§ 11. Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent his information about Soviet arms supplied to Egypt is derived from Israeli sources.
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerInformation available to Her Majesty's Government about Soviet arms supplied to Egypt is not derived from Israeli sources. The information available to Her Majesty's Government has, however, to some extent been confirmed by information published by the Israeli Government on the quantity of Soviet arms captured in Sinai.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs the hon. Gentleman then not aware that the figures of Russian arms supplied to Egypt, which the President of the Board of Trade said were disclosed by the invasion of Egypt and which the right hon. Gentleman last week said were in the possession of the Government before they invaded Egypt, were in fact published by the Israeli Government last July—identical figures to those issued by the Foreign Office as a propaganda boost? Are we to take it from that that either the Foreign Office was grossly incompetent in not following Israeli intelligence, or that there was mendacity on the part of somebody in the Foreign Office?
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerNeither, Sir. There are sources of information available to the Government, and those sources were confirmed by figures published by the Israeli Government recently.
§ Mr. GowerIn addition to what we have discovered, is it not a fact that the Israeli authorities have also said that the fighting has revealed that there was a much larger build-up of Soviet help than they themselves had expected?
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerThat is certainly so from the information I have.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs it not a curious coincidence that the Israeli figures, which were published last July, are identical with those issued by the Foreign Office?
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerNo. The information I have is that they are not identical.
§ 12. Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the latest date on which Centurion tanks were exported to Egypt; and to which other States in the Middle East Centurion tanks have been supplied.
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerNo export of Centurion tanks to Egypt has been authorised since August, 1955. The only other Middle East State to which Her Majesty's Government have authorised the export of Centurion tanks is Iraq.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs it not a fact that a week ago a quantity of Centurion tanks and a large quantity of other military equipment were landed at Basra for Iraq? Is it not also a fact that the Government of Iraq have issued a statement threatening the extinction of Israel every bit as violent as the statements of Nasser? How do the Government reconcile that with their statement about supplies to Egypt?
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerThat does not arise on this Question, but that point was answered in full last week.
§ 13. Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the latest date on which British jet planes were supplied to Egypt; and to which other States in the Middle East British jet planes have been supplied, and when.
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerAs my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence told the House on 14th November in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to divulge details of exports of military equipment.
§ Mr. LewisOn a point of order. You have undoubtedly just heard that reply, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, therefore, what the position is? The Minister of Defence said in answer to my Question that it was not in order to reveal these figures, but on the same day my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) had the figures given to him by a Minister. Is it in order for a Minister to say he is not allowed to give the figures when the Government give the figures to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think the Minister could have said it was not in order for him to give the figures. Matters of 13 order are for me. He probably said, as has just been said, that it is not the practice to give them. As to the rest of the hon. Member's question, it does not concern me in the slightest.
§ Mr. BevanIs is very confusing, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just given us a figure about the supply of Centurion tanks, though he was not asked the number. He has been asked now what was the latest date on which British jet planes were supplied to Egypt. He has just told us that there were Centurion tanks supplied last year to Egypt, and some to Iraq. Why does the same rule of secrecy not apply?
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerI am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point. I have not, of course, given any details, but it is, of course, known that there are Centurion tanks in Egypt. Hon. Members opposite have said that for some time. There are jet planes, too. The numbers are not known, and those are details for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking. What I would inform the House is that Centurions for Egypt were delivered under contracts made before October, 1951—in fact, in 1949. when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office.
§ Mr. LewisOn a point of order. Again I want to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that a Minister has just said that it is not the practice of the Government to give information. My Question the other day, to which he referred, asked for the sterling amount of the arms and munitions supplied to Egypt. The Minister, in reply to me, said it is not the practice to give that information, and yet on the same day my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) had that information given him by the Government.
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is no point of order at all in that. The hon. Member may not like the answer he has got, but that is a matter he must take up in debate when he gets the chance. I cannot deal with it. It has nothing to do with the rules of order at all.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Member has a point of order, I will let him finish, but 14 he was repeating what he said on a point of order which he raised before and which was not a point of order. I do not know how he will bring it within the rules of order.
§ Mr. LewisWith respect, Mr. Speaker, unless I can give you the facts upon which my point of order rest, surely you are not in a position to decide whether it is or is not a point of order. I was going to give you the facts and figures, and then to ask, in view of that, is it in order for a Minister, though I agree he can refuse to answer at all, to give a deliberate lie in answer to a Question?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Whatever else is in order or not, the word which the hon. Member has just used is one I cannot permit, and he must withdraw it at once.
§ Mr. LewisI withdraw the word "lie" and ask whether it is in order to give a completely untruthful reply in answer to a Question?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a withdrawal at all. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his second expression as well. There is no point of order but the one which the hon. Member has created for himself.
§ Mr. LewisIs it in order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw that expression of mine. Is it, therefore, permissible for me to say that the Minister is guilty of a terminological inexactitude?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that is in order. It is covered by a precedent, I understand.
§ Mr. SwinglerOn a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this Question is my Question? Am I not entitled to ask a supplementary upon it?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is not entitled to ask a supplementary but, if he feels he has one to ask, I will let him ask it. It is not my fault that hon. Members have intervened.
