asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he proposes to take any additional measures for the defence of Gibraltar.

No, Sir.

Can the Minister assure the House that, in spite of the United Nations resolutions calling on us to leave Gibraltar, there is no intention of doing so and that proper provision will be made for the defence of Gibraltar, if necessary?

The first part of the question is primarily addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the answer is "Yes". The answer to the second part of the question is also "Yes".

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in respect of the defence of Gibraltar, that it was very foolish of the Government to send arms to Spain or to acquiesce in the selling of an important aircraft. Spain still threatens this area. More than that, she is not a member of NATO but is a Fascist country—

Order. Even right hon. Members must ask a question.

Strictly speaking, Spain is not a Fascist country. She may be an authoritarian country, but if we are to use words correctly she is not a Fascist country. I do not think that the sale referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was a foolish one. It was a good sale, for the sake of British industry and those working in it.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many men serving in Her Majesty's Forces have completed three tours or over one and a half years' service in Northern Ireland during the last five years.

It would require disproportionate effort to provide this information on an individual basis. However, 48 units and sub-units have completed either three tours or more or 12 months or more in Northern Ireland. Emergency tours are normally of four months' duration, although they may be much shorter.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider establishing the period referred to in the Question, or a similar period, as the maximum length of service to be expected from any soldier in Northern Ireland? Does he not agree that if a maximum period were established it would bring great relief to the families of soldiers, particularly in those regiments and units upon which we rely most heavily?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to pay tribute to the work that our soldiers have done in Northern Ireland, as he did in a letter to my predecessor a year ago after he visited that country.

:

I cannot lay down a maximum time which any soldier will serve in Northern Ireland because we have undertaken that our troops will remain there as long as necessary. We try to be fair as between one unit and another and I think that we have achieved a great deal of fairness.

What connection does the hon. Gentleman see between such factors as Northern Ireland, the satisfaction of soldiers' families and the alarmingly low recruiting figures for the Army?

The morale of the soldiers has always been extremely high and continues to be so. As for the recruiting situation, the best assessment we can Make—we cannot be exact about these matters—is that the Northern Ireland situation is having some indirect effect on recruiting because of anxieties on the part of wives and mothers. It is not the principal reason for the low recruiting figures in recent months.

How many tours have been made by the Royal Marines?

I cannot answer that without notice.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

The Army is continuing to assist the civil authorities in the maintenance of law and order. During the past three months the security forces have made further progress against the terrorists and have helped to bring about a welcome decline in the level of violence.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's horrific Press reports about the trial of the Army deserter turned assassin? Is he aware that assassinations and the placing of bombs without warning now constitute perhaps the greatest threat to peace and reconciliation in the community? Will he see that the Army continues to give its present urgent attention to these two matters?

The problem of sectarian murders exercises the mind of everybody very much. I am not sure that it is the greatest problem but it is a problem to which we attach great importance.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the border with Eire is still wide open and that with few exceptions cars which might be carrying bombs, guns and terrorists from the Irish Free State are not checked on the border? Instead of the security forces in Northern Ireland being reduced, their numbers should be augmented, especially along the border, equivalent to the West German German border guard. In order to translate the casualties and the horror in Northern Ireland into an English dimension, we need to multiply by 40 the number of people killed in Northern Ireland and the 10,000 injured, some of them seriously.

The whole House accepts what my hon. Friend says about the appalling level of casualties that there has been in Northern Ireland. But I am sure he realises that it would be virtually impossible to close the border, which is over 300 miles long and which is crossed each day by some 50,000 vehicles. To search every one of those vehicles would disrupt economic life on both sides of the border. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that it is wrong to lower our force levels. We keep the matter under continuous review. It is not right to keep more units in Northern Ireland than is absolutely necessary.

I accept that it is right to keep the matter continually under review, but there have been reports that withdrawals are imminent. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm those reports?

One unit will be withdrawn this month, and one next month. They will not be replaced.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Eurogroup of Defence Ministers in strengthening and co-ordinating the defence of Western Europe and the extent to which the French Government are taking part in the group.

We are much encouraged by the success of the European defence improvement programme in improving European force capabilities and by efforts in the group to develop practical collaboration between the European countries particularly in the equipment field. There is still much to be done, and Her Majesty's Government will continue to take part in and encourage these efforts.

France does not at present take part in the work of the group.

What steps is the Minister taking through the Eurogroup of Defence Ministers to resolve the present unsatisfactory situation whereby Britain spends a much higher proportion of her gross national product on defence for Western Europe than any other country in Western Europe except Portugal?

We discussed these matters in the defence debate. The pro- portion of GNP devoted to defence is not the only criterion by which to judge these matters. Germany spends far more on the defence of Europe than we do, and France spends about the same. This is not a matter suitable for the Eurogroup.

Does the Minister agree that there is a deep underlying fear in this country of excessive integration with the Europeans on a defence level, and that there is a fear that that might lead to a Europe that might embark on military adventures of her own? Is it the aim of the Government to have an integrated European defence community?

I do not accept that there is any such fear, either widespread or otherwise. It is the belief of most hon. Members that as European integration proceeds there will be increasing unification of the European defence effort.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is now able to announce a decision on the development of a naval version of the Harrier aircraft.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the funding of Harrier aircraft for the Royal Navy.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future employment of V/STOL aircraft in the Royal Navy.

I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on 23rd July.—[Vol. 860, c. 1171–5.]

Is this deeply disappointing delay due to pressures from the Treasury to cut public expenditure or to influences within my right hon. Friend's own Department which seek to get funding of a more advanced version of the aeroplane on a joint basis with the Americans? Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless the through-deck cruisers are equipped with fixed-wing V/STOL aircraft they will look singularly un-cost-effective?

I accept that the delay to which my hon. Friend refers is disappointing. The reason is, as I said in July, that the usual annual review of the forward defence programme is in progress and has not yet been completed. I do not accept that the efficacy of the through-deck cruiser depends upon the maritime Harrier. We always made it clear that we wished to go ahead with the through-deck cruiser irrespective of the maritime Harrier.

