§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what general instructions are 1447 given to the official directors on the board of the Suez Canal Company with reference to the safeguarding of British interests?
§ 58. Mr. WISEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any instructions to guide their action on the board are given to the British Government nominated directors of the Suez Canal Company, either generally or on particular items of business, and, if so, what is the nature of such general instructions; whether any such instructions have been given recently in connection with the rates of toll, and, if so, what instructions; whether any reports are rendered to the Government by the directors concerned, and, if so, how often; and whether any such reports made in the last 12 months can be rendered available for the information of Members of the House?
§ Mr. DALTONThe official directors are instructed to report to the Foreign Office on all subjects arising out of the administration of the Canal which may be of interest to the various Departments of His Majesty's Government, and are informed of the wishes of His Majesty's Government in regard to specific issues as they arise. No instructions have recently been issued on the subject of the dues charged by the company, because the question of the attitude to be adopted by His Majesty's Government is still under consideration. Reports are submitted at fixed intervals on certain specific subjects; other questions are fully reported on as they arise. Detailed information regarding the operations of the company is submitted annually by the directors, and is issued as a Stationery Office publication.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWhile thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him whether the official directors have reported the question of dues to His Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. DALTONThe whole question of the dues is being considered by the competent Department of His Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAAre the Government considering taking over the adminis- 1448 tration of the Canal, in view of the fact that the British shareholders, including the Government, are in the majority?
§ Mr. DALTONI do not think that that is so. I do not think the facts are in accordance with the hon. Member's view.
§ Mr. WISEHave the British Government ever issued any general instructions on the policy to be pursued by their directors on the board in relation to the general level of dues?
§ Mr. DALTONThat would be, not general, but a particular, instruction.
§ Mr. DALTONNo, Sir. I repeat that the particular problem of the dues is at present under consideration by the competent Department of the Government, and, until the Government have made up their mind—[Interruption].
§ Mr. WISEAre we to assume that, on the matter which is of most importance to British shipping interests, that is to say, the dues, neither this Government nor any other Government has ever made up its mind?
§ Mr. DALTONObviously, I cannot speak for previous Governments, but the present Government are now engaged in considering the matter.
§ Mr. DALTONAll Departments are competent in the general sense. In the sense in which I have answered these questions, the Board of Trade and the Treasury are primarily concerned.
§ 56. Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the British Government's representatives on the board of the Suez Canal Company whether they were present on 23rd April when a deputation representing all sections of British commerce requested the London committee of the Suez Canal board to consider a reduction of canal dues; and 1449 whether the Government directors supported the application on behalf of British commerce?
§ Mr. DALTONThe deputation referred to by the hon. Member was received, not by the London committee of the Suez Canal Company, but by Lord Inchcape personally. No other director of the company was present. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.
§ Mr. CAMPBELLIs it not a fact that, if the other directors had taken any interest in the matter, they would have been present? Was it not their duty to be present?