With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a humble Petition, signed by some 1,700 of my constituents, who are residents of Cranford in the Borough of Heston and Isleworth.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House may see fit to urge upon Her Majesty's Ministers that a 30 m.p.h. speed limit be applied to the Bath Road, Cranford, between its junction with the Parkway and the western boundary of the borough, that pedestrian-actuated traffic lights be installed at the junction of the Bath Road and Berkeley Avenue, Cranford, and that a pedestrian subway be constructed on the Bath Road close to its junction with Mornington Crescent (East) without delay.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the results of the recent Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva, if he will ensure that any such future conference at which Great Britain is represented shall be limited to problems affecting the fishing waters of the northern European region only, shall consist only of representatives from the nations comprising the northern European region, and shall not be entered upon without the authority of this House being sought and given.

No, Sir. The recent Conference was a United Nations Conference to consider the Law of the Sea as a whole. My right hon. and learned Friend does not deny the usefulness of conferences called for more limited purposes, but he certainly cannot undertake that the Government will never again participate in a conference having the same broad scope.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that for non-maritime and far-distant nations to meet to lay down the law of the sea for European nations in respect of European waters is frustrating and unreasonable, and that this accounts to a large extent for the comparative failure of the recent Conference at Geneva? Will he reconsider my suggestions with regard to having a more productive conference if another conference be held?

I will certainly take into account what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. The Conference dealt with many other matters besides fisheries—slavery, piracy, the exploitation of the continental shelf, and so on. There are a great many matters to do with the law of the sea which I think it is advisable to debate in a large conference of this kind from time to time. In many of these other respects it was a highly successful Conference.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government are trying to summon a regional conference to consider not only the question of territorial waters but the question of the conservation of fish?

I can say that Her Majesty's Government consider that such a conference might serve a very useful purpose, but its composition and terms of reference would, of course, have to be very carefully considered.

Is it not a fact that during the Conference on the fishing rights of maritime nations the intervention of non-maritime countries was distinctly unhelpful?

Broadly speaking, I think that that is true.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now state to what extent Her Majesty's Government support the Rapacki Plan for Central Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now publish Her Majesty's Government's reply to the proposals of the Polish Government concerning the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in Europe.

Her Majesty's Government have carefully examined the Rapacki Plan in consultation with their Allies. They sympathise with the Polish Government's desire to see progress in disarmament and the reduction of international tension. They have, however, concluded that the adoption of the Polish Plan would have such serious military and political disadvantages for the West that it would not achieve these objects. They hope that, either at a Summit Conference or in some other way, it will be possible to agree on different proposals for achieving the same purposes. These views were communicated in a Note to the Polish Government on 17th May. I will circulate the text of the Note in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does that reference to our Allies in the Foreign Secretary's reply mean that all the Governments of N.A.T.O. are rejecting the Plan? Further, are we to take it from his reply that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to include this particular proposal in the agenda of the proposed Summit Conference?

So far as the views of our N.A.T.O. Allies are concerned, I think that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said is correct, that none of them favours the Rapacki Plan in its present form. With regard to the agenda for a Summit Conference, that is, of course, under discussion, and I myself could not conceive of a conference meeting that did not consider the question of European security.

Has Her Majesty's Government drafted constructive counterproposals to the Rapacki Plan, and if so, will they not now publish them instead of waiting until the American Government have jumped the gun—as they did on the Rapacki Plan—and put forward less constructive proposals with less chance of success?

I think the question of what the hon. Member calls counterproposals must be under consideration, but I can offer no promise that we shall publish our proposals for a meeting. What we have to consider is proposals that will add to security.

Is it a desirable state of affairs that proposals of this sort should be rejected before a summit meeting is held? If this sort of thing is done, the road to the summit will be paved by a whole series of prickly rejections and there will be hardly anything to discuss at the summit meeting when it takes place.

I think there may be something in what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I have been constantly pressed for our views on the Rapacki Plan.

