HC Deb 19 November 1956 vol 560 cc1374-9
36. Mr. Swingler

asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement giving details of the arms supplied to Egypt in the last five years.

Mr. Dodds-Parker

I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 14th November.

Mr. Swingler

That was no Answer at all. Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that the Foreign Office has now confirmed and published the Israeli figures of last July of Russian arms supplies to the Middle East? Will he now confirm or deny the Israeli figures published at the same time last July, showing that this Government supplied to Nasser's forces 390 tanks, including 40 Centurians, and 100 jet 'planes, as well as two destroyers and seven frigates? Are those figures from Israel as correct as the Israeli figures about Russian arms, confirmed from the Foreign Office?

Mr. Dodds-Parker

No, Sir. From the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—[Interruption]—was Minister of Defence, it has been said that it is contrary to the normal practice to disclose details of exports of military equipment.

Mr. Swingler

On a point of order. Owing to the noise, it was quite impossible to hear the Joint Under-Secretary's reply. May we now be allowed to hear it?

Mr. Dodds-Parker

I said that from the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington was Minister of Defence, it has been said that it is contrary to normal practice to disclose details of exports of military equipment.

37. Mr. Wigg

asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much of the information about Soviet arms supplied to Egypt given to the Press by his officials on Sunday, 11th November, was not in possession of the Government on 29th October, 1956.

45. Mr. Dugdale

asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date he was first informed that the Soviet bloc were sending large quantities of military equipment into Egypt.

Commander Noble

All the information which was given to the Press on 11th November was in the Government's possession on 29th October. Her Majesty's Government have known since September, 1955, that an arms deal had been made and this was announced at the time. The events of the last few weeks have provided confirmation of the great extent of these deliveries and of Soviet penetration in the area.

Mr. Wigg

Does not that Answer show quite conclusively that the Government have worked through all their excuses and have now come down to the old corny one of a Russian plot? Is not this just another Government lie?

Commander Noble

My Answer makes it quite clear that the Government had had this information for some time and that it has now been confirmed by recent events.

Mr. Dugdale

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he has had the information for some time, how came it that the President of the Board of Trade said that certainly our intervention disclosed that there had been arms supplied in this way?

Commander Noble

I think that the Government have made the position quite clear. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in last week's debate, hon. Members said that they had had this information for some time.

Mr. Brooman-White

If the object of Her Majesty's Government's policy was to maintain the balance between the forces in the Middle East, did not the events of the Gaza battle show that the Israeli forces were certainly at no great disadvantage?

Commander Noble

Yes. I think that the statement made last year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, that Israel was in a position to defend herself, has been fully borne out by recent events.

Mr. Stokes

May I follow up what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale)? Does not the Minister think that the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in the debate last week that recent events had disclosed what he imputed to be a quite new state of things—but it is not new at all—was meant to deceive the country into believing that something quite new had happened?

Commander Noble

I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would never accuse the President of the Board of Trade of trying to deceive the country. What he was saying was that this information had now been confirmed.

Mr. Stokes

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it quite clear that I do accuse the President of the Board of Trade of attempting to deceive both this House and the country.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) should know that he should not accuse anyone in this House of deceit. That is certainly out of order. He should not say that an hon. Member is "deceiving" the House, because that is an accusation which is not in order.

Mr. Stokes

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if you will study the reports in The Times, for instance, which is supposed to be a reputable paper, you will see that in its issue of 12th November The Times says that the President of the Board of Trade used the word "disclosed," when he ought to have said "confirmed." I would submit to you that the use of the word "disclosed" was quite an improper use of that word by the President of the Board of Trade in describing the then situation.

Mr. Speaker

It may be that the right hon. Gentleman can say that he was misled by it, but to accuse another hon. Member of the motive of deceit is wrong. I allow the greatest possible freedom of language, because I believe in it, but I know that an hon. Member should not say of another hon. Member that he is telling lies. The intention of deceit, or deceiving the House with intention, is wrong.

Mr. Stokes

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not call him a liar, although I thought he was.

Mr. Speaker

This is really getting beyond what is right. The right hon. Member should not accuse another Member of that. I must ask him to withdraw the expression.

Mr. Stokes

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not call him a liar. I said that he had made a misuse of a word. You provoked me into saying that I thought he was a liar. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Certainly, what I said was that he used the word "disclosed" in the wrong sense. What he ought to have said was what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of State now says, that the figures which he then talked about confirmed what the Government already knew.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman has made some sort of withdrawal. He says that he misunderstood or used the wrong words. I think that if an hon. Member in heat uses a word which he should not, it raises his credit in the House if he makes a manly withdrawal. While I dislike intensely the word used by the hon. Member for Billericay, I could not believe that it was seriously intended to mean that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was in fact a lackey of Nasser. A lackey means a paid servant on his staff, which is absurd. It was merely a word of abuse.

Mr. Body

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has his point of order, but so have I. I really think that the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) ought to obey the custom of the House.

Mr. Stokes

Very well. Out of respect for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the House, and as a guide to the hon. Member for Billericay, I have pleasure in withdrawing my statement.

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged. Mr. Teeling.

Mr. Wigg

Mr. Speaker, as it Was my original Question, may I ask quite calmly—

Mr. Speaker

No, the hon. Gentleman may not.

Mr. Braine

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a little bit earlier it was stated that I had used a term which, perhaps, in the view of some hon. Members should not have been used, I would have risen to my feet, but I got the distinct impression that the word "lackey" used in the particular context in which I confess I used it was not an unparliamentary expression. It was for that reason, and for that reason only, that I did not rise. I feel quite justified in my mind in having used that phrase in that context. But if it would help the atmosphere in any way—

Mr. Robens

Do not bother.

Mr. Speaker

I am not asking the hon. Member to help me. I am asking him to do what he thinks proper in the case. I think he should do what I have suggested to him.

Mr. Braine

Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. It was no part of my purpose to help you because, as I made clear a little earlier, the phrase was in no way directed at the Chair, and for you I have the utmost respect. All I would say is that if consistent advocacy of the cause of one's country's enemies is not being a lackey, I will withdraw.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is only making the matter worse.

Mr. Body

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that the hon. Member for Billericay has been sitting here and has hardly said a word throughout the whole proceedings.

Mr. Speaker

That really was a justifiable point of order. I apologise to the hon. Member for Billericay. I was referreing to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) by his former constituency.

Mr. Dugdale

On a point of order. Whatever the President of the Board of Trade may or may not have thought when he made that statement, is it not a fact that the statement was inaccurate, and, as it was inaccurate, may he make a public withdrawal of it so that we know exactly where we are?

Mr. Speaker

That is a matter of debate. It is not a point of order at all.

Mr. Teeling

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that a long time ago you called my Question, which is the next one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid it is now twenty-five minutes to four.