Can my right hon. Friend enlighten me on two specific points arising from his answer and previous answers on the subject? Does the delay arise at the request of the Treasury or at the request of his Department? Secondly, what is the sum of money involved in the programme at present?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the state of the forward defence programme and Government expenditure in general is not a matter which is confined to any one Department. He will not expect me to answer the second part of his question.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what action he proposes to take, either through a change in NAAFI prices or through adjustment of allowances, to mitigate the effects of the revaluation of the mark on British troops in Germany.

No such action is needed. British troops in Germany continue to receive their pay and allowances at an exchange rate fixed prior to the last revaluation of the mark on 29th June 1973.

Has not the mark since then been revalued and the pound devalued, to the detriment of Service families?

No, Sir. The mark was revalued on 29th June 1973, and the fixed exchange rate is the same as it was on 1st May.

Is it not a fact that the changes in various valuations affect the purchasing power of the British soldier's family in BAOR and that the revision which will take them into account will not be made until January at the earliest? Ts not this basically dishonest?

I have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Sir John Tilney) that this is not so. When the mark was revalued the forces went on getting their pay in Germany at the previous rate. There is nothing dishonest about it.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will seek to provide British television for Service men and their families in BAOR.

A feasibility study has been carried out and the results of this are now being considered.

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, but when considering the results of the studies will he bear in mind that the wives and families of British Service men and British Service men themselves in West Germany are away from their relatives and friends and most of them do not understand the German language? It would therefore be a useful amenity for them if they were supplied with British television, and I think that it would be money well spent, especially for wives whose husbands are serving in Northern Ireland. We should remember that the American Army is provided with American television.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is a desirable project, and that is the reason for the feasibility study.

asked the Minister of State for Defence on how many occasions since June 1970 Ministers in his Department have taken part in meetings concerning matters within their departmental responsibilities with persons who are suspects in robbery cases.

I am aware of only one such occasion.

Am I right in believing that the case to which the right hon. Gentleman draws attention is that in which the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army met Mr. Kenneth Littlejohn at a time when there was a Police Gazette "wanted" notice out for Littlejohn in connection with the Smethwick robbery? If the Secretary of State knew about that and yet sanctioned the meeting, ought he not to resign? If he did not know about it, should he not be sacked?

I have not drawn attention to the case—the hon. Gentleman has—but it is not a sensible question because when my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State went to see Littlejohn, for reasons which the hon. Member well knows—concern to reduce casualties in Northern Ireland, which I am sure every hon. Member would want to do—the identity of Mr. Littlejohn was not known and nobody could conceivably have known that he was wanted by the police.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why in this case his Ministry did not consult the Special Branch through the Home Office or M16 through the Foreign Office before entering into these dubious negotiations?

There was nothing dubious about them. There was nothing about which to consult the Metropolitan Police. All we knew was that a man said that he had information about the IRA; he gave a false name and we did not know who he was. It would have been irresponsible and careless of British Army and civilian Irish lives not to take advantage of that opportunity.

I think my right hon. Friend has agreed that it is important to get all possible information about the terrorists operating from the Free State. Does he not agree that it seems strange to extradite to Dublin a man who apparently had offered to give information about the IRA? It seems to be abandoning people who try to make a contribution to safeguarding lives in Northern Ireland.

I do not accept the premise on which my hon. Friend's question is based. At no stage was it suggested that any immunity from prosecution would be granted to this man. Questions of extradition are not matters for me.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the latest situation in naval support of the deep-sea trawling fleet off Iceland, and in par- ticular regarding arrangements made with the British Trawler Federation and the Hull Skippers Guild at the meeting in Hull on 23rd August regarding closer liaison between the trawler skippers and the Royal Navy frigates.

Her Majesty's ships have not operated within the disputed area off Iceland since 3rd October.

The meeting with the industry on 23rd August reviewed the general conduct of the support operation and agreed some detailed measures to improve the practical arrangements on the fishing grounds.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the meeting in Hull was a huge success and led to an excellent understanding between the fishing skippers and their opposite numbers, the naval commanders, but that since then events have overtaken us? I imagine that, like myself, all my colleagues on both sides of the House and people in Iceland will be glad that it now looks as if there will be an end to this unhappy affair. We wish all success to the coming talks in the Icelandic Cabinet between Mr. Johannesson and his own people.

I know that these are not matters for the hon. Gentleman, but will he convey two things to the Leader of the House or to the Prime Minister? First, I regret that no statement is to be made in the House today on this very important matter, although we have seen references to it on the tape. Secondly, I imagine that, like myself, most Members representing fishing ports are deeply disappointed that no statement has been made by the Prime Minister today about his talks with Mr. Johannesson, the leader of the Iceland Government.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said about the meeting on 23rd August. It corresponds with the information in my possession, namely, that it was very successful. As to the other matters, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that they are not for me. He will have seen the statement which has been issued. It is known that the Prime Minister of Iceland is consulting his Government and no doubt in due course the result will be put before the House.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what was the cost of the refit recently completed on the Royal Yacht "Britannia", and the time taken for the work involved.

The refit of the Royal Yacht "Britannia" began on 2nd October 1972 and was completed, as planned, on 6th July 1973. The cost was £1,767,000. This is, of course, within the estimate of £1.8 million which I gave the House last December.—[Vol. 848, c. 212. ]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread concern about the amount of the expenditure on the Royal Yacht? Is he further aware of the resentment about such expenditure at a time of severe curtailment of expenditure on such matters as schools and hospitals? Is it too much to ask that the Royal couple who are to spend their honeymoon on board and the hangers-on who use this luxury liner should occasionally make a contribution to the cost of this very expensive face-lift?

I do not agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman, nor do I find the resentment of which he speaks. A contribution to the cost is made by the young Royal couple who are to spend part of their honeymoon on the Royal Yacht. It is anticipated that the ship will not have to be rerouted or its programming altered in any way because of their spending some weeks of their honeymoon on it. I think that the House will unite with me in wishing them a very happy time free from publicity.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will clarify what is meant by the words "appropriate authorities" in the statement issued by his Department on 6th August about the Littlejohn case.

No, Sir. It is not the normal practice to elaborate on matters of this kind.

Does the Minister think that the kind of "dirty tricks department" stuff in which these authorities tend to indulge contributes to our security? Is it not the case that much of the time they are so ham-fisted and living so much in a kind of James Bond world that almost any enterprise they launch is likely to land us in the kind of highly embarrassing situation in which we landed on this occasion?

