asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent official statement on Middle East policy made by President Eisenhower, he will state the extent to which it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to resist Communist aggression in the Middle East.

As the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government have welcomed President Eisenhower's proposals. They are fully determined to cooperate with their allies in resisting Communist aggression in the Middle East.

Does not the Foreign Secretary's reply mean that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the commitment under the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 has been extended by the content of the Eisenhower declaration?

The Tripartite Declaration of 1950 did not deal expressly with the question of Communist aggression. It dealt with the question of the violation of frontiers and armistice lines. Of course, we have an important obligation in this matter under the Bagdad Pact.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the statement which he has made is an exceedingly serious one? Does he mean that, in the event of President Eisenhower, in the terms of his own policy as suggested, and Congress deciding that a nation has been threatened or has been the victim of an act of aggression by a nation under the control of international Communism, that decision automatically involves us?

No, I do not think so. I think that it is a matter for us to decide in each case the extent to which we consider ourselves bound. What I have said is that we are determined to co-operate with our allies in resisting Communist aggression, but we, of course, shall decide, as also will our allies, no doubt, and retain the right to decide in what circumstances we are involved.

Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in the first part of his statement that we supported the Eisenhower doctrine on the Middle East? Is it not part of that doctrine also that the United States will decide whether the victim is a victim of aggression or the threat of aggression by a nation under the control of international Communism—which is a most precise judicial statement, of course?

I do not think that there is anything inconsistent in what I have said. I have said that we welcome President Eisenhower's proposals as giving an indication of the intention of the United States to resist Communist aggression in that part of the world, and that nothing that I have said deprives Her Majesty's Government at the time of the right to decide upon the action to be taken by us.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in view of the refusal of President Eisenhower and the United States Administration to involve themselves in our quarrels in the Middle East, whether we can have an assurance that we shall not be dragged into theirs?

I should have thought that resistance to Communist aggression in the Middle East is also a British interest.

Is it not the obligation of the Government, so far as we understand it, to act in co-operation with the United Nations to resist aggression? Have not we now got a definition of aggression which makes it extremely difficult, when we introduce these qualitative terms, to say which kind of aggression it is?

I think that nothing that I have said has been inconsistent with our obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a specific question about the definition of aggression, that is a matter with which I will try to deal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the statements made by the Governments of the United States of America and France at the meeting of the representatives of these countries and the United Kingdom on 29th October, 1956, by which these Governments agreed that the Tripartite Declaration was no longer applicable to an attack by Israel on Egypt.

No, Sir.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that the Government have told us on four occasions recently, including last week, that the United States has agreed that the Tripartite Declaration was not applicable to Egypt? Does he also recall that only a few months before the meetings on 28th and 29th October, the then Prime Minister went to Washington to decide how the Tripartite Declaration could be implemented in respect of all the countries of the Middle East, and that the President called these meetings to implement the pledges then given? Does he not understand that no one can believe what the Government say unless the statement of the United States is published?

The right hon. Gentleman is very ready to think evil, but the facts are as they have been stated—that, at that time and in those circumstances, in view of the statements repeatedly made by the Government of Egypt about not accepting the implications of the Tripartite Declaration, it was not considered applicable in the event of an attack by Israel on Egypt.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify that statement? Is he now saying that in future, so far as the United States Government are concerned, they consider that the provisions of the 1950 Declaration are applicable to all the countries of the Middle East, including Egypt?

There is a Question on the Tripartite Declaration on the Order Paper for answer later.

Are we to understand that an attack by Israel on Egypt does not invoke the Tripartite Declaration, because Egypt does not consider that she is affected by it, and do we understand that if Egypt attacks Israel a similar interpretation will be placed on it? If so, what on earth is the Declaration about?

I have never said anything of the sort. As I have said, we still regard the Tripartite Declaration as applicable to an attack upon Israel. We also think that the Declaration is applicable to an attack by Israel upon certain other countries, but Egypt has deliberately said that she does not wish to receive any benefits from the Declaration, as she cannot accept the interference with her sovereignty which that would involve. There is another aspect of the Declaration, dealing with arms control, which we consider is applicable to the deliveries of arms to all the countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the cost to public funds over the four years ended 31st December, 1956, of the gifts in cash and kind given to the Arab Legion.

