HC Deb 02 March 1953 vol 512 cc13-4
14. Mr. T. Reid

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that the Egyptian area is one of the most important places in the world in respect to the defence of the free world, and not merely because it is the site of the Suez Canal, he will make representations to the Egyptian Government on the necessity of stationing there powerful land, sea and air forces equipped with all modern weapons in the interests of Egypt and of the free world.

26. Mr. F. Maclean

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the demand, put forward officially, by the Egyptian Prime Minister for the unconditional evacuation of the Canal Zone by all British Forces; and whether he will make it clear that this is not an acceptable basis for negotiations.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I am aware that there have been a number of public statements by responsible Egyptians, demanding unconditional withdrawal of British Forces from the Canal Zone. No formal demand has however been made. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 23rd February, it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to arrive at a general settlement of the whole question of defence by negotiation with the Egyptian Government.

I am sure the House would not expect me at this stage to make any disclosure of the nature of the representations which we hope to make shortly to the Egyptian Government. I can, however, assure both hon. Members that the important issues they raise will be borne in mind.

Mr. T. Reid

As General Neguib is an experienced soldier, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it could be suggested to him that it is absolutely necessary, for the protection of this vital zone, that Egypt should share the duties of protecting the zone with her allies?

Mr. Lloyd

I certainly think that is a factor which has to be borne in mind by both sides.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Wyatt.

Mr. F. Maclean

On a point of order. May I have an answer to my Question No. 26?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member's Question was answered with Question No. 14.

Mr. Maclean

That is quite a different Question.

Mr. Speaker

The Minister purported to answer both Questions together and I thought that the answer covered both points.

Mr. E. Fletcher

Are we to understand, Mr. Speaker, that if a Minister answers, for example, Question No. 3 and purports to answer at the same time Question No. 46, although the Member asking Question No. 46 is not here, the hon. Member is thereby debarred from asking his Question?

Mr. Speaker

Theoretically hon. Members should be in constant attendance in the House.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

Is it not the practice for Ministers, in those circumstances, through their Parliamentary Private Secretaries, to inform Members concerned that they proposed to answer their Questions together?

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

The practice varies. What Ministers choose to do has nothing to do with me.