It is the hon. Gentleman who is living in a James Bond world, evidently believing all the stories he has read about these activities. My hon. Friend attended the meeting because he was told that he might learn something of interest about the supply of arms to the IRA.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that Ministers were involved in these extraordinary activities and that Ministers should never be involved in security matters of that kind. That was why Her Majesty's Opposition, through myself, were right to demand a special inquiry at Privy Council level to investigate the matter.

It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to go on repeating that Ministers should not be involved in these matters, but the fact is that the gentleman concerned said that he would talk only if he met someone whose face he knew from the television. [ Laughter. ] If the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) thinks that the business of trying to save lives in Northern Ireland is funny, he should tell us. The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will freely agree that this was a genuine attempt to see whether this man had information which should be gained. It could not be gained in any other way, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that if he had been in the same position as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State he would have behaved in exactly the same way.

But the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that we on this side of the House are anxious about security and to save lives. Is he not aware that independent inquiries have always argued that politicians should not be involved in these matters?

I agree that that is so in many cases, but in this particular case—and no one has been able to dispute this—there was no alternative.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what arrangements are made to supply surplus or used vehicles from the armed services to the cadet forces; how these arrangements differ as between the three Services; and if he will investigate the possibility of improving the arrangements in the near future.

The arrangements for the supply of surplus or used Service vehicles to the three cadet forces differ and I am writing to my hon. Friend explaining in detail the differences. I am examining the possibility of improving these arrangements, within the constraints imposed by the defence budget and the availability of suitable surplus vehicles.

In view of the paltriness of the receipts for the sale of these vehicles, would not the cause of defence be better served by making them available to the cadet forces either free or at a very reduced rate, so that youngsters can see more of the Services to which they are attached and so that, in particular, those based in our big cities may have the chance of seeing something of the countryside rather than staying on the streets?

The practice in the Services differs on this matter and I am looking into it to see whether it is right to unify the practice and to help the cadet forces in that way. However, my hon. Friend will agree that we give considerable help to the cadet forces, to the extent of about £10 million a year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when members of the cadet forces are killed in civilian accidents in such used vehicles their next of kin are unfairly denied rights which they would have had if the accident had occurred to a member of the civil services? That is due to the provisions of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Will my right hon. Friend amend it to ensure equity?

That is an interesting and important question on which my hon. Friend and I have had a certain amount of correspondence; but it does not strictly arise on this Question.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how long any particular town is used continuously by the RAF for low-flying exercises.

Low-flying training is not undertaken over urban areas.

I am grateful to the Minister for the lengthy letter he wrote to me on this subject. While my constituents fully accept the need for low-flying operational exercises, there is a feeling in the town of Hawick that the people there have been taking more than their fair share in the last few months. Will the Minister consider shifting some exercises elsewhere after a suitable period?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining to his constituents how necessary this nuisance is. If deliberate low flying over Hawick or any other of the nine towns in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is proved, that is a matter for disciplinary action. If he will let me have specific details I will have the matter investigated.

How big does a town have to be before it qualifies as an urban area?

It has to be as big as Hawick.

Although I cannot use that as a convenient measuring stick, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision? Low flying occurs in South Wales in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris). Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider these extremely inconveniencing flights, which cause dislocation to civilian life in those parts?

I appreciate the discomfort which is caused. As far as possible we fly over areas which are less populated than others. That means that Wales and parts of Scotland are suitable for low-flying activities, and I am sorry for the inconvenience caused.

In my constituency there are 69 villages, and the hon. Gentleman has written to me pointing out that it is a low-flying area. We object to that area constantly being used as a low-flying area. Why cannot we take it in turn with other areas?

If we always had to allocate low flying to a particular area, the people living in the area would be driven half out of their minds. Spreading the butter evenly makes it more palatable.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between his Department and Allen International on the "photic drive" equipment capable of inducing an epileptic fit and other side effects; whether any testing of such equipment has been undertaken for his Department; and whether any purchase or commitment to purchase such equipment has been made by his Department.

Staff from the Ministry of Defence have had brief exploratory discussions with Allen International to ascertain the nature of the equipment and its mode of operation. No testing of the equipment has been undertaken by my Department, and no purchase or commitment to purchase has been made.

Is the Minister aware that it is a serious matter to induce an epileptic fit and that such a method should certainly not be used for crowd control? Will he undertake to see that such equipment will not be further developed or used without the House first being informed?

It is not for me to decide whether equipment is developed. It is a matter for the firm. We are concerned to have methods of crowd control other than the use of live bullets. We are nowhere near that yet. The safety aspects to which the hon. Gentleman refers would be taken into account before we considered such development. The hon. Gentleman is miles ahead of events.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department will undertake research into the connection between continuous industrial noise and the desire of those affected to make love, and into the amount of impotence caused by such noise.

No, Sir.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that full answer. Is he aware that a recent report by German doctors stated that industrial noise can take away the desire for love-making and cause impotence? Does he realise the effect of this on family life? [ Laughter. ] Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides might well laugh, but does the Minister agree that factory noise is a serious matter and that insufficient research has been done on the general effect of noise on factory workers—not only on this point? Will he ensure that research is done into this matter and report back to the House?

The answer to that comprehensive supplementary question is that I have seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We have been unable to trace the source of the report, either officially or through the Press, but it is believed to be West Germany. I have no information to offer the hon. Gentleman on that. Certainly, noise in factories is a matter which my Department takes seriously. Last year we published a code of practice in this matter, and consultations about possible legislation are continuing. The matter raised in the Question is somewhat emotive. If such an investigation were to be carried out—and we have no evidence that it is necessary—it would probably be best done by an independent body.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the volume of noise measured in decibels experienced in a discotheque is far greater than that which would be allowed by a factory inspector? So far as can be discovered, this has had no effect on the sexual virility of the young people taking part.

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right. I have on occasion noticed some noise after dinner in this Chamber.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will approve the loan sanction for the Audley Health Centre.

I regret that loan sanction could not be given in this financial year. Depending upon the degree of priority given to it by the Staffordshire County Council, in consultation with the executive council, the scheme will be considered for a possible start during 1974–75.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this health centre is one of the first victims of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's axe? The £300 million tax handout to the rich has resulted in the deferment of such schemes within the National Health Service. Will the Minister fight within the Government for improvements in the National Health Service and in particular for increased expenditure on health centres?