Would it not, therefore, have been perfectly proper for the United States Government, for ourselves and for any other Government involved that is asked the question to say that these are all matters to be considered at the summit and not to reject them out of hand beforehand and make a very unfortunate climate of opinion?

I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. If he studies the terms of the Note that we have sent to the Polish Government, I think he will regard it as being of a constructive nature.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the instalment of £500,000 due from the Jordan Government last month for British stores and installations has been deferred till 1964.

The Government of Jordan is one with which Her Majesty's Government have close and friendly relations, and when the Jordan Government decided to ask for deferment of the instalment due on the 1st May, 1958, Her Majesty's Government felt it reasonable to agree.

Is not the Minister aware that at this rate the total amount of £3 million still due to the British Government will never be repaid? Instead of expecting the British taxpayer to submit to one miserable fiasco after another in the Middle East, why not ask the Jordan Government to put the money they are not repaying to useful purposes, such as resettling Arab refugees or doing something else useful with it?

We believe that the Jordan Government are doing something useful with it. They are developing their country—and I do not accept the suggestion that this money will never be repaid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are now the main obstacles to arranging a Foreign Ministers' meeting to prepare for summit talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken since the North Atlantic Organisation Conference at Copenhagen to arrange a meeting of Foreign Ministers as a preliminary to a Summit Conference.

There are no obstacles, but the Ambassadors in Moscow have only just begun their exchanges of views with the Soviet Government.

In view of the long delay, and if it is true that there are no obstacles, why will the Foreign Secretary not now propose a date, at any rate for the Foreign Secretaries' meeting? We have been pressing for a date for the summit talks. Would it not be constructive to propose a definite date for this meeting so that they might get on with the job?

I could no disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. These discussions through the diplomatic channels have begun not unhopefully. I think it has been agreed, in principle, that the discussions shall be in confidence, which, I think, is a good thing. I do think there is a real prospect of a business-like exchange of views on the subject of the matters to be considered on the agenda, and, as I say, I think that the talks have begun not unhopefully. I do not think it would be helpful to try to fix a date.

Does the Foreign Secretary seriously think that there are any prospects of a Summit Conference being held this year?

Certainly, I do, if there is the will to carry forward these preparations; and the beginning, as I have said, has been not unpromising.

Since the necessity or the desirability of a Summit Conference arises out of the fact that the Foreign Ministers of the various Powers concerned have so far been unable to agree, what exactly is the purpose of having a meeting of those Foreign Ministers before the Summit Conference?

The answer to that is that it is because the Soviet Government suggested it. But the point, leaving legalities out, is to get some genuine negotiation going, and I have just said that I think this has begun not unpromisingly in the first discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's diplomatic representatives in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since the Soviet Foreign Minister's announcement of the suspension of nuclear tests.

I do not know what the hon. Member has in mind. I regularly receive reports on a variety of subjects; it is not customary to disclose their contents.

Can the Foreign Secretary now say whether he regards the announcement by the Soviet Foreign Minister that the Soviet Government were suspending nuclear tests as a genuine move, or whether he still regards it as mere propaganda? Do the reports of the British diplomatic representatives in Moscow indicate that it was a genuine move to try to relax tension?

The hon. Gentleman's Question was a very vague one and my reply, therefore, was very vague. He is now asking about a specific matter with regard to the Soviet announcement about the suspension of tests. I think that one factor in the Soviet announcement is that it comes immediately at the end of a very large and accelerated series of test explosions. I think that that must be taken into account. On the other hand, I am perfectly prepared to accept it as a genuine offer to suspend tests.

What is the use of the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeating that statement over and over again, when he knows very well that last year the Soviet Union did ask that there should be agreement to hold no further tests after the beginning of this year; and, therefore, that this series of Soviet tests would not have been held if the British and American Governments had then accepted the Soviet offer?

The question whether one should accept cessation of tests by itself is a matter upon which the views of Her Majesty's Government are well known. We have constantly said that that should be associated with other measures of disarmament. I was asked about a particular statement.