In the period from April, 1953, to 31st December, 1956, the cash subsidy to the Arab Legion, paid in accordance with our obligations under the Anglo-Jordan Treaty 1948, amounted to nearly £34 million. In the same period maintenance issues of equipment worth some £480,000 were made to certain units of the Arab Legion without payment. I am circulating detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain exactly what the British nation got out of this expenditure?

We were carrying out a treaty obligation entered into in 1948.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Pakistani High Commissioner, acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia, has issued a notice to British firms requiring a declaration from them that they are not trading with Israel before these firms can receive import licences from the Saudi Arabian Government; and what action he therefore proposes to take in protection of the British interests involved.

I am not aware that the Pakistan High Commissioner has issued any notice to British firms in the terms referred to by the hon. Member, but a notice has been issued requiring firms to make a declaration that they have no investments or other similar interests in Israel. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has been assured by the Pakistan High Commissioner that this requirement is not intended to impose any additional restrictions on British firms trading with Saudi Arabia. As the House will be aware, the Pakistan High Commissioner is acting in this matter on behalf of the Saudi Arabian Government, for whose interests in the United Kingdom he is responsible.

Does the Foreign Secretary not appreciate that the Pakistan Government are scarcely neutral in this matter, in so far as they have taken an active part in proposing sanctions against Israel? Is he further aware that I have in my hand a photostat copy of the statement issued by the Pakinstan Government on 15th January this year, laying down five conditions which bar British firms who are having dealings with Israel from dealing with Saudi Arabia? Further, is it not now clear that the Government's policy of constantly saying, before the Suez troubles took place, that they neither condoned nor approved the Arab boycott, was an incitement to the Arab countries to go on with this boycott? Will not the Government now become true friends of Israel and take the necessary steps to stop this attack on British trade and on Israel itself?

I do not think that anyone can suggest that we have given any encouragement to this boycott. We have disapproved of it from the beginning. The Pakistan High Commissioner is acting in this matter as a representative of Saudi Arabia. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says about Pakistan Government policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been reached and action taken regarding the Soviet proposals for the Middle East made in the Soviet Notes of 12th February, 1957.

I have nothing yet to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 19th February.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman particularly consider the proposal that further supplies of arms from either the Western or the Eastern side should be ended, and that there should be some co-ordination of economic aid to the nations of the Middle East?

Certainly, these matters will be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Trusteeship Council voted on the Soviet resolution proposing a time limit of three to five years for the achievement of independence by most Trust Territories; and what reasons were given for his vote.

The United Kingdom Representative on the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly opposed a Soviet resolution which recommended a time limit for the attainment of independence or self-government of Trust Territories. The words "within three to five years" which appeared in the preamble and operative paragraph 1 of the Soviet draft resolution, were changed, on a proposal by Syria, to "in the near future" and "at an early date" respectively, before the Soviet resolution came to a vote. The wording of the resolution as it was adopted by the Fourth Committee is given on pages 11 and 12 of United Nations document A/3554.

With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to page 3 of United Nations document A/C.4/SR.639, where there is a summary of what was said by the United Kingdom Representative. Briefly, the United Kingdom Representative said that it was impossible for an administering authority conscientiously to declare an estimate of the period of time required for the attainment of self-government.

Both the documents I have referred to are in the Library of the House.

Did the United Kingdom Representative make clear what was the Government's policy on the achievement of independence? Is it not the Government's policy that the Trust Territories should achieve independence, and in those circumstances why was not their view put forward by the Government on the period of time in which that could be attained?

I think that is a different question. This was a matter of accepting a firm time-table, and, as the United Kingdom Representative made quite clear, we could not conscientiously do that.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Colonial Office and the colonial administrations in the Trust Territories concerned are far better judges of when the time is likely to be ripe for independence than the whole of the United Nations, who do not know anything about it?

Yes, Sir; I do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking for the establishment of a United Nations Anti-Slavery Commission.