The hon. Gentleman's comments are wide of the mark. Capital expenditure on health centres has now reached an unprecedented level approaching £12 million a year. That is about one-third as much again as in the last financial year. It is simply a question of sharing out resources between health centres and a number of other important causes within the National Health Service.

Will the Minister bear in mind that local authorities throughout the country cannot understand why, on the one hand, they are encouraged to develop health centres and, on the other hand, when they draw up plans they are told that the Government cannot afford them?

The hon. Lady will be only too glad, after many years of active persuasion both by the Labour Party when in power and by the present Government to encourage doctors to move towards health centre practices, that at last there has been almost an avalanche of response.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many suicides there have been in Broadmoor Hospital during each of the past five years; what means of suicide were used; and what precautions against further suicides are being taken.

In the five years ended December 1972 there were 11 cases. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a breakdown of this figure and the means adopted.

In general, prevention lies in skilled observation by staff, but in appropriate cases patients are secluded and deprived of material which might be used to harm themselves.

Especially in view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said about skilled observation, is he aware of the recent case of a young girl patient in Broadmoor who slashed her wrists, recovered, but was put into a single cell, apparently without observation, and managed to hang herself? Has there been an inquiry into that case?

I would rather not comment at the Dispatch Box on that particular case, but I will look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Following are the details: Year Number of suicides 1968 1 1969 1 1970 2 1971 4 1972 3

The means adopted in six cases was strangulation using clothing or bedding, in three cases suffocation with plastic bags and in two cases hanging.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has now completed his consultations following the Foster Committee's Report on Scientology; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is still in consultation with my colleagues about this report and is not yet able to make a statement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is nearly five years since the inquiry was first initiated and 10 months since the report was laid before the House? Even criminals are entitled to expect sentence to be passed with less delay than that. Cannot my hon. Friend expedite the decision and remove the uncertainty from which these people are suffering?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the complex aspects and issues raised by the report, particularly the recommendation that psychotherapy for reward should be statutorily controlled. A great many interests, professional and extra-governmental, are involved. We are pressing ahead with consultations and will bring them to a conclusion as soon as we practicably can.

In view of the serious allegations made against the Moorhaven Hospital concerning which I have written to my hon. Friend, will he please give an adequate reply in the near future?

That is another question. My hon. Friend, as she says, has written to me about this case, which concerns me greatly, and I shall be in touch with her about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the average earnings of qualified physiotherapists, radiographers and speech therapists, and the approximate shortages of these National Health Service workers nationally.

Information on earnings as distinct from rates is not available centrally and would require a special survey. I am well aware that many authorities would wish to employ more of these professions but, in the absence of any generally accepted yardstick for measuring the need, it is not possible to make a meaningful estimate of national shortages.

Surely the Minister is aware that after three years' training without pay these people have a starting wage of £24 a week. Will he undertake to raise these disgracefully low wages without delay? Is he aware that because of these low wages many patients in hospitals are waiting unnecessarily, and in pain, for treatment because the hospitals are only 50 per cent. staffed in these departments?

The Whitley Council has agreed to revised salaries effective from 1st April 1973 for basic grade physiotherapists, radiographers and others, details of which I can send to the hon. Member. The agreement has received Pay Board approval and the new scales were promulgated in September. Additional payments are made for emergency work outside normal working hours.

Is the Minister aware that these people are grossly inadequately paid? Hon. Members on both sides of the House are receiving correspondence to this effect. Can the Minister give an assurance that, if the wages proposed fall outside the scope of phase 3 of the prices and incomes policy, they will still be made effective?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any such assurance. He will recall that, in a debate which we had before the Summer Recess, which dealt at least with speech therapists, it was pointed out that the level of pay was only one of the factors which contribute to the shortage of staff in this field.

Will the Minister bear in mind that, in the quest for these low-paid workers to be given substantially more, he will receive very little assistance from Her Majesty's Opposition which at its recent annual conference defeated the idea of guaranteed minimum earnings?

I note that helpful intervention. The right lion. Gentleman will recall that the Whitley Council is involved in these negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will arrange under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act for regular medical and dental provision for children in both local authority and private schools.

Yes, Sir. I shall ask the new area health authorities to continue to provide medical and dental inspection and treatment services for children in schools maintained by local education authorities and, so far as resources permit, in other schools when the proprietors or governing bodies wish to use those services.

Will my hon. Friend say a little more about what he means by "so far as resources permit"? Does he not agree that it would be equitable for children of both private and State schools to receive equivalent treatment and facilities?

The provision of medical and dental inspection and treatment services in private schools is, in the first place, a matter for the proprietors or governors of those schools. Some have arranged with local education authorities to provide such services and the new area health authorities will continue these arrangements. In the last analysis the health authorities must have regard to the staff at their disposal and the first priority must obviously go to the State sector.

asked the Secretary for Social Services if he will give an assurance that the speech therapists will obtain their grading structure before the area health authorities have made their staffing arrangements.

I am sure that the Whitley council will wish to reconsider grading structure proposals as soon as management arrangements for speech therapy services in the reorganised National Health Service can be made known.

Is my hon. Friend aware that speech therapists have been waiting for four years to obtain their grading structure? This is far too long and I protest against the delay. Can my hon. Friend give a better reply?

I tremble at any protest which arises from that quarter, but my hon. Friend will know that very complicated professional factors are involved in this matter. There is a proper and established forum for conducting these negotiations and there is good will on both sides and a desire to reach a satisfactory conclusion. The fact that this takes time only demonstrates the real professional and practical difficulties involved.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this announcement is too little and comes too late? Does he not agree that, unless he takes immediate and urgent action, there will be no such thing as a speech therapy service in this country? Will he do something about it immediately?

I cannot accept that. Speech therapy services in this country have been increasing and the numbers in post are rising, although not as rapidly as we would wish. The Quirk Committee recommendations have been noted and accepted by the Government. I believe that we shall reach the targets of the increased numbers in post which the Quirk Committee projects for the next decade. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to the city of Leicester.

I visited Leicester last September but I have at present no plans to make a further visit.

By how much has the cost of living risen since the Prime Minister assured the citizens of Leicester during the General Election that, if his party was elected, the cost of living would be held down? Does he appreciate the grave hardship being caused by the increase in the cost of living and especially by the increase in the cost of food?