Is not the Foreign Secretary misleading public opinion, or attempting to mislead public opinion—he is obviously failing—when he says that the Soviet suspension of tests should be considered in the light of the fact that it followed a whole series of Soviet tests, when, in fact, he was invited to suspend tests from the beginning of the year?

I was dealing with the unilateral statement. I was asked about a report about that, and I said that we should take into account the circumstances in which it was made. Had it been made before the Soviet tests were made—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was."]—it would have been a different matter.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a great many people on both sides of the House regard the mere suspension of tests as being of very little importance indeed, but that what might be really important is whether we can get technical working parties set up to study a system of international control and inspection? Is the Soviet Union making any progress in that respect?

There are two questions here. In regard to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, I maintain that it is of the greatest importance to get a cessation of tests associated with the cut-off in the manufacture of fissile materials and also with some measure of conventional disarmament.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that a great many people in this country believe we should respond to the Soviet invitation?

asked the secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to organise technical study by experts of the control and supervision of nuclear tests in co-operation with the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly proposed that experts from the countries concerned should meet and study a control system for supervising the suspension of nuclear tests. I made the suggestion on behalf of the Western Powers in a speech on 2nd July of last year in the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee. It has been reiterated since, the last occasion being the Prime Minister's letter of 21st April to Mr. Khrushchev.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House is fully informed of this fact but that a fortnight ago the Soviet Government declared their readiness to participate in such a study? Does he not agree that the confused and dilatory response of the Government to the Soviet initiative may be regarded all over the world as evidence that Britain does not desire an agreement on this issue?

The hon. Gentleman should be fair. We are willing to take part in such a study, but the Soviet Government have not yet indicated whether they are willing to take part with us in such a study.

If this study and supervision of nuclear tests reach a satisfactory conclusion, will Her Majesty's Government then be prepared to suspend tests despite the fact that a wider disarmament agreement might not have been reached?

That is a matter for future consideration. We shall continue to try to get wider agreement.

Will the Foreign Secretary answer my question? In the event of these present studies reaching such a conclusion that, in fact, the suspension of tests can be satisfactorily supervised, will Her Majesty's Government then be prepared to suspend tests despite the fact that in the meantime a wider disarmament agreement would not have been reached?

I have made it clear that that is not our position. We are not prepared unilaterally to accept this. But I think that if the experts have agreed upon a suitable system, that is certainly a step forward, and it will make it much easier to bring in as part of a wider agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is now Her Majesty's Government's policy to seek a cessation of nuclear tests separately from a cessation of the production of atomic weapons.

Her Majesty's Government maintain their view that the cessation of nuclear tests should not be separated from the general question of disarmament, including the cessation of production of fissile material for weapons purposes.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that now that the American Government are moving in the direction of seeking an agreement separately on the cessation of nuclear tests, opinion in this country and in the world as a whole will be appalled to find that the British Government are now a major obstacle to a step which, if carried out, would not only save tens of thousands of lives but would also prevent the distribution of atomic weapons to an infinite number of sovereign States?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not correct. As to the second part, I have just stated our position.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is a matter of the most serious moment and that there is conclusive evidence that there is an overwhelming majority of opinion in this country against the Government's decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, try it. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that there are three major considerations in favour of this proposition being accepted—first, that if the tests were suspended for a period of time and good will were shown on all sides the international climate would be enormously improved; secondly, that further poisoning of the atmosphere would cease; and that thirdly, other nations would not obtain nuclear weapons? Therefore, very grave dangers might be avoided. Why do not the Government listen to ordinary commonsense in these matters?