I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks of my hon. Friend the then Joint Under-Secretary when replying to the Adjournment debate on Anti-Slavery Conventions on 21st December last. I have nothing to add.

Is the Minister aware that the Arab slave trade is booming at the moment, supported nobly by Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia? Is he further aware that the patrols which the British Government organised along the Arabia-African slave routes in the 1930s put slavery down? Will not he now give support—and ask his right hon. and learned Friend to give support—to the resuscitation of an international organisation to put an end to this disgraceful and barbaric trade?

Yes, Sir, but the point is that we are awaiting a United Nations initiative in this matter at the present time. The initiative does not rest with us.

Will my hon. Friend stimulate that initiative? Does not he realise that there is uneasiness in all sections of the country, and not only about the Middle East? There are parts of South America where slavery is carried on to a serious degree, and all the evidence shows that it is on the increase in various parts of the world.

I note what my hon. Friend says.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "awaiting United Nations initiative"? Does that mean that we are awaiting some move by the Secretary-General? Is he aware that most initiatives in the United Nations have to be taken by leading members of the United Nations?

If the right hon. Gentleman will study the Answer which I gave one of his hon. Friends on 28th January he will see that we are unable to ratify the Convention until certified copies in all five official languages of the United Nations have been received from the United Nations Secretariat—and they have not yet been received.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he is not prepared to answer Questions put to him asking which way the British delegate has been instructed to vote on major issues at the United Nations; and if he will now alter that practice.

The instructions which I send to the United Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations and to all Her Majesty's representatives abroad are, by their nature, confidential. The Answer to the second part of the Question is therefore, No, Sir.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman help the House in this matter, in that before these votes the matter is hypothetical; just before they are cast it is held to be secret; while they are being cast it is held to be too critical to intervene; and afterwards it is too late? Is he aware that the consequence of this is that the United Nations machinery is becoming something of a mockery in this House which, while it may please some of his hon. Friends, is extremely undesirable?

I cannot understand the hon. Member's point. The responsibility for giving instructions must rest with the Government of the day.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he gave instructions to the British delegate at the United Nations to vote against the inclusion of the Algerian question on the agenda of the General Assembly.

The hon. Member seems to have been misinformed. No such instructions were sent. The Resolution to inscribe the Algerian question on the agenda of the General Assembly was passed without dissension and without a vote.

Does not that illustrate the difficulty in which hon. Members find themselves in this matter? May I, at any rate, congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this occasion, and hope that it leads in the future to further opposition to the French colonial war in Algeria?

The only comment I wish to make on that is that the hon. Gentleman, before putting down Questions, should inform himself on the facts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by which Minister the Government will be represented at the forthcoming meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs will lead the United Kingdom Delegation at the forthcoming meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee. I hope to be present myself at the opening meeting on 18th March.

I welcome the decision of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be present. May I ask him whether, if rapid progress is made—as we all hope it will be—he will himself be prepared to intervene again at a later stage in order to bring the discussions to the point of agreement?

Certainly I should be prepared to intervene at a later stage, but I am not certain that my intervention would have the result which the hon. Member envisages.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will submit to the Disarmament Sub-Committee a draft disarmament convention embracing such measures of disarmament, inspection and control as represent common ground between the major Powers.

Certainly not at the outset, Sir. There is not yet sufficient common ground between the major Powers to enable Her Majesty's Government to draw up a draft disarmament convention on this basis. They sincerely hope, however, that the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee will achieve sufficient progress to make this possible.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his reply is rather surprising to those who have studied the proposals put forward by the various Powers at various times? Will he not at least say that the British Government are prepared to go in for as much disarmament as can be agreed on and controlled, and which will not alter substantially the balance between the major Powers?

Yes, it is absolutely true that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to enter into either a comprehensive agreement or a partial agreement. The only reason why I said "Certainly not at the outset" is that I am not satisfied that to try to prepare a draft disarmament convention at the beginning of the conference would be a wise way for the conference to begin its work.

Since the Government's economic failure has imposed upon us the unilateral disarmament which we are seeing on all sides, is there not something to be said for trying to persuade someone else to join in?