If the hon. and learned Member wishes to put down a Question on the cost of living, he had better do so.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was held in Ottawa from 2nd to 10th August. I know that I speak for all Heads of Government when I say how pleased everyone was that Her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of Canada was able to be present for the first four days of the conference.

Under the skilful chairmanship of Mr. Trudeau, the atmosphere at this conference was one of direct and informal discussion and as such it provided a valuable opportunity for the leaders of a quarter of the world's population to exchange ideas, to influence each other's policies and to understand each other's point of view on a wide range of subjects.

A copy of the communiqué issued at the end of the meeting has been placed in the Library.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the area in which the Commonwealth probably has most to contribute, if the will is there, concerns the gap between the rich and the poor nations? With regard to the trap in which some developing nations find themselves being caught—of being permanent producers of primary agricultural products—can the Prime Minister say whether the reference in the communiqué to the need to study the means for getting a proper relationship between industrial goods and agricultural products is really meant and that something will be done about it?

This was one of the most important subjects discussed during the conference. It was recognised at the time by the developing members of the Commonwealth that as a result of of high raw material prices they were in a stronger position than previously. The point of discussion was to find a permanent means of dealing with the problem which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. There was a variety of proposals put forward by the Heads of Governments of the Commonwealth and it was agreed that this should be examined further. But in particular I explained the one which we ourselves put forward to UNCTAD in 1964 and on which a great deal of work has now been done.

As one of the key paragraphs in the communiqué referred specifically to the need to promote international commodity agreements, may I ask what progress has been made in this regard towards agreements which are fair to the producer and consumer, in particular on tea, which is a special problem?

As regards general commodity agreements, this is a matter for the GATT negotiations which have recently begun in Tokyo and for the European Economic Community in the discussions which we have begun with countries which wish to enter into particular trading arrangements with us. At the moment I cannot offer my hon. Friend any further proposals on commodities.

Can the Prime Minister say what discussions took place at the conference on possible changes in the common agricultural policy of the EEC and in particular whether there was any agreement about trying to amend it to enable more sugar from the developing countries to be imported into the Community?

The question of the common agricultural policy did not feature in the discussions with the Heads of the Commonwealth countries. Sugar was not an issue. They all accepted the situation of 1.4 million tons coming into the Community every year.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his latest talks with the CBI and TUC.

During the recess I held three meetings with the CBI and four meetings with the TUC in preparation for the Government's proposals for stage 3 of the counter-inflation programme, which were published on 8th October. We have now invited the views of the CBI and the TUC, and of other interested bodies, on these proposals. I am meeting the CBI this afternoon and the TUC next Monday.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he confirm or deny the report in today's Daily Telegraph which suggests that he is to put a curb on the Price Commission in regard to notification of price increases caused by his Government? Will he also tell the TUC why, in these "phoney" package deals, Sir John Stratton, the chairman of one of the biggest meat marketing groups in this country, should have a pay increase of £300 a week and more during the so-called freeze and phases 1 and 2? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that these packages are simply a bumper bundle for the bosses and a penny rattle for the workers?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last statement. Concerning the case which I have seen reported in the Guardian today, I obviously have no specific knowledge of this, but I am having the details obtained. Concerning the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am prepared to discuss any of these matters with the TUC. The point to which the hon. Gentleman referred is one which has been raised by the Price Commission itself in its report. It is, therefore, a point to which the Government must give consideration and on which the Government will in due course make a statement.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind throughout these conversations that the CBI does not by any means represent all employers in this country and that the TUC does not by any means represent all the employees?

Yes, that fact is absolutely true. Our consultations are not limited to those two bodies. We have had discussions in the preliminary stage with the retailers and with others, and all organisations have been asked to send their views on the consultative document if they so wish. Concerning those who are not members of any organisation, it remains the responsibility of the Government and of Parliament to look after their welfare.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very serious situation is arising in those areas of Scotland which are affected by oil, where the local authorities and established industries cannot raise their wages sufficiently and are therefore losing their labour to new jobs at much higher rates? At his next meeting with the CBI and the TUC, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss how exceptions can be made in those areas, similar to those which I understand have been agreed for London?

Exceptions have not been agreed for London. What is provided for in the code, which we shall be discussing tomorrow, is arrangements about the London allowance which respond to the difference in the cost of living in the metropolis as compared with the cost of living in other parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the danger point. In any situation where industries are paying higher wages than some of the older industries, people may move to better wage rates. But surely one does not solve the problem by counter-bidding for people, in order to move them from one factory to another and then back again. In Scotland there are still, alas, over 80,000 unemployed people, and surely we ought to concentrate our efforts and thought on enabling them to take up the jobs which are available in the East of Scotland and provide the necessary training for them.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that pensioners were not at the meeting with the CBI, but they are grateful to him for protecting them and giving them the £10 bonus. What they are asking, however, is whether it will be tax-free this year?

The answer to that is "Yes, Sir".

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between his statement on phase 3 and an autumn Budget? Secondly, what were the benefits of doing it in the way that he chose to make the announcements? Thirdly, does he not recall that throughout the four meetings he has had with the TUC representatives, they failed to agree on about nine of the ten basic proposals contained in the phase 3 White Paper? Why is the right hon. Gentleman so surprised that the TUC has now rejected the proposals, having failed to agree on four occasions?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the area of agreement. The TUC has asked to see me further to discuss the matter. As I have announced, we are meeting again on Monday and we can then carry the discussions further.

Concerning the announcement, that was made because stage 3 is to come into force a year after the standstill began to operate, and if the proper consultations were to be carried through it had to be announced at that time. Had it not been announced, Parliament could not be debating it tomorrow.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment with reference to the release of defence lands following the recommendations of the Nugent Report.

Yes, Sir. The Departments are in close touch about the implications of the report. We are considering carefully public comment on it before making our decisions.

Will my right hon. Friend indicate when a statement will be made? Will he confirm that among the matters that will be dealt with are the 31,000 acres recommended for release outside the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty which should be made available for housing and, more specifically, that the 16 miles of coastline recommended for release will be released and that the public will have permanent and complete access to those parts of the coastline?

