§ 29. Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the Governments of the United States of America and France a reaffirmation of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 or a renegotiation of its terms.
§ 32. Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the nature of United Kingdom commitments involved in the Tripartite Agreement; and what modifications in this agreement have been made since its origin.
§ Mr. George ThomsonI have nothing to add to the reply of my right honourable Friend the Prime Minister on 13th April.
§ Mr. HendersonDoes not the Minister of State agree that the Middle East situation has been largely transformed since 1950 by reason of Soviet intervention in that area? Would not the Government consider proposing a quadrupartite declaration with a view to maintaining the balance of arms and peace in the Middle East?
§ Mr. ThomsonI agree with my hon. Friend that there has been a big change in the situation in the Middle East since the original Tripartite Declaration. It was to take account of that change that the 919 previous Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, made his statement on 14th May, 1963, and that remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs my right hon. Friend not aware of the varying interpretations of the Tripartite Agreement and that the American interpretation differs substantially from that of the United Kingdom and France? Has not the time arrived when there should be further consultation with the co-signatories of the Tripartite Agreement with a view to its revision and in order to make it more effective?
§ Mr. ThomsonWe are in regular consultation with both the Government of the United States and the Government of France about Middle Eastern problems and about the kind of situation which arises under both the Tripartite Declaration and the later statement to which I referred. I think that my right hon. Friend is right that these matters need continual consultation. We are all, of course, very anxious to seek any means of effective arms control in the area, but there are great difficulties in the way of such a scheme.
§ Sir B. JannerWill my hon. Friend take into consideration the grave importance of maintaining the Tripartite Agreement and similar agreements in consequence of the fact that the illegal attempt to stop water going to Israel has already been brought before the United Nations and that the Russians vetoed the question when it arose there? It is extremely important that some effective measures should be available in case an emergency arises.
§ Mr. ThomsonAs I think my hon. Friend knows, what the previous Government said and what the present Government say is that the United Nations ought to be the first body to deal with this matter, but we have said that we are ready to take action both within and outside the United Nations in the interests of peace.
§ Mr. LongdenWould not the hon. Gentleman agree that one or other of the courses suggested in the original Question could only contribute to the stability of the Middle East?
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Arthur Henderson.
§ Mr. ThomsonI am sorry, but I did not gather the import of the hon. Member's Question.
§ Mr. Longden rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is why I called another question. Mr. Arthur Henderson.
§ Mr. A. HendersonMay we take it from the last reply of the Minister of State that Her Majesty's Government are not averse to entering into consultations with the Soviet Government with a view to securing agreement leading to a stabilised position in the Middle East?
§ Mr. ThomsonHer Majesty's Government are always ready to seek means of arms control in the Middle East and in other troubled areas of the world.