HC Deb 11 April 1951 vol 486 cc1032-7
Mr. Churchill

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on negotiations between this country and Egypt.

Mr. H. Morrison

My predecessor agreed with the Egyptian Foreign Minister that neither His Majesty's Government nor the Egyptian Government would make any comment on the substance of the matters at present being discussed between the two Governments. In view of this mutual undertaking, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to await the report which I shall be making in due course to the House.

Mr. Churchill

Will this report be made to the House before definite decisions have been taken or after?

Mr. Morrison

We shall handle the matter in such a way that the full and proper rights of the House will be kept open.

Mr. Churchill

I ventured to say the other day that the House has not claimed to interfere with the treaty-making power of the Government. What does the right hon. Gentleman then mean by "full and proper rights"? Would we be safe in assuming that he will endeavour to carry the House with him before he commits himself to a definite decision on so grave a matter?

Mr. Morrison

On this particular matter I am very conscious of the desirability of carrying the House with me, but one must keep in mind that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough on another subject some time ago to support me in taking the view that Governments must have the right to reach treaties and agreements so long as it does not prejudice the right of the House to overthrow that treaty or agreement when it is put before it. That principle I shall scrupulously respect, but it is very difficult to conduct negotiations with a foreign Power and at the same time to have a running discussion in Parliament about it. It has not only to be submitted in due course to this Parliament—that is to say if we agree and I cannot be sure that we shall—but it has also to be submitted to another Parliament. The House will realise that if we were to bring the matter before Parliament, before the parties have reached their own conclusions, it would follow that the other parties to the discussion might have to do the same. Therefore, while I shall handle the matter in a way which fully preserves the rights of the House of Commons, I cannot undertake to bring the matter before the House from time to time while the discussions are going on.

Mr. Churchill

Does not this amount to the fact that we are to be told nothing about this matter until a decision is taken definitely one way or the other, which may perhaps involve the immediate or early withdrawal of British troops from the Suez Canal Zone with all the consequences that that entails in the Middle East and beyond? If that is the position, are we not bound on this side of the House to initiate a debate upon the matter and make sure that the House has an opportunity of bringing home to the Government its opinion about the state of affairs in the Levant and in Egypt about which there is a great deal of anxiety at the present time?

Mr. Morrison

With every respect, I do not think that is a course which is obligatory upon the Opposition in any case. In discussions with foreign Powers one must proceed and reach a point of agreement or disagreement; there is no other way to do it, and at the end of the day the Government are responsible to Parliament. Parliament has every right to upset the agreement, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although it was upon another matter in which he agreed with me as to the course I was taking—it makes a difference in these issues—he most emphatically came to my rescue; somebody on this side of the House was trying to hold me up and the right hon. Gentleman stated that we were absolutely right to preserve the treaty-making power of the Government. But I shall fully respect the rights of Parliament in the matter.

Mr. Churchill

Is not the right hon. Gentleman avoiding the point? According to what he said, the rights of Parliament would be fully preserved in that after he has taken decisions and made agreements which Parliament could not alter without a breach of our traditions and customs, and only after, we are allowed an opportunity of debating the matter. Would it not be wiser and better, as the Treaty does not end until 1956, for us to discuss this matter beforehand?

Mr. Morrison

I think that would be a most inconvenient course. The Foreign Secretary or his representative cannot very well discuss important negotiations of this sort at the end of a Parliamentary string, so to speak, and I say that with the very greatest respect to the House. Neither do I want the Egyptians to discuss the matter at the end of a Parliamentary string. I really think that we are taking the proper constitutional course. I do not know whether these discussions will succeed or not. I appreciate their importance and I understand the feelings of the House in matters relating to this kind of thing, but I think it would be constitutionally an innovation and undesirable, if we were to do other than proceed, reach a conclusion with the representatives of His Majesty the King of Egypt, and then report to the House. The House would be doing nothing constitutionally wrong if in its wisdom it decided to upset the agreement. The House is perfectly free. Naturally the Government will have their own point of view which they can put before the House, but they must be the servants of the House in the end.