I would hope that we can reach decisions before the end of the year. Obviously I could not make a promise that we shall be able to announce them before Parliament rises, but I hope to be able to announce them early in the New Year. We shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's second point. On the third point, action is already in hand to dispose of the properties covering the 16 miles of coastline to which he has referred, which involves about 1,700 acres and the whole or parts of some 18 defence establishments, because we felt that we could already get on the way with those.

While welcoming the announcement of the potential release of some of the areas recommended in the report may I ask the Prime Minister to give an assurance that there will be a continuing review of some of the other areas still being retained?

We have not made any provision for that at present, but after we have reached decisions on the specific proposals of the Nugent Committee I am perfectly prepared to consider that suggestion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the village of Lulworth, which is nearest to the range concerned, in a recent poll over 90 per cent. of the people wished the Army to stay? Is he further aware that Dorset County Council planning committee, the local urban district council, the rural district council, the trade unions concerned and every other democratically elected body also wish the Army to stay and wish me to represent that view? In any decision that may be taken, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that those who are chiefly concerned are those who live in the area?

Yes, Sir. I am fully aware of this position. Although at times it may seem rather obvious that people wish the Services to leave the land and areas that they occupy, now that these proposals have been made and published there is a considerable body of opinion which expresses the view that the Services should not give up a particular area of land with which they are concerned. We shall have to consider all the observations made to us before we reach decisions and put them forward.

asked the Prime Minister whether he feels that any changes require to be made in the coordination of the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Employment to further the counter-inflation policies of Her Majesty's Government.

Not at present.

Having sought to devalue Parliament by making his statement on counter-inflation to a presidential Press conference rather than to the House, is the Prime Minister now affirming in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that he is about to attempt to bamboozle the country over inflation by gagging the Price Commission? Is this open government?

What I told the hon. Gentleman was that the Price Commission's suggestion will be examined.

Will my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the applications for price increases put to the commission was approved?

The Price Commission has set out in its report all the details of those it rejected or got altered and the minority which it approved.

Does the Prime Minister agree that one does not have to be either frustrated or a fanatic to think, like the Daily Telegraph, that it is the unprecedented profligacy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is primarily responsible for the inflation from which the country is now suffering?

There is no truth in that allegation, from whichever source it comes.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Buckinghamshire Conservative Associations at Aylesbury on 13th July on his social policies.

I did so on 16th July, Sir.

As in that speech, the Prime Minister made claims about increasing national wealth, may I ask whether he is aware that he deceived the House in July by claiming that real incomes rose in the first quarter of this year when, in fact, they fell? Is he also aware that he is now deceiving the country by claiming that real earnings have risen under phase 1 and phase 2 when the retail price index which he uses omits mortgage repayments, which have risen by 40 per cent. over the last six months, which has made the country not richer but poorer?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. If he wishes to argue statistics, perhaps he will let me have them.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.

The whole House will share the Government's profound anxiety and disquiet that the long dispute between the Arab countries and Israel should once more have flared into a further round of bitter warfare. The fighting which began on Saturday afternoon, 6th October, is still continuing and there have been many hard battles and a high rate of casualties. The Government especially deplore the loss of innocent civilian life which has occurred and we call upon all the Governments engaged in the war to do everything within their power to avoid civilian casualties.

I regret to have to inform the House that one British citizen, Mrs. Burak, is believed to have died in the bombing of Damascus. We know of no other British casualties. Her Majesty's Ambasador at Damascus advised members of the small British community there to leave on 12th October. Our Ambasasdors in the other countries involved in the conflict are in close touch with the British communities. We have not so far thought it necessary to advise further evacuation. But we have advised all British subjects to keep clear of the war zone.

When the hostilities broke out, Her Majesty's Government called for an immediate cease-fire, and suspended all shipments of arms to the battlefield. We did this because we considered it inconsistent to call for an immediate end to the fighting and yet to continue to send arms to the conflict. This seems to me to be the best posture from which to make an effective contribution to a constructive settlement. As regards the effect of the embargo we have supplied a limited number of arms to both sides in recent years. Whereas in 1967 an embargo would have discriminated against Israel it is now even-handed. I would like to add here that British military facilities overseas have not been and are not being used for the transit of military supplies to the battlefield.

We also sought to bring the Security Council into action at once but neither side was willing to contemplate a ceasefire, except on terms totally unacceptable to the other. The Security Council has met several times but has been unable to find a consensus on any action.

Her Majesty's Government have therefore been engaged in consultation with other Governments with the twin objectives of bringing about an end to the fighting and ensuring that urgent steps are at last taken to implement in full Security Council Resolution 242. The nine countries of the European Community joined in issuing an appeal to this effect on 13th October. Resolution 242 still offers the best chance of a settlement because to it and it alone both Arabs and Israelis subscribe.

Three years ago at Harrogate I put forward our suggestions about how Resolution 242 might be put into effect. I outlined how a permanent settlement of the boundary question might be reached which could satisfy both the demand of the Arab States for Israeli withdrawal and the equally legitimate demand of Israel, which we all support, for recognition within secure boundaries.

Clearly no settlement can be imposed. But unless the future is merely to be a repetition of the futile and dangerous confrontation of the past a new effort at conciliation must be made.

I feel that the ingredients of a settlement will have to include action by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the introduction of an international force first to police a cease-fire and then to guarantee the terms of a settlement. It will be necessary too, I believe, to establish demilitarised zones.

The success of any initiative must depend on the state of the battle. Timing will therefore be all important. We are ready to play our part in the making of peace and the keeping of it, so vital is it to the whole world that peace should be re-established in this area.

We will do our best to turn what appears to be a disaster now into an opportunity for securing a permanent settlement in the Middle East. I will of course keep the House regularly informed of developments.

While joining the Foreign Secretary in expressing regret about the death of Mrs. Burak and being relieved that no other British citizens have been involved or killed, may we express our regret about the deaths and casualties on both sides in a conflict which has such potential dangers for the rest of the world?

I think that the major criticism being made of Her Majesty's Government at the moment concerns this question of the arms embargo and whether it is evenhanded. The Government say that their intention is that it should be. But will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this question of the supply of arms? I think that it is basically a matter of ammunition for the Centurion tanks, and it may be spare parts as well, although my information is that basically it is ammunition. Is it the case that the Israelis had a shipment ready to go before the battle broke out, that it was delayed purely on the technical ground that another consignment would be ready within a few days and that the battle started between those two dates? If that is so and if the Government wish to be even-handed, ought not they to allow this consignment of ammunition, and possibly the spare parts as well, to go to Israel in order to preserve the neutral position which they say they intend to adopt?

