HC Deb 16 April 1956 vol 551 cc676-81
40. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what countries Centurion tanks and Hunter fighter aircraft, respectively, have been exported since 1st January, 1956.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose details of authorised exports of military equipment to foreign Governments. I cannot, therefore, give the countries, if any, to which these weapons have been exported since 1st January, 1956.

Mr. Henderson

Why is the Secretary of State making what is really a fantastic reply to my Question? Does not he remember that only a few months ago he gave me a reply which specified the countries which had received Centurion tanks and jet aircraft from this country during 1955? If it is possible to give these figures for the year 1955, why is it not possible to do so for the first three months of 1956?

Mr. Lloyd

It is a question of degree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed, it is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will eventually succeed in narrowing down his question so that individual transactions are disclosed. I really believe that that is not in the interests of this country or the parties concerned.

Mr. Shinwell

Is it not clear by now that the reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to evade this Question and to give a precise answer to it, is that he is well aware that since January of this year Centurion tanks and fighter aircraft have been exported to Egypt, while, on the other hand, none has been exported to the State of Israel?

Mr. Lloyd

The right hon. Gentleman is not going to draw me into accepting or denying what he has said. I maintain my opinion that it is not in the public interest, or in the interests of peace in the Middle East, that individual transactions should be revealed. The right hon. Gentleman must rely upon the Government of the day doing what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has admitted is necessary, namely, keeping a balance in these matters.

Mr. Shinwell

Have any jet aircraft and Centurion tanks been exported to Israel since the beginning of this year?

Mr. Lloyd

I am not going to answer a question about particular transactions.

Mr. Henderson

Will not the Secretary of State at least agree it is common knowledge that Russian MIG fighters and jet bombers have, in fact, been supplied to Egypt? Will he not at least agree to consider the need for supply- ing comparable weapons of defence and modern jet fighters and tanks to the State of Israel—without saying whether he will do it, or how many will be sent—so as to offset the supplies that have been received by Egypt?

Mr. Lloyd

That is certainly a quite different matter from the one which is contained in the Question. It is a matter upon which I have given an answer previously.

Sir R. Boothby

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that while there may have been very valid reasons for concealing these facts in recent years, this matter is bound to become a major aspect of our foreign policy in the near future? Will he also bear in mind that in course of time, if tension in the Middle East continues, this House will have the right to know what our export policy is?

Mr. Lloyd

I do not dispute for a moment that the House has the right to know what that policy is, but I think it is unwise that the House should be told about individual transactions.

Mr. Callaghan

Reverting to that last question and the Secretary of State's first reply, does not he realise that he is making an extension of his so-called principle far beyond the usual practice? Will he search the records and confirm that, when Israeli-Egyptian tension was at its height, in 1950, a pledge was given to this House—and carried out—that any transfers of available vessels to Egypt or any other country should be reported to the House when the transaction took place? Will he tell us the difference between that situation and the one existing at the present time?

Mr. Lloyd

This Question deals with Centurion tanks and Hunter fighter aircraft.

Mr. Callaghan

With great respect—did not the Minister say in his original reply that this was a principle which was commonly observed? When I ask him upon what he is basing this principle, it is not really sufficient for him to refer me back to the original Question. Can he tell us what there was in his original reply which confirms or denies the statement I have just made?

Mr. Lloyd

If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about vessels, I shall try to deal with it.

Mr. Gaitskell

Since the Foreign Secretary has referred to my views about the balance of arms in the Middle East, may I ask him if he is aware that in my opinion—as I have made plain in speeches in this House—it is desirable not only that a balance of arms should be maintained, but that it should be seen to be maintained? Does not he agree that it is impossible to do this unless figures of this kind are disclosed? Will Her Majesty's Government please give fresh consideration to this question, which is greatly exercising the minds of the Opposition?

Mr. Lloyd

I am quite prepared to give fresh consideration to this question, but I really do not think that, upon reflection, hon. Members on either side of the House will think it right to disclose individual transactions—and in this matter I am only pursuing the policy which the party opposite carried out.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify his Answer? What does he mean, precisely, by "individual transactions"? Does he mean that he does not propose to give particulars of transactions week by week, or aircraft by aircraft, or tank by tank—or that he refuses to disclose the amount of arms sent to any country in the Middle East over a given period?

Mr. Lloyd

It is a question of degree. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who asked the Question referred to the fact that information was given with regard to jet aircraft and tanks for a period of twelve months. I do not dispute that that is a reasonable Question, but I think this one comes too close to narrowing the matter down to individual transactions.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. Would I be permitted to put a Question to the Lord Privy Seal?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman should give notice of any Question he wishes to put to a Minister.

Mr. Shinwell

In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and I say this quite deliberately—has sought to evade the Question and refuses to furnish right hon. and hon. Gentlemen with answers to the questions which they have been putting, without giving any rational reason why he refuses to do so, cannot I be permitted to ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will allow us to debate the matter?

Mr. Speaker

That would not be in order. All these questions are matters of opinion, after all.

Later—

Mr. A. Henderson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Foreign Secretary evaded the contents of my Question No. 40 by saying that it was not in accordance with the custom of the House to give particulars of countries to which armaments were exported.

May I draw attention to the fact that the contents of this Question, contained in two separate Questions but exactly the same in substance, were answered by the Foreign Secretary in January to me personally? May I have guidance from you as to whether or not we could ask the Lord Privy Seal whether a debate could be arranged so that we might discuss the issues raised by the Foreign Secretary's reply?

Mr. Speaker

That seems in substance to be the same question as that asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I could not allow a question on that matter now. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious for a debate, there are the usual channels through which the matter can be put forward. It is certainly not in order to raise it now. As regards the remainder of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, he must realise that these are not points of order for me. A Minister is entitled to refuse to answer a Question if he so desires, and I have no power in the matter whatsoever.

Mr. Shinwell

Has it been made quite clear to you, Mr. Speaker, that the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend is simply this: On a previous occasion a Question almost identical with the Question the right hon. and learned Gentleman put on the Paper today for the Foreign Secretary was answered in some detail, whereas on this occasion details are refused. What redress have hon. Members on these benches when that occurs?

We can always give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that we hope there will be an opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment, but the chances of being allowed to do so are very remote and the time provided for such purposes is very short. On the other hand, if we venture to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal, asking whether a debate can be arranged on this very important topic, he replies that it can be arranged through the usual channels. But if the usual channels are not available to some of us, what are we to do?

I am putting a point which concerns every hon. Member in the House. On some occasion hon. Members opposite may wish to have a debate on a certain topic and they will have to find ways and means of getting an opportunity to do so. I put this point quite seriously to you, Sir. Unless some provision is made to enable back benchers to have a debate on an important topic when it is under consideration, we shall be debarred from expressing our opinions in this House except through the medium of supplementary questions. What guidance can you offer?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is a sort of monopoly of time taken by the Government and certain days are allotted to the Opposition on which they can raise any question. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has sufficient influence with the Opposition to secure that any topic he might wish to raise will receive a very high priority. He must see that these matters are quite outside my control.