I thought that one of the opinions held by hon. Members opposite was that, for example, the Russian reduction in armaments was something to be followed by us. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that that is a failure of Russian economic policy?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that this suggestion is not the wisest way to begin. Would it not be a good thing if the disarmament convention began with a clear statement of what agreement has already been reached in order that we might consider what additional agreement could be reached? Does it follow that it is wise to start off with the maximum confusion and disagreement first, rather than to find out what common ground exists at the beginning and try to add to it later on?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Obviously one would attempt to begin this conference by stating the measure of agreement already attained. That is one reason why I propose to attend the first meeting myself. We want to see whether from that we can develop discussions so as to widen agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of the discussions initiated by Her Majesty's Government concerning effective standing forces for the United Nations; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to press for effective military forces to be permanently placed at the disposal of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 4th February.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if the Israelis are to be forced to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, the formation of some kind of permanent force by the United Nations becomes an imperative duty and responsibility on its part?

We have always hoped that from the United Nations Emergency Force would come something of a permanent nature.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that events have shown that the establishment of such a force is logically the next step in the evolution of the United Nations as an effective international force, and that it would receive a wide measure of support from all parties?

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. However, there are certain technical difficulties from the point of view of the United Nations.

As Her Majestys Govment's policy has not been successful, because, as we understand from the answers to several Questions, we wished the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Aqaba and the Gaza Strip to be accompanied by the intervention of the United Nations Force, to prevent a repetition of what happened before, what pause is now to take place between the two events? Has there been agreement or discussion about that?

That is going a good deal wider than the terms of the Question on the Order Paper. I do not accept for a moment that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter has been unsuccessful. I understand that as the Israeli forces withdraw they will be relieved by the United Nations Force.

I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say, in reply to several Questions a few weeks ago—and the Prime Minister backed him up the following week—that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it would be desirable that, while Israel could not attach conditions to her withdrawal, nevertheless provisions for her safety should take place simultaneously with her withdrawal?

That is exactly what I understand is to happen; that the United Nations Emergency Force is to take over the positions in the Gaza Strip and at Aqaba.

In circumstances where, seemingly, we have no control over the policy of the Assembly of the United Nations, is it appropriate that the Government should so readily agree to the establishment of a permanent standing force by the United Nations?

What I said was that I hoped there would emerge from the United Nations Emergency Force a permanent force to be used for police purposes. That would require certain statutes as to how that force was to be used.

In the interests of getting something permanent, are not there two factors which are absolutely cardinal? First, that the members of this so-called permanent force should be individually and directly recruited by the United Nations, and not be contingents seconded by sovereign States which could Withdraw their contingents; and, secondly, that there should be some territory which would be a permanent base from which this United Nations constabulary could operate, or to which it could fall back if it had to be withdrawn from some other part of the world?

It is precisely because of the complications introduced by both points which the hon. Member has raised that I do not think that at the moment we should give more than general support to the idea.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the method of nomination for the election of non-administering members of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.

Under Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, non-administering members of the Trusteeship Council are elected by secret ballot, and there are no nominations.

Is it not rather extraordinary that among the non-administering Powers there is no European nation except Russia? How does that position arise?

That is another question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a visit is to be paid to Hungary by the Secretary-General of the United Nations organisation in the near future, in accordance with the United Nations resolution.

No specific recommendation has been made by the General Assembly of the United Nations that the Secretary-General should visit Hungary. He himself offered to go there. The Hungarian Government rejected as "inappropriate" one date, 16th December, proposed by the Secretary-General and said that they would propose another one later. They have not yet done so.

Are we to assume from that reply that in the case of a nation which flouts the authority of the United Nations because she is supported by Russian tanks and guns the United Nations is to do nothing? If that proceeds further, would it not create cynicism in the minds of many people who have watched the United Nations' action in the case of Israel and of other countries?

I certainly think that this is an example of the "double standard" which has caused cynicism in a good many minds already.

Would it not be possible to refer to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations the question of how soon self-government and democratic Parliamentary Government are to be restored to Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Estonia?