As for the ingredients of a settlement, I agree with those that the Foreign Secretary put forward. But may I add two others? Is not it also necessary for the ingredients to include direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Arabs and, secondly, provision for a settlement, as a result of discussions, between Israel and representatives of the Palestinian Arabs who are refugees if we are to get a permanent settlement in the Middle East? Does not the present conflict show that boundaries are perhaps less important than confidence and trust in this matter and that that is the only way, together with international boundaries, in which we shall get a settlement?

Fourthly, we shall certainly support the Foreign Secretary if he continues to use the United Nations, however unpromising the Security Council may appear at the moment, in an attempt to get a settlement. We are also very happy if the right hon. Gentleman continues direct discussions with other countries to make sure, if possible, that a cease-fire is brought about. I understand from a report which I heard on the wireless that there is to be a debate on this subject. In that debate I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us more about the attitudes of the United States and the USSR to the supply of arms. As I understand it, both appear reluctant to be dragged into the conflict. But if it escalates it will represent the most serious danger of world conflict that we have had for many years.

The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the problem of oil supplies. I hope that he will make it clear to anyone who is using such threats that we are not likely to be intimidated by threats of dislocation to our oil supplies and that such threats will not cause us to change a policy which we believe to be right. That would be monstrous. If we were to pay such a price now we would merely find that the price escalated on a second occasion. If that suggestion is ever put forward, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will deal with it summarily despite the dislocation that it might cause.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has one advantage over me in that I did not hear on the wireless that there was to be a debate. I shall be very happy to take part in one whenever it is arranged.

On the right hon. Gentleman's point about the arms embargo and whether it is even-handed, I agree that this is what is causing quite a lot of anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman knows that no Government ever disclose what the sales of arms are. I have gone into this matter with meticulous care. It can be fairly described as "even-handed". There were items, for example, for which both Israel and Egypt had already paid, but they had not been shipped, and a difference was made between those on the sea and those which had not left these shores. That seemed to be the only line that we could draw. It is a difficult problem, as the House will understand.

I am not giving away any secrets when I say that we supply Centurion tanks and ammunition to Jordan as well as to Israel. Does it make sense, when a war has broken out, to go on supplying both countries so that the war will escalate? I will, of course, keep this whole matter under review as the war proceeds. However, I am sure that the embargo provides us with the best posture for a peacemaking effort. That is what matters. The war should be stopped. There should be a cease-fire and we should get down to negotiations about a settlement.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there must not be direct contacts. This has been the weakness in the situation all the time. There have been no direct talks between Israel and Egypt, except under the chairmanship of Dr. Jarring, but those talks broke down, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember very well. They may get back into direct talks, but I do not think that they will be able to come to an agreement without assistance. We must therefore stand by to give assistance.

As to the Soviet Union and the United States, there is a massive airlift operation on both sides.

Finally, I hope that there will be no threats of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman suggested might be made about oil. There have been no threats so far, and I hope that they will not be made. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about them.

While entirely accepting what my right hon. Friend said about the timing of any United Nations intervention being absolutely crucial—and he alone can decide it—may I ask whether he agrees that it is a manifest British and Western interest at the present time not to allow the Arab countries to feel that they have only the Soviet Union to which to turn for either military or political help?

This was one of the reasons why we have taken so much trouble in recent years to get closer to Egypt and other Arab countries. We have succeeded in doing this by not taking sides—I emphasise "not taking sides"—and assuring them that there is some alternative to total reliance on the Soviet Union.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that for any lasting settlement we must at least establish the facts? Does his information confirm that of United Nations' observers that this war was unleashed by two Arab States against the State of Israel?

Secondly, if that be the case, does it not underscore the point he made that any settlement must ensure that Israel has frontiers which will secure her as far as possible against further attack?

Thirdly, on the question of arms—this is perhaps a matter that we can go into in greater detail in the debate, and since I have an efficient Whip I, at least, knew that the debate was to be on Thursday next—may I ask whether, when our salesmen—after all, we had a Government super-salesman appointed by the last Government—sold arms to Israel for her self-defence, it was made perfectly clear that if she ever had to use those weapons for her own self-defence she would be denied the spare parts to make them effective? Since we are talking about even-handed shipments to the battlefield, is it not a fact that we are currently training helicopter pilots for the Egyptians, that we are about to send tanks to Dubai, which has not disclaimed an interest in the war, and are agreeing that we shall continue with shipments, albeit in the future, of planes to Saudi Arabia? What sort of neutrality is that?

I will begin with the right hon. Gentleman's last two questions because I think that I can satisfy the House on those matters.

It is true that we are training certain Egyptian helicopter pilots. They are already qualified pilots who are being trained in the use of a new helicopter. But nobody need be afraid that they will use that new helicopter in the war because it would not be exported under the embargo. Therefore, the question is whether the pilots return to Egypt now or in six or seven weeks when their course is completed.

Regarding the tanks being supplied to Dubai, I must invite the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind another problem, namely, the security of the Gulf in which there is a vital British interest. These tanks are being sent to Dubai to be integrated into the defence force of the United Arab Emirates to deal with security in the Gulf. They are light reconnaissance tanks with light armour. They would have no significance in the battle even if they were to go there.

I was asked why we do not denounce this Arab aggression. I take exactly the same view as Lord George-Brown, when he was Foreign Secretary in the last war—that there is no profit in denouncing aggression. We must try to get a ceasefire and a settlement. If I have to go into this in the debate, I will. However, I think it is well known that in 1971 President Sadat said that Egypt no longer observed the cease-fire. He gave notice of that. This is a factor of which we have to take account.

Shall we be able to give Israel frontiers which will ensure her security? I hope that the need for secure frontiers will be universally accepted. That is the second part of the deal. It is a matter of the restoration of Arab territories in return for secure frontiers. There is no doubt that Israel must have her independent life. We are all in strong support of that.

