guatemala).

M. Max H. Dorsinville (Haiti).

Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon (India).

M. Rafik Asha (Syria).

M. V. F. Grubyakov (U.S.S.R.).

As several of those countries have no knowledge whatever of colonial administration, may I ask whether it is anybody's business to check the qualifications of those representatives and of those who are sent on missions to our Trust Territories and to make suggestions for improving them, as they know nothing whatever about the matter?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view, but I do not think this House would agree that we ought to comment on the representatives of other countries.

Would not the Joint Under-Secretary of State agree that while there may be difficulties about the question of qualifications the real issue is not one of qualifications but a political one? Is not the expertise supposed to be primarily supplied by the Administering Powers? Would it not be a mistake to suppose that this is simply a matter of individual qualifications?

I think there is a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Egypt has yet given any undertaking to the United Nations organisation that she will comply with the demand of the United Nations to allow Israeli ships to pass through the Suez Canal.

No, Sir.

In view of that Answer, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see to it that, Article 25 of the United Nations Charter having been violated, special precautions will be taken, before Israel is requested to move from the straits at Aqaba, so that her shipping will be allowed to go through there, and that steps will be taken to see that her shipping will be allowed to go through the Suez Canal, when it is reopened?

So far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, the Prime Minister made the position clear in his statement to the House on Monday. The second matter is one which is very present to our minds.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the initiation of proposals for a revision of the Charter of the United Nations.

I have nothing to add to the statement on this subject made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate on the Adjournment on 3rd December, 1956.

A good deal has happened since then. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the present constitution of the United Nations leaves a great deal to be desired and considerably impairs its efficiency, and does he not think it a good thing that this country should take the initiative in proposing revisions to make it more up to date?

We are perfectly aware of the difficulties arising from certain aspects of the Charter but at this moment we are not proposing to take the initiative in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development with particular reference to the British policy on the 39-nation resolution of 1st February, 1957, calling for the early drafting of a statute.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision not to contribute to the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development, in view of the proposed cuts in defence expenditure.

Her Majesty's Government consider that in present conditions it would be inappropriate to draw up a statute for the fund. There are still very substantial differences in the points of view of various Governments on the basic features of the proposed fund, and when the fund can begin operations circumstances may differ greatly from those obtaining now. As regards savings derived from the proposed cuts in defence expenditure, experts have estimated that the fund should have available to it not less than 250 million dollars for a start, and there would be a continuing commitment for contributions. Her Majesty's Government have accordingly no reason to alter their belief that only a programme of internationally supervised world-wide disarmament will provide savings on a scale sufficiently large to finance a fund of this nature.

Is it not a fact that suggestions have been made that the fund could be supported with less than 250 million dollars? May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two questions? Has he any information whether a vote has been taken and whether the Resolution was passed or not? Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman study the problem of making available in this country detailed reports of the speeches of our representatives, as I find it very difficult to get information?

If the hon. Member will have a word with me about the first matter, I will certainly see what information can be obtained. I am not certain to what vote the hon. Member is referring. As to the provision of copies of speeches made, my impression was that copies of the transactions in the various committees of the United Nations are placed in the Library of the House, but I will certainly go into that matter.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House regard it as complete hypocrisy on the part of Her Majesty's Government to keep on talking as though they approve the principle of this fund when in fact they make absolutely sure that there has been no movement at all to implement it over the last six or seven years?

There is a practical point here. Somebody has to find the money for this fund, and we are already overcommitted across the balance of payments in finding funds for development in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. Therefore, we are not in a position to take the initiative.

Nevertheless, is the Minister aware that his Answer was a very disappointing and stonewalling one? Is he not aware that there are at present proposals being discussed internationally both for aid to the Middle East and for putting the aid to certain dependencies in Africa on an international basis? Would it not be much more suitable if those things were done through an international body of the type of S.U.N.F.E.D.? Is it not time that we took the lead on this matter, particularly in view of the fact that, I understand, we shall save considerable sums on the provision of aid to the Middle East in the case of Jordan? Could we not give that to this fund?

I do not think that we should alter our present methods for giving such development aid as we can. But if there is to be a contribution by us to this sort of fund, we have to earn £500 million or so across the balance of pay- ments to be available for this kind of activity. But we approve in principle and, if other people produce large sums of money to aid development, we should be very pleased to see it happen. We cannot do so at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Egypt has yet given any undertaking to the United Nations organisation that she will disband the fedayeen and not train any more of such persons for action against Israel;

(2) whether Egypt has yet given any intimation to the United Nations organisation that she proposes to withdraw her declaration of war against Israel.

So far as we know, Egypt has never formally declared war on Israel. She has, however, maintained in the past that a state of war exists. I am not aware that she has yet given any indication to the United Nations either that she will declare that a state of war does not exist or that she will cease fedayeen activities.