It is certainly an interesting suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the United States Administration that our two countries should jointly move a resolution at the General Assembly calling upon Egypt to comply with previous resolutions of the Security Council asking her to terminate the state of war with Israel, end the blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, and open the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, as a condition precedent to Israel complying with the General Assembly Resolution on the withdrawal of Israeli forces.

It would appear that Israel is now complying with General Assembly resolutions calling for the withdrawal of her forces. In the circumstances, the question of conditions precedent does not seem to arise.

While admitting, of course, that events have outstripped this Question, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary does not think that we should press for Egypt to put herself in accord with the Charter before United Nations forces are withdrawn?

We certainly hope that United Nations forces will not be withdrawn until the conditions for a real settlement exist.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the United States Administration and the United Nations organisation that bullying of Israel is no substitute for a firm and united policy towards Colonel Nasser and his Soviet backers?

I think that all Governments should have a firm and united policy towards the problems of that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose that the General Assembly of the United Nations should request the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the question of whether the General Assembly is legally competent to call upon member States to take enforcement action, in view of the fact that, according to Article 11 of the Charter, the General Assembly must refer any such question to the Security Council, and that it is the latter, alone, which the Charter designates in Article 24 and Chapter VII as the body competent to take decisions on enforcement action.

No, Sir. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a reference of this matter to the International Court of Justice since it is common knowledge that resolutions of the General Assembly in whatever terms they may be framed have no mandatory or obligatory force.

I agree that the Security Council is the body competent under the Charter to take decisions on enforcement action.

In view of that Answer, will not the Foreign Secretary make it clear at the General Assembly that that body has not the right under the Charter in any circumstances to recommend enforcement action? This is a very important issue which may upset the whole balance of the Charter.

I find myself, somewhat unusually, in agreement with the hon. Member. I think that the Assembly has gone wrong in this matter. To he quite fair, I think that part of the reason it went wrong was because of some of the "Uniting for Peace" procedure—invented, I think, in 1950.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify his Answer a little? Does he not agree that although primary responsibility for these matters, of course, rests with the Security Council, there are certain circumstances in which the Assembly has obligations in respect of calling on its members, not necessarily in a mandatory way, to do something about an act of aggression? Is he now seeking to go back on that principle, which has been adopted by all our friends and allies and ourselves, at least since 1950?

I think that the Assembly can make recommendations, but I certainly do not think many people would have been prepared to sign the original Charter had they thought that the General Assembly was to be a body charged with carrying out mandatory or obligatory functions.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in discussions about the Charter at San Francisco the very reason advanced for setting up the Security Council was that it was felt that the decisions of the Assembly should not be mandatory? Will he make that clear?

I hope that the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh) will have done that. I certainly agree with her.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what financial contributions Her Majesty's Government have made to date to the various funds for the relief of Hungarian refugees.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind that, although the more spectacular aspects of the Hungarian refugee problem have now passed away, the problem still remains, and will he consider very carefully any application for help that may come from the Austrian Government, as a large number of Hungarian refugees are still living in very bad conditions in Austria?

I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend to bear that in mind.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that British refugees from Egypt are getting as much help, both from voluntary sources and from the Government, as are Hungarian refugees in this country?

That is another question, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put it down, I will endeavour to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the cost of transporting Hungarian refugees from Austria to Great Britain; how much of this cost was paid by the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration; and when and why the movements ceased.

Of the 19,000 Hungarian refugees who have so far entered the United Kingdom, 12,615 were transported by the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration at, I understand, a cost of £135,000. In addition, the Committee has moved some 3,600 miners at the request and expense of the National Coal Board, the cost being about £40,000. Smaller parties of refugees have been brought to this country by various private organisations, and I am not in a position to inform the right hon. Member of the costs incurred by these organisations.

The large-scale movement of Hungarian refugees to this country was suspended towards the middle of December because of accommodation difficulties. In January Her Majesty's Government announced their willingness to receive another 5,000; but on 25th January the Inter-Governmental Committee informed us that it was unable to finance the movement of more of these refugees—of whom 550 had been moved—until agreement had been reached on financial responsibility. The remaining 4,450 are therefore being brought to this country by Her Majesty's Government at a cost of about £32,000.

