(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the situation in Persia.

In my statement to the House on 14th June, I mentioned the demands which had been presented by the Persian Oil Board in Abadan to the Company's General Manager.

The first meeting between the AngloIranian Oil Company delegation and the Persian representatives to the discussions took place in Teheran on the evening of 14th June, and at an early stage the Persian Minister of Finance, who headed the Persian delegation, made three specific demands:

1. (1) That the Company's Board in London and its management in Persia should henceforth deal with all matters affecting Persia and falling within the province of the provisional Persian Board of Directors only in conjunction with the latter.
2. (2) That the proceeds of the Company's operations arising from Persian oil, less expenses, as from 20th March (as provided in the Nationalisation Law) should be handed over to the Persian Government who would deposit 25 per cent. with some mutually agreed bank against any claim for compensation that the Company might prefer.
3. (3) That the Company should render a statement of all sales transactions from that date onwards.

It was made clear that acceptance of these demands was a condition precedent to the opening of discussions.

The Company's delegation at once replied that they would have to refer this new development to London. The Persians originally gave them until Sunday, 17th June, in which to reply, but this was later extended to today, 19th June. Advice from London has now been sent to the delegation, which is to meet the Persian representatives again this evening.

The House will not expect me to say what answer the delegation will give at this evening's meeting in Teheran. I will take an early opportunity to make a further statement to the House on this important matter.

Meanwhile, I should perhaps mention the statements attributed by the Press to Mr. Makki, one of the members of the Persian Oil Board now in Abadan, to the effect that, if the Company's answer to the three demands is not satisfactory, the installations will be taken over tomorrow, 20th June. I do not know to what extent, if at all, this ultimatum—if Mr. Makki has been correctly reported—represents the attitude of his Government. I should hope it does not. The Company and His Majesty's Government have from the start been ready, and are still ready, to discuss the whole matter reasonably and fully; we believe that a solution satisfactory to all concerned can be found. But ultimata and prior conditions of this kind make reasonable negotiation impossible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the closing passage of his reply certainly has the endorsement of hon. Members on this side of the House? May I ask him to bear in mind in these discussions that both Abadan and Haifa, the two largest British-owned refineries in the world, are not operating at full capacity and, while rightly refusing an ultimatum in respect of Persia, will he consider whether the time has come for steps to be taken to ensure that our tankers can go to Haifa, so that this country and allied countries can have the refined products to which we are entitled under international law?

I do not disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I can assure him that every opportunity will be taken to bring persuasion or pressure to bear on the Egyptian Government to solve the problem of the transport of tankers for use at Haifa.

I accept that. Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that persuasion has been going on about the Canal for something like two years and in that respect we are absolutely within our international rights, and, if the Egyptian Government are not willing to accord us those rights, there are measures that lie in our power to take with our Allies to ensure the observation of our rights?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am willing to consider any suggestions he has to make as to that.

Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the conditions are not present in Persia which will afford a solution of this problem, a stable and durable settlement? As the right hon. Gentleman said, in answer to a Question on 29th May: All these matters have been the subject of consideration, and appropriate steps have been taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 43.] —in answer to the question whether he would take necessary steps to defend the lives of British subjects there and protect the installations—are we to understand that His Majesty's Government will if necessary, take steps to protect the installations from seizure by the Persian Government?

I have answered that more than once. I have said we must take proper steps and all the steps we can to protect British lives. The other point does raise wider considerations, and I have not given specific answers about it, and do not think I should.

The right hon. Gentleman quite properly asked me for a suggestion. May I ask him to consider the suggestion whether, if our international rights are still not met after these two years, it would not be worthy of consideration to send one of our tankers to the Suez Canal under, if possible, allied, but at any rate effective, escort?

I think it would be best if that Question were put on the Order Paper and I would consider it.

Further to the reply, did the right hon. Gentleman say, in the memorandum on 4th June, that: His Majesty's Government have every right to intervene in defence of this great British interest in Persia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1951; Vol. 488. c. 693.] and leave the House on that occasion with the impression that His Majesty's Government would not give up these oilfields and the installations in the present circumstances?

I have nothing to add to the answer I have given. I have looked it up and I think it is reasonably clear.

The right hon. Gentleman has asked my right hon. Friend for suggestions. Is he aware that the impression given by his two answers is that he and the Foreign Office and the Government have given all too little consideration to this matter?

Hon. Members:

Nonsense.

That is a rather partisan and irresponsible observation. I will say that not only am I willing to accept positive and concrete suggestions from the deputy-Leader of the Opposition, but I should be willing also to consider suggestions from the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).