§ Mr. SwinglerThank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My Question asked what was the latest date on which British jet planes were supplied. Question No. 12 asked what was the latest date on which Centurion tanks were supplied, and the Foreign Office spokesman gave a reply stating the latest date on which they were 15 authorised. He has chosen not to reply to this Question, although it has been widely published that 100 British jet planes were supplied to Egypt. Is it not the fact that the replies to these questions show an incredible hypocrisy on the part of the Foreign Office in all this matter?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is also out of order. The word "hypocrisy" is also out of order. The hon. Member should withdraw that too.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanOn a point of Order.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), if I heard him aright, accused an hon. Member opposite him of hypocrisy. It should not be allowed. I ask hon. Members, however worked up they may feel about this, to keep to decent language.
§ Mr. SwinglerThe words I used were, "the hypocrisy of the Foreign Office in this whole matter", and I did not understand that that phrase was out of order.
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerOn a point of order. I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker, against these unparliamentary expressions.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think probably that "hypocrisy" when so addressed to such a wide target as the whole of the Foreign Office becomes in its application to individuals there so thinly spread as to be almost innocuous, but I ask hon. Members to refrain from these expressions. They are not in the tradition of the House. Hon. Members can be as severe as they like with each other without descending to expressions which are unparliamentary.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsSince the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs answered Question No. 12, why does he refuse to answer Question No. 13? Does he not expect the House to draw the deduction from his refusal that he is trying to hide something?
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerI am not certain whether the charge of hypocrisy has been withdrawn.
§ Mr. SpeakerI say that it need not be withdrawn if it is addressed to the whole of the Foreign Office. Had the 16 context made it applicable to any hon. Member, I should have insisted upon its withdrawal.
§ Mr. PickthornOn that point of order. Is it not almost the first rule of order about supplementary questions that a supplementary question cannot be in order which would have been out of order if it had been purported to have been placed on the Order Paper? I should like to ask whether that be not still the rule and whether, if it be still the rule, every supplementary question we have had for three weeks has not been grossly out of order?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is, of course, the rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "An attack on the Chair."] It is the rule that what is out of order on a Question submitted to the Table is equally out of order in a supplementary question. That is undoubtedly the rule, and the hon. Member is quite right about it, but the practical difficulty persists that where a Question is submitted in writing one has a chance of studying it, but in this place the words are out before one can do anything about it, and for me to be continually interfering at Question Time on points of order and stopping hon. Members, unless there is a flagrant abuse, would be to deprive many hon. Members of the chance to ask their Questions. I am anxious not to do that. It is a matter of co-operation. If hon. Members persist in raising points of order in Question Time, it means that they are denying their colleagues a chance to ask Questions of which they have given notice.
§ Mr. BevanWith respect, Mr. Speaker, your Ruling just now seems very wide, and if it is adhered to we shall have the most stilted vocabulary in Parliament that the world has ever known. Is it right to say that to describe any conduct of any hon. Member as hypocritical is out of order? I would draw attention to what has become a classic occasion when the late Earl Lloyd-George described Lord Simon as leaving the slime of hypocrisy behind him. It could not have been much worse than that, and that was not ruled out of order. In my respectful submission, we could go through HANSARD and find very many robust expressions which, by your Ruling, would be out of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt may be that on that occasion that expression was allowed to pass, but that does not bind me. I will tell hon. Members, if they are in any doubt as to what language to use, that the real guiding principle is that the object of the restraint of language is to prevent disorder in the House, and any accusation of bad faith in another Member, such as "hypocrisy," involves using a word which in more robust days might have led to a blow. That is the sort of thing which it is my duty to check. Hon. Members can be as severe as they like, but they must use proper language. I am bound to do what I feel right.
§ Mr. SpeakerI ask hon. Members to go on with Questions and not to raise points of order. It is very hard on hon. Members not to be able to ask their Questions.
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerI understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have agreed that an hon. Member is in order in using the word "hypocrisy" as applied to the whole Foreign Office, which I have the privilege to represent at the Dispatch Box at the moment. May I take it that I can return with the charge to the party opposite, and particularly to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), in view of the fact that so many of the arms supplied in the last few years have been supplied under contracts which right hon. Gentlemen opposite made?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is the rule in these matters that words may be used about a whole party which would not be allowed to be used against an individual, and both these charges are therefore in order.
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerI will certainly withdraw if I am not allowed to say it, and I leave the world to judge.
§ Mr. BevanThe original Question was whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State would give the latest date on which British jet planes were supplied to Egypt. He replied by saying that it was not the habit and custom of the Government to give details of transactions of this sort. That was not in the Question. The hon. Gentleman had already given the latest date for Centurion tanks. Why cannot we have the dates for jet planes?
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerBecause the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who recently made a patriotic speech supporting the action of this Government, stated in the House when he set the precedent that he made an exception of tanks.
§ Mr. MikardoOn a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerYes, I know, but the hon. Member must wait his turn with points of order. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) for reminding me what the original Question was. So much has transpired since it was asked that I was in danger, as was the House, of forgetting it. But these are really matters of debate. They are not points of order at all. I hope that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has a real point of order. What is it?
§ Mr. MikardoI have one, Sir, and I have been waiting my turn. I would like to ask you why, a few moments ago, you declined to let me put a point of order on the ground that this was not a time for points of order but for Foreign Office Questions. Immediately I sat down in reply to your Ruling, Sir, you let the hon. Gentleman make exactly the same point. May I ask whether the injunction to wait one's turn applies equally to front and to back benches, and to both sides of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt certainly does. The hon. Member for Reading feels a grievance in this matter. I must confess that I did not observe him. There were so many other hon. Members on their feet at the same time. I have done the best I can. I will now call the next Question.