To select one particular subject which is not disarmament in itself and then seek to lead people to believe that great steps could be made would be misleading public opinion. What we have to consider is, first of all, the defence interests of this country which are affected by this matter—the development of our own nuclear weapons. Until we get a balanced agreement which will to some extent cover conventional as well as nuclear disarmament and also the beginning of real nuclear disarmament—which is the cut-off in the manufacture of fissile material—we should be running great risks in accepting any such proposal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the Soviet Government's acceptance of the proposal to appoint experts to work out a system to monitor hydrogen bomb tests, he will now agree to conclude an agreement banning tests as soon as this system is applied.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The last word in my Question as printed is a misreading of my handwriting, for which I apologise. It should be "completed" and not "applied".

I do not think that affects my Answer, which is "No, Sir."

I admit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already replied to this question earlier in answering supplementaries, but will he not reflect that the United States Government themselves are now contemplating suspension of tests and, according to the Observer, this Government are asking them to delay this announcement? Are we not in danger of appearing before the world as nothing better than hydrogen-bomb Herods?

I really must deny categorically what the hon. Gentleman has just said, either about the contemplation of the United States Government or about our attempting to prevent them to come to any particular decision. I think that I have already dealt with the general aspects of the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions in the last six months the Paris Consultative Group on trade with China and the Soviet bloc has met; and when he expects to be able to report on the results of these discussions.

The Co-ordinating Committee of the Consultative Group met 98 times between 15th November and 16th May. I cannot yet say when it will be possible to make a statement on the result of the present review.

Is it the fact, on the admission of the Under-Secretary, that the Committee has met 98 times and has achieved no results whatsoever? Is that really the situation? In the light of that situation, are the Government going to do anything at all to try to develop trade?

If I recollect correctly, the hon. Member was asking very much the same sort of question this time last year about the China differential, and at the end of the consultations I think the result was one of which he and the rest of the House approved.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) to what extent Her Majesty's Government are committed to the maintenance of Portuguese sovereignty over Goa;

The principal bilateral treaties of alliance between this country and Portugal are those of 1373, 1386, 1642, 1654, 1660, 1661 and 1703, reinforced by the Declaration of 1899. These have all been published in volumes of the State Papers, and there are no engagements of this kind which have not been published. There is, in addition, a considerable number of other bilateral agreements on a wide variety of subjects, including a commercial treaty, but I assume the hon. Member is not referring to these.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not willing to tell the House to what extent Britain is committed to the maintenance of Portuguese sovereignty over Goa and other colonies in view of the fact that Dr. Salazar has repeatedly claimed that these treaties bind the British Government to the maintenance of this sovereignty, and that he claims this not only through the Treaty but through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware of the effect that that evasive answer will have upon world public opinion when a straight question is put to him?

I do not understand the hon. Member's supplementary question. He has referred, for example, to the case of Goa. I am not aware that any armed attack is contemplated against Goa. If the hon. Gentleman studies my answer carefully, he will realise that it is a wise one to make in the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what precautions are being taken to ensure that arms supplied by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are not being used in demonstrations by the French Army against the Government of France; what quantity of arms supplied by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are under French control in Algeria; and if he will make a statement.

No arms are supplied to the French or other member Governments by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Question does not, therefore, arise.

Can we be assured that the N.A.T.O. countries, and particularly Her Majesty's Government, are keeping a close watch on this matter and that, if the situation in France should deteriorate, no N.A.T.O. arms will be used by the demonstrators against the democratically elected Government of France?

I think I said in my answer that no N.A.T.O. arms are supplied to the French Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions are taking place with the Government of the United States of America under the Tripartite Declaration in view of the recent incidents on the Lebanon-Syrian frontier; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to protect British interests in the Lebanon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official consultations have taken place with the United States of America with regard to the movement of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in the vicinity of the Lebanon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to meet a request from the Iraq Petroleum Company for the evacuation of British personnel from the Lebanon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations have taken place with the signatories to the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 with regard to its validity and effectiveness; and what alteration is proposed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will call the present situation in Lebanon to the attention of the Security Council as a circumstance tending to cause international friction.