Mr. Churchill

That is very important. If it is understood that no agreement which is now being made will have validity until the House has had an opportunity of discussing it, which is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, I shall press the matter no further. Is that the position?

Mr. Morrison

I think that is right. We make the agreement and we lay it on the Table. Everybody will understand—not only ourselves but the Egyptians—that Parliament has the right to intervene, and until the period in which Parliament has the right to intervene has gone, obviously there is no finality.

Mr. Somerset de Chair

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when these matters were last discussed in this House his predecessor stated that the matter of a revision of the Treaty rested on the Treaty of 1936, and that the Government proposed to make no change in the terms of the Treaty? What can possibly have happened within the last two or three months to justify any revision of the terms of the Treaty of 1936? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware not only that this Treaty has five and a half years to run, but that provision is made in the Treaty for its continuation at the end of that time, because it is possible for the British Government to take to arbitration the question of whether or not the Egyptian Government are then in a position to maintain the full security of the Suez Canal?

Mr. Morrison

I have not concealed the Treaty. The Treaty is still there and we shall see whether it will be amended or not. For the rest of the hon. Gentleman's somewhat long supplementary, I think that he was trying to draw me into a situation which I have been particularly careful to avoid.

Sir Peter Macdonald

Before any conclusion is reached in this connection, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the views of other parts of the Commonwealth are considered, especially Australia and Far Eastern countries who are greatly affected by any changes in this respect?

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will never let me forget the Commonwealth; nor would I wish to.

Mr. Henry Hopkinson

Does not the fact that these negotiations include the Sudan, which is an Anglo-Egyptian Condominium and, therefore, half British territory, put these negotiations in a different category from ordinary diplomatic negotiations? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no alteration will be made in the status of the Sudan without consulting this House, and, may I suggest, without consulting the Sudanese people themselves through their national assembly?

Mr. Morrison

We are on record, and I repeat it, that certainly the people of the Sudan would have to be consulted. For the rest, the issue as regards what might be a factor in these discussions—I do not say what the result would be—is in the same category as the assurance I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Mitchison

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a similar question arose in connection with the Hoare-Laval Agreement some time ago which was concluded between Governments in exactly the manner he contemplates, and was then upset by Parliament, as Parliament could upset the proposed agreement now?

Mr. Morrison

To the best of my recollection my hon. and learned Friend is quite right.

Mr. Churchill

Is it not clear that the Hoare-Laval Agreement was not a treaty? Is it not also clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean as a general rule to abrogate the treaty-making rights of the Executive under the Crown? Is it not also clear that he is making an exception in this case by making any provisional agreement which may be reached between him and the Egyptian authorities a matter which will require the approval of the House?

Mr. Morrison

I think the statement I have made was clear and understandable. I would sooner leave it there.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

However much the right hon. Gentleman may consider that he can pledge this House in anticipation, will he say under what right he can pledge the Commonwealth and the other countries which are bound by the Treaty to the effects of some diminution of our rights in Egypt?

Mr. Morrison

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been listening wrongly. I did not say anything about committing the Commonwealth. Somebody asked me whether we would keep the Commonwealth informed or whether we were forgetting them, and I gave an assurance that we would certainly not forget the Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Paget

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a new treaty might bring to an end our rights under the 1936 Treaty and, if it were subsequently not approved by this House, that fact would nevertheless not revive our rights under the 1936 Treaty, or might not do so? Would he bear that very carefully in mind?

Mr. Morrison

I shall bear that in mind.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this issue has reached its present stage because there is a feeling on all sides of the House that the policy which His Majesty's Government adopt towards this matter is not in entire accordance with the wishes of the House?

Mr. Morrison

We were getting along so nicely and then the hon. Gentleman tries to upset it all. That is really too bad.

Forward to