asked the Prime Minister how often he has had official communications with President Nixon during the last month.

asked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from President Nixon since 25th October 1973.

asked the Prime Minister what consultation he had with President Nixon during the Middle East crisis.

As my right hon. Friends and I have made clear to the House, I have had a considerable number of communications with President Nixon during recent weeks, some by direct means, others by means of our ambassador in Washington, and others through members of the United States administration. The content of these discussions is confidential.

Is there a direct telephone link between the White House and No. 10 Downing Street? Was it used before the United States put its troops in this country on to a higher degree of alert? If President Nixon did not telephone the Prime Minister, why did not the Prime Minister telephone him?

I have already told the House that we were informed at the time that the Americans were to place their forces on low level alert, and therefore it was unnecessary for me to telephone President Nixon.

Will the Prime Minister tell President Nixon plainly that this country cannot again be dragged into a nuclear alert, so that the United States administration can make up by a posture of international toughness what it so conspicuously lacks in domestic rectitude? Will he ensure, in his own interests, that these conversations with President Nixon, be they by telephone or in person, are properly recorded and witnessed?

I told the House in my speech on the debate on the Loyal Address on Tuesday last that if there is any question of forces being used for operations the whole situation is then governed by the same arrangement as previous administrations have had.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the Watergate affair, is it not essential that we mend our fences with the United States of America? Did my right hon. Friend find the speech of the Leader of the Opposition last weekend helpful in that way?

We are still in the closest consultation with the United States about all the problems of the Middle East. This is done by the means I have described in my answer to the Question. I have already made clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely unjustified in every way and, what is more, the right hon. Gentleman knows that it was unjustified.

Is not the Prime Minister admitting that the President failed to consult him before making a stage 3 nuclear alert? As these bases would make us a priority target in the event of a future conflict, does not the Prime Minister think he should ask the President to remove these nuclear bases, especially as incineration may be bad, but incineration without representation is even less tolerable?

I know the hon. Gentleman's view. He has expressed it for many years. I respect his right to hold it, but I cannot agree with it.

Is it not remarkable that the Leader of the Opposition, who is so critical of our membership of the EEC, has succeeded in recent weeks in antagonising both the United States administration and the whole of the Arab world?

And the rest of Europe, too!

If the right hon. Gentleman, on studying the speech I made on Sunday—every word of which was right, and it has not been answered—felt that it lacked supporting evidence, is he aware that we got this supporting evidence this morning from the part played by the Foreign Secretary in Europe in interpreting Resolution No. 242 in an illegitimate and prejudicial way, importing into it words which were not put there by the Government which sponsored it, which was the British Labour Government in 1967?

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman at all. My right hon. Friend, together with other Foreign Ministers in the Community, asked that United Nations Resolution No. 242 should be carried out in all its parts. That is what we are asking and what we have always asked for.

On the question of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I invited him to come to No. 10 on Monday 15th October so that I could put him fully into the picture on what had happened. During the first weekend of the fighting we struggled to get a meeting of the Security Council, but we were not successful because other members did not want it. We could not get that meeting until Monday. We then said that we wanted a cease-fire as soon as possible.

During the following week, particularly at the weekend, we worked with everybody to bring about that cease-fire, and we would have put down a resolution in the Security Council if it would have been supported. We came to the conclusion that it would not have the support of the parties to the fighting. Other members of the Security Council were not prepared to put forward a resolution—neither the United States nor the Soviet Union—and the President of the Security Council was not prepared to do so, either. Our judgment was agreed by the American Secretary of State to be right.

I do not usually reveal the contents of conversations, but I must on this occasion say that I gave the right hon. Gentleman the full picture of what had been going on and he, therefore, knows that his speech was entirely unjustified.

The right hon. Gentleman in this conversation gave me some of the facts. It is now clear that the United States State Department does not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said then and has said now. With regard to the agreement this morning, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell me that the reports put out by the BBC news are incorrect. The right hon. Gentleman now gives a version of what was decided in terms of Resolution No. 242, but is he aware that the news report this morning was that the Common Market Foreign Ministers referred to the immediate withdrawal from "the territories" occupied in 1967? Will he tell me in which line of Resolution No. 242 the phrase "the territories" as opposed to "territories" occurs?

The right hon. Gentleman has an important point—whether the resolution refers to "the territories." I will certainly check with the statement of the Ministers of the Nine, of which we have just received a copy. They said that there should be a just and lasting peace through the application of Security Council Resolution No. 242 in all its parts. There cannot be anything clearer than that, and it is justifiable both to Israel and to the Arabs.

Dr. Kissinger has not said that he thinks we were unjustified in the action we took over that weekend in trying to get a resolution through the Security Council. He has confirmed to the Foreign Secretary and to me that the judgment was right. This is shown by the fact that it was not possible for another 10 days to get a cease-fire resolution through the Security Council. Perhaps now the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw entirely what he said.

I withdraw nothing that has come from the State Department last weekend. The right hon. Gentleman must say whether the State Department was telling the truth. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the latest developments this morning, namely, that he will study the text. If the lunchtime reports are incorrect, no one will be happier than I. We have always said that Resolution No. 242 in all its parts should be carried out, but, as we have all said in the House, it is subject to varying interpretations. If the resolution is interpreted as meaning "the territories", that interpretation is prejudical and imports into the statement the view of one party to the dispute and not what Resolution No. 242 says.

I have already quoted to the right hon. Gentleman what the Foreign Ministers said in their statement. I hope, therefore, that he will accept that when they refer to the application of Security Council Resolution No. 242 in all its parts they are fully justified.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the disclosures which have just been made, the right hon. Gentleman knew that he was giving an untrue interpretation—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks do not seem remotely to resemble a point of order.

In the light of your remark, Mr. Speaker, are there any procedures of the House which would enable us to impeach the Leader of the Opposition?

Later—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House is here, may I ask whether there will be a Government statement in relation to the exchanges which have just taken place between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the decision of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine, so that the House may fully understand what the decision was and ask appropriate questions on it?

That is not a matter of order for the Chair. No doubt the hon. Member's comments will have been noted.