Am I right in understanding that Her Majesty's Government paid about £40,000, or one-third of the cost of the £135,000 in respect of the refugees brought here from Hungary?

That is correct.

Does the Joint Under-Secretary understand that the Government would have a great deal of support from hon. Members on both sides of the House if they would join this most useful organ of Commonwealth and European co-operation? Could not they be a little more generous about the transport of these Hungarians to this country?

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says about joining this organisation. It is not the policy of the Government to change their decision on that issue. Frankly, I do not think that the Government can be regarded as having been ungenerous in the treatment of these refugees.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the action of the Hungarian authorities on 25th February at the British Legation in Budapest; and whether any British subjects were arrested.

On 25th February, uniformed and plain clothes police, operating in pairs in the vicinity of Her Majesty's Legation, Budapest, took away for questioning about one hundred and fifty persons, the majority of whom had visited the Legation. No advance notice of this action was given. The Legation was not cordoned off nor, as far as is known, were any British subjects involved.

According to the reply which my hon. Friend has given, so far as is known no British subject was involved. Surely that needs some further investigation. Does not the action taken by the Hungarian authorities represent an infringement of diplomatic immunities and practice?

The Hungarian Minister in London was requested to call at the Foreign Office on 28th February and was asked to obtain an explanation of the action of the Hungarian Government. That he undertook to do. He was also informed that Her Majesty's Government hoped that the action would not be continued or repeated. No reply has yet been received to these representations. I shall be happy to inform my hon. Friend when it is.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent he has been able to implement the Government's policy of reducing expenditure in his Department; and whether he will give for January, 1951, and the latest convenient stated date the total number of staff employed in his Department and the total expenditure, respectively.

On 1st January, 1951, the total staff employed by the Foreign Office, excluding those locally-engaged abroad, numbered 11,549; and net Foreign Service and allied expenditure during the financial year 1950–51 was about £17,023,000. Corresponding figures for 1st April, 1956, and the financial year 1955–56 were 7,194 and £15,030,000.

The rate of reduction of staff and expenditure has decreased, because we are reaching the limit of economies and because salaries and other costs are rising. Nevertheless, economies are still being effected in accordance with the Government's policy; and the Estimates for the Foreign Service Vote for 1957–58, though slightly higher than the out-turn in the year 1955–56, show a reduction on the Estimates for 1956–57.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on that excellent news. Will he have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and with the other Service Departments, and give them advice as to how they too could achieve the admirable progress which he himself has made?

I am not sure that my right hon. Friends need advice from me, any more than I need congratulations from the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the number of his staff who, on Tuesday, 5th March, 1957, have not received an increase in their salaries, since the date upon which Members of Parliament last received an increase in their salaries.

So far as the United Kingdom based staff are concerned, none, Sir.

I welcome that reply, but may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that today Members of Parliament are only half as well paid, relatively, as were Members of Parliament in 1911? May we have an assurance that, with the exception of the Minister, no one in his Department is in that deplorable position?

My Answer covers that point.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House when the salary of the Foreign Secretary was last raised?

Certainly the date of 1911 which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) mentioned is perfectly safe. I do not think that the Minister has had an increase in his pay packet for forty-five years.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what approaches he has made either to the United Nations or the Egyptian Government, with a view to normalising relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government and resolving the Suez Canal dispute; and to what extent he has been successful in his endeavours.

As regards the resumption of normal relations, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 7th February, except that the Egyptian Government have as yet made no reply. As for action in the United Nations to resolve the Suez Canal dispute, there is nothing to add to the reply given to my noble friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on 20th February.

May I take it from the Foreign Secretary's Answer that the British Government would be willing to normalise relations if we could get a settlement of all the outstanding difficulties now confronting us. Will he try to achieve a solution of these problems in an endeavour to get peace and understanding in the world, and particularly in the Middle East?

We certainly want a settlement of the problems in the area, and that settlement must include what the hon. Member calls a normalising of relations.

Since Egypt originated the dispute, is not it about time that she took some action?

We cerainly hope that an initiative towards the settlement of the dispute will be taken by Egypt.