The responsibility for protecting British and all other foreign interests in the Lebanon is in the first place that of the Lebanese Government. From the information at my disposal, I believe that the Lebanese Government will be able to discharge their responsibility in this respect. Her Majesty's Government have received no request for evacuation from the Iraq Petroleum Company, with whom they are in touch, or from anyone else. Her Majesty's Government are however taking routine precautions.

In view of the allegations which are contained in the Soviet statement with regard to the Middle East, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it quite clear that the Western Governments have no intention of intervening militarily in the situation in the Lebanon?

The situation is uncertain and obscure, and I cannot make a statement such as that for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks. What I will certainly say is that no action will be taken contrary to the Charter or the established rules of international law.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend had drawn to his attention the statement appearing in The Times today to the effect that Mr. Dulles last week told leading senators that, in certain circumstances, and if called upon to do so, to render assistance to the Lebanese Government or to protect the lives of American personnel in the Lebanon, United States forces might be prepared to effect a landing? Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that a very large majority of the people of this country would wish the British Government to be associated with that position, if need be?

I do not think it very wise to deal with certain hypotheses which may arise. My noble Friend must be content with the statement I made. This is a serious situation, but it is not clear yet what will happen. We believe that the Lebanese Government will be able to maintain order and, so far as any intervention by ourselves is concerned, I said that it would not be contrary to the Charter or the established rules of international law.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there is any evidence of external subversive forces outside the Lebanon being responsible for causing disorder, and can he say also, in view of the fact that the United States naval forces are regarded as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, whether N.A.T.O. was consulted before there was any move?

Without doubt, there is evidence of subversive influence from outside. I think that there have been cases of arms being run, of frontier incidents and of a great deal of propaganda from outside, and also of citizens of other countries taking part in the disorders. There is a good deal of evidence to that effect. As regards the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, so far as I understand it, the Sixth Fleet is not part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces.

While welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend's reaffirmation of the Tripartite Declaration, may I ask whether he is aware of the view, very widely held, that it urgently needs strengthening and broadening, and that we shall never get permanent peace in this area until it is made perfectly plain that the great Powers will insist upon nothing less? Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether we are continuing to consult with our Allies and take part in every helpful development there is in this connection so as to strengthen that?

I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind. Of course, the Tripartite Declaration did begin:

"…having reviewed certain questions affecting the peace and stability of the Arab States and Israel…"

Will the Foreign Secretary say whether, in so far as British naval forces are operating in the Eastern Mediterranean, they are doing so as part of N.A.T.O. forces or acting independently?

I would like the hon. Gentleman to put that question down. My impression is that they are acting independently.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman find out and let us know about that? It is very confusing. When we hear that the United States is a member of N.A.T.O. and the Sixth Fleet is not, and that it is uncertain whether the British Fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean is part of N.A.T.O. or not, we really do not know where the frontiers lie, whether between weapons or between nations.

What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is what I said in my original Answer, that there is no question of any British forces assigned to N.A.T.O. being used.

I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's declaration that there is much to be said for referring the matter to the Security Council, and I accept his point that it is mainly a matter for the Lebanon Government, but does the Foreign Secretary not agree that it is also the right of other members of the United Nations to refer the matter, if they think fit, and will he give an undertaking that, so far as it does become a matter of international concern, the Government will insist upon it being dealt with through the United Nations on the basis of the Charter and not by any form of armed intervention on any pretext outside the action of the Security Council?

I have made a carefully considered answer about the possibilities. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, although I think that it is primarily a matter for the Lebanon, that does not rule out either the right or, indeed, the responsibility of other States in certain circumstances to refer the matter. But, for the moment, I expect that the Government of the Lebanon have a good deal of other matters on their hands.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really saying, in his previous answer, that he does not know under whose command the British forces come in this area and who is to give the order as to what they are to do?

The question I was asked was whether British naval units were being moved which were not part of the N.A.T.O. Command. That is a question of which I should want notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he filed with the International Court of Justice a reservation removing from the sphere of compulsory jurisdiction any question which in the opinion of the United Kingdom affects the national security of the United Kingdom or any of its dependent territories; whether this reservation still remains on the file; and if he will make a statement.