Why did we sell arms to Israel or, for that matter, to Jordan or to Egypt? The idea—I think this policy was followed by the last Government—was to allow moderate rearmament to try to give these countries sufficient security in defence so that they did not have to resort to attack one upon the other. It may be said that that policy has failed, but that was the origin of it.

Will my right hon. Friend now confirm that there is to be an urgent debate on this matter? The whole House wants to know as soon as possible when this debate is to take place. The situation is surely considerably graver than has so far been suggested by either Front Bench.

Regarding the quality of even-handedness and the embargo, I hope that when my right hon. Friend speaks in the debate, whenever it is, he will make clear to the House how the denial to about a quarter of the whole Israeli tank force of both ammunition and supplies can be equal-handed when Israel is being attacked by overwhelming masses of equipment imported from the Soviet Union. This should be made clear by the Government to the House and to the country. If not, they will go down in history as a bad Government showing a dishonest policy of not fulfilling contractual obligations.

I have made no secret of the fact that there were contracts. We have not broken the contracts. We have suspended them—[ Interruption. ] I think the laughter is a bit too soon. We have suspended the contracts because in our view the overriding need for getting a cease-fire and a peace demands this. I will certainly make a full statement in the debate on what my right hon. Friend said is a fair balance.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Jordanians, unlike the Israelis, are wholly dependent on Britain for their arms supplies, including Centurions? Since Jordan has entered the war, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Arab opinion is rapidly coming round to joining Israeli opinion in opposition to the British arms embargo? Will he nevertheless resist pressure from both the Arabs and the Israelis to abandon this embargo so that we can maintain a position, which we had in 1967, of finding some honourable way of reaching a cease-fire and a peaceful settlement?

I think that is right. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed more adequately what I tried to say. I understand the difficulties, but I think the policy is right. It does not make sense in present circumstances to send spare parts and ammunition to both Jordan and Israel to reinforce their tank arm. I do not think that either the United States or the Soviet Union will be in a position to take a peace initiative. All the countries of Western Europe are observing the embargo or are putting it on. This may give Europeans a chance not only to initiate a peace settlement but also to take part in a peace-keeping exercise.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's efforts to bring about an end to the fighting and to implement United Nations Resolution 242, but may I ask whether he is aware that there is considerable perturbation about the so-called even-handed embargo? Was it made clear to the Israelis when they bought the tanks that the contract would be suspended if hostilities broke out? Does my right hon. Friend think if that is allowed to become British policy throughout the world, that anybody will ever again buy British arms?

It was not plain to the Israelis or to the Jordanians, but this is a situation in which, in order to get a peace of any kind in the Middle East, it does not help for Britain to supply arms to both sides—and largely the same kind of arms. American and Soviet reinforcements will decide this situation. Ours are marginal, but I do not think that it makes sense to supply arms to both sides.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of people in this country regard his so-called impartiality in this matter as just about as bogus as the impartiality of the National Government in 1936 in relation to Spain? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman's Government denounce that act of perfidy on the Day of Atonement, on 6th October, when the right hon. Gentleman has rushed into a condemnation of Israel on so many other occasions?

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great deal of uncertainty about his assertion that he will desist from supplying arms to those countries in the arena or battleground? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to desist from supplying arms to all countries in the Middle East? The Foreign Secretary must be frank about that.

I thought I had indicated that there must be one exception to this, although it will not, in terms of arms, affect this battle at all. There must be an exception for Gulf security. We have too big a stake there to take risks in this respect, and therefore we must export some arms to countries in the Gulf area.

I hope that instead of trying to suggest that the balance between the Arabs and Israelis in relation to arms supplies is unfair the hon. Gentleman will convince himself that we are being fair. I have given this matter the most meticulous attention, and that is my view.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his wisdom this afternoon in not indulging in a "holy war", which is so easy in this House when we consider the Middle East. Is my right hon. Friend aware that opinion in the country and in the House recognises the right of Israel to exist and of the Arabs to their own territory, but, above all, recognises that there must be justice, as expressed in Resolution 242? My right hon. Friend has done well by the House to keep the matter on this level in his statement and answers today. I hope that he will not leave it to the super-Powers alone to bring pressure to bear to end the war but will, rather, seek to show that Europe is united in seeing that the rights of both sides are respected in an honourable and peaceful settlement?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said. This is an intensely difficult situation in which to know whether one is doing right or wrong. I concede that at once to the House, but, having given the matter the most careful consideration that I could with my colleagues in the Government, I think that it is right to maintain the embargo.

The embargo will act fairly. I shall keep the whole matter under review as the war proceeds to see whether any change is necessary, but at present I think that it is right to concentrate on a settlement under Resolution 242.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is utterly nonsensical to talk about aggression or perfidy when what has happened here is that two Arab countries, Egypt and Syria, have taken steps that have been forced on them in order to reoccupy their own territory?

Over the years one has been very much afraid that the situation would develop in this way—that if no settlement was provided by anybody, and if there was no hope of a settlement, an explosion would take place on either side. That situation was inescapable.

I recognise my right hon. Friend's great dilemma, but may I say frankly, candidly and bluntly to him that for this country to creep off the pages of history into frightened neutrality will do no good for our reputation for honest and honourable dealing, and that to bow down to the oily blackmail of the Arab States will make our position even worse in the ensuing years? This is the reverse of statesmanship. May I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm or deny that the events of the last 10 days have left United Nations Resolution 242 in torn and shattered shreds?

I could not accept that the policy of this Government or that of the Government which preceded ours could truly be described as frightened neutrality. I reject that absolutely. We have tried to be as even handed as we could in the Middle East.

We all know that Resolution 242 has its ambiguities, but we all know, too, that it is the only resolution supported by the Israelis and Arabs and by a vast majority of the United Nations. It is within that framework, recognising the ambiguity of it, that a settlement must be found.

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that in this situation—and we all accept this—it is difficult to know whether any course is right or wrong. In that spirit, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the arms embargo? Is he not aware that this must mean that one side has its hands tied by the immobilisation of tanks, which it bought for its own defence, by the failure to send ammunition for guns supplied by this country, attached to tanks supplied by this country?

Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman refers to the 1967 embargo—and I should not want to contradict anything that he said—may I ask whether he is not aware that that was announced by the then Government on the basis that we were trying to give a lead and we would have to end the embargo if the lead were not followed? That lead was not followed, and we ended the embargo.