Can the Foreign Secretary say when the United Nations will resume discussions with a view to the permanent settlement of the Suez Canal trouble, and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to that end?

I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that. It is not quite certain at the moment what the next steps to be taken will be. I think it is appropriate that there will be a resumed debate on the Middle East, either tomorrow or on the following day, after which it may be that the Secretary-General will make certain moves. I cannot add publicly to the information already given.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet say when the Suez Canal is to be reopened.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the clearance of the Suez Canal.

The latest information I have received from the United Nations is that apart from the vessels "Edgar Bonnet" and "Aboukir", on which the United Nations salvage team has not yet started work, the Canal has been cleared of all other wrecks which could impede the passage of normal traffic. This means that as soon as these two wrecks are removed, ships of at least 30 ft. draught could pass through the Canal. I cannot give a precise date when the Canal will be open again. When it is opened the lighting, telecommunications and workshop facilities will have been restored.

Why has it taken two months longer for the United Nations to get the Canal open than it would have taken us? Is it because the United Nations cannot do the work any more quickly or because Colonel Nasser has ordered it not to do the work any more quickly?

I certainly would not like it to be thought that there is any reflection upon the technical skill of the United Nations team. I think it has done its very best, but certain limitations and delays have been imposed upon it.

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a ridiculous position that the Egyptian Government are deliberately holding up the clearance of the Canal? Will he please ask Mr. Dulles to explain why America seems quite prepared to adopt direct economic action against Israel but that when the question is one of stopping Egypt from dragging its feet over the clearance of the Canal, Mr. Dulles adopts the unctuous rôle of Pontius Pilate and palms the whole thing off on the United Nations.

It is not appropriate to comment in those terms upon the representative of a friendly State. I must say that. I would ask my hon. Friend, and all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen at this moment to exercise some restraint in this matter. It looks as if there is a certain easement in the situation. We very much want some agreement which will be in the interests of all the parties.

In view of the pressure that has been brought to bear upon the State of Israel to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations and in view of its agreement to do so, what is going to be done about the attitude of the Egyptian Government? Is no pressure to be brought to bear upon that Government to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations? Are we to have one United Nations law for the State of Israel and quite another for Egypt?

I certainly do not accept that position. It would be wrong for the United Nations or for any country to accept the position that there should be different standards. We have sought in this matter to get an international set-up for the Gaza Strip, and to get the right of innocent passage through the Straits of Tiran recognised, and also that there should be no discrimination against ships going through the Suez Canal. We shall do everything possible to see that those objectives are attained.

is it not a fact that for three, four or five years we have constantly been asked to restrain ourselves in respect of adverse comments upon Egypt? Is it not high time that this House, the United States and the United Nations made it clear to the world that the Egyptian attitude in the Middle East is utterly disastrous to progress and to peace?

There is a time for adverse comment, and I have not abstained from adverse comment upon one Government or another from time to time. At this particular time I do not think that it is appropriate for us to go too far into this matter.

Would it not be the wisest and most dignified posture for this House to adopt to assume that the Egyptian Government will now accept the authority of the United Nations and allow clearance of the Suez Canal without further hindrance, and not to make any assumption that Egypt will hold out any more against what she should do?

I believe that the Egyptian Government have already stated—I do not see why they should not keep their word on this matter—that there will be no discrimination against British or French shipping. That is the position at the moment. So far as Israeli shipping is concerned, the Egyptian Government have said that they would accept the six principles unanimously passed by the Security Council in October. That means that the Canal should be kept open to the shipping of the whole world. That is the present position, and that is how we should leave it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are taking place with reference to the property of British nationals impounded by the Egyptian Government.

There are no negotiations at the moment on this matter with the Egyptian Government. On 27th January, at Her Majesty's Government's request, the Swiss Legation in Cairo delivered a Note to the Egyptian Government calling on them to terminate the measures they had taken against British nationals and property during the period of armed conflict. The Egyptian Government have not yet replied.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it would be a good thing if such negotiations were opened at an early date?

Certainly I think it is right that the negotiations should be opened at the appropriate time.