In view of the negotiations going on at present and the statements which have been continually made by the Egyptian authorities that they are at war with Israel, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will instruct our representative at the United Nations to see that a definite answer is given to this question by Egypt? Will he also ask that these bands of murderers who are being trained specifically in Egypt to cross the border shall be prevented from doing so?

I certainly think that this is a matter upon which there should be a clear statement as to the present position. Everything that we are doing is directed towards avoiding a situation in which the kind of raid and infiltration to which the hon. Member refers can take place.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are trying to get some formal statement by Egypt, preferably on the record of the United Nations, to the effect that she will play her part in observing the armistice conditions, including ending the state of belligerency and ending attacks across the border as part of an overall settlement?

Most certainly we are.

Is it not the case that only a state of belligerency justifies on any footing the blockade of Israeli ships in the Suez Canal, and is not this exactly the situation that the United Nations ought to deal with in order to bring pressure on Egypt to put an end to it in the interests of world peace?

We certainly think that this question of belligerency is one which requires settling as quickly as possible, and we seek a solution under which neither side will claim belligerent rights.

If a state of belligerency is claimed by Egypt, what right has she to require that Israeli troops should be out of the Gaza Strip or the Sinai Peninsula?

That is a very fair point to make. So far as I understand the position, what a large number of countries at the United Nations are saying is that Israel broke the armistice agreement and therefore must return behind the armistice lines. That is the ground on which they put their case.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that I believe it to be the view of the House as a whole that this matter cannot be compartmentalised, and while it may be right that Israel should be asked to withdraw, there ought to be, in any such resolution, simultaneously, a demand that Egypt renounces belligerency?

I think that there should be, in any resolution, not only the requirement that Israel should withdraw, but also that the situation in the Gaza Strip and the Gulf of Aqaba should be covered. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Monday, we regard that as a combined operation, and the whole of our effort has been directed to see that out of these discussions there shall come such a solution.

Are we to understand from the Foreign Secretary that Egypt is claiming a state of war between herself and Israel—with consequences which are not only injurious to Israel but are in conflict with the Convention of 1888—but that, at the same time, Egypt has never declared war on Israel, and when is this preposterous situation to end? May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if everything will be done to unmask this somewhat irregular and hypocritical situation, and to see that real justice shall be done to Israel, who has been the real victim of aggression all the way along?

We certainly hope that such a solution will be found, because such a solution would be not only in the interests of Israel but, we believe, it would be in the interests of the Arab States themselves to get rid of this situation which has been poisoning the atmosphere in the Midle East. As the right hon. Gentleman will probably remember from the time when he held my office, the Government of Egypt did base their alleged right to stop Israeli ships going through the Canal on the ground that they were exercising belligerent rights.

My right hon. and learned Friend refers to what was said by the Prime Minister on Monday, but mentions only the Gaza Strip and the Gulf of Aqaba with reference to the requirement that Israel should withdraw. Are we to understand that the clearance of the Canal and the freedom of shipping through the Canal is not to be part of the package deal, because that is surely fundamental?

I certainly agree with my noble Friend that that is a matter of fundamental importance, but I do not think that it is part of this particular negotiation. We hope that when the Canal is cleared, and we shall do everything we can to see to it, there will be freedom of passage under the Constantinople Convention. But the United Nations has been dealing up to now with compliance with certain resolutions which were passed on various dates—there are very many of them—and those resolutions deal with the withdrawal of Israeli troops. What we have sought to inject into it also is a settlement of these other two matters, which we believe are interrelated.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish the terms of the ultimatum delivered to Israel in 1948 by His Majesty's Government regarding a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Sinai.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given by my hon. Friend to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) and Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. G. Longden) on 20th February.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I have studied that Answer very carefully and that it is not at all clear from it whether any revelation was made to this House of the issue of the ultimatum at that time? In view of some of the comments that we have lately heard from hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite about the issue of an ultimatum recently, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether the House was ever told about the issue of that ultimatum by the Socialist Government in 1948?

If my hon. Friend will put that question down I will try to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the ships wilfully and illegally sunk by the Egyptians in the Suez Canal had been prepared as blockships.

The Anglo-French salvage unit counted 22 wrecks in Port Said and the United Nations reported 16 wrecks south of El Cap. Our own information shows that one wreck, the "Akka," was deliberately prepared as a blockship, being filled with concrete and towed into a planned scuttling position in the channel. She presented a very difficult problem in salvage but has now been raised.

At Port Said most of the wrecks had apparently been sunk in haste and by means of explosives. All but four obstructed the fairway to a greater or lesser extent. The position of the wrecks indicated a plan to form a series of barriers athwart the channel. Explosives had been left on board several of the wrecks. United Nations reports show that explosives also held up salvage work south of El Cap.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend send copies of that reply to Mr. Dulles and Mr. Hammarskjold?