The reservation to which the hon. Member refers was notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 18th April, 1957, as is shown in Command 249, which has been laid before the House. The reservation remains in force.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether this precludes Scotland from raising at the International Court of Justice any grievance she has under the Treaty of 1707?

I should like notice of that question, but I should think that the answer is almost certain to be "Yes".

Does the Foreign Secretary recollect telling the House in the debate on the Address that this was not the final word of the Government? Can he tell us whether, in view of the objections which have been raised to what he did by the Secretary-General and other people, there have been international consultations on this matter?

I cannot yet add to what I said in the debate on the Address. I agree that it is a good time ago now and a great deal of other things have been happening. It is a matter about which, I say again, our final word has not been said.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Scotland has no grievances that she does not feel she can deal with perfectly efficiently by herself without help from outside?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reasons prevent this country recognising the East German Government.

Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the so-called "German Democratic Republic" has the characteristics of an independent State. It has been created and artificially maintained by the Soviet Government. Her Majesty's Government continue, therefore, to hold the Soviet authorities responsible for the conduct of affairs in Eastern Germany.

In the light of that answer, how can the Government recognise Western Germany which, in relation to the United States, differs little from Eastern Germany so far as support from Russia is concerned? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, by dollar aid, in general building and in housing and by various other means, the United States has subsidised Western Germany as much as Eastern Germany is being subsidised by Russia? If that argument is a valid one, surely it is not a very substantial one?

Of course, I cannot accept the premise upon which the hon. Gentleman asks his question. It is not just a matter of subsidies; it is the actual conduct of affairs in each country. Furthermore, the Federal Government of Germany came into being as a result of free elections, and there have not been any free elections, or what the hon. Gentleman would call free elections, in Eastern Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will enter into negotiations with the Egyptian Government for the purpose of securing the reinstatement of British pilots on the Suez Canal.

No, Sir.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that about two years ago his right hon. and learned Friend instigated an unofficial strike on the Suez Canal among the pilots, some of whom lost their jobs as a result? In view of what was said at the time, that it was impossible to run the Suez Canal without British pilots, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how the Suez Canal is running now and why more ships are going through than there were at that time?

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would negotiate with the Egyptian Government for the purpose of securing reinstatement of British pilots on the Suez Canal. I believe that the answer to that is "No," chiefly because I am not aware of any British pilots who want to be employed by the Suez Canal Company as at present organised by the Egyptians.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions have been held or inquiries made in response to the Soviet Notes of 11th February, 1957, and 19th April, 1957, in which a joint declaration was suggested based upon the principles of noninterference in the domestic affairs of the Middle East countries, reciprocal refusal to deliver arms to the Middle Eastern countries, the promotion of economic development in Middle Eastern countries without political terms, the liquidation of foreign bases and the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Middle Eastern countries; and if he will state Her Majesty's Government's policy on these matters.

The two Soviet Notes to which the hon. Member refers were answered by Notes from Her Majesty's Government dated 11th March and 11th June, 1957, which were published at the time.

Would it be correct to say that those Notes did not give any indication that we were prepared to discuss with the Soviet Union an agreement based upon the principle enumerated in those Notes and which I have mentioned in my Question? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it rather strange that his back benchers should now be asking for armed intervention in the Middle East again when we have not even tried to get a discussion on the constructive principles set out by the Soviet Union?

That is a grossly incorrect reference to anything that my hon. Friends have said today. So far as the Soviet Notes are concerned, if the hon. Gentleman will read again the replies of the two dates he will see that the arguments are dealt with. So far as an agenda for future discussion is concerned, that is a different matter.

Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in his answer to these Notes that he was prepared to discuss these constructive proposals or not?

In fact, we did discuss these proposals in the answers and gave the reasons why they were not very helpful.