§ 33. Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to question the right of Egypt to interfere with vessels passing through the Suez Canal.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydHer Majesty's Government have consistently refused to recognise the right of Egypt to impose 1445 restrictions on the passage of cargo through the Suez Canal in peace-time. A formal note to this effect was presented to the Egyptian Government on 28th May, 1951, and the United Kingdom together with France and the United States sponsored a resolution in the Security Council during August, 1951, calling on Egypt to put an end to this practice forthwith. Our dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs has been brought to the notice of the Egyptian Government on many subsequent occasions.
§ Mr. ShinwellIn the present negotiations is this matter being considered?
§ Mr. ShinwellPerhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be more specific. I know that a number of items are under consideration in the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations. What I wish to know is whether the Egyptian Government, in the course of the discussions arising from the negotiations, are being asked to cease violating international law in respect of the free passage of the vessels through the Canal?
§ Mr. LloydThe question of any breach by the Egyptian Government of the Security Council's Resolution of 1951 is not under negotiation at present.
§ Mr. Patrick MaitlandDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this Egyptian action is a violation of the Suez Canal Convention and that it bodes ill for Egyptian credit in honouring any agreement in future?
§ Mr. LloydThere is a difference of opinion as to the correct interpretation of the Suez Canal Convention.
§ Mr. ShinwellIf the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this matter of the right of vessels of all nations to pass through the Suez Canal is not under consideration in these negotiations, will he see that in the course of the negotiations it is brought to the notice of General Neguib and his associates?
§ Mr. LloydI think that this is really an international matter which affects all maritime countries and is a matter for action by them together.
§ 34. Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions vessels passing through the Suez Canal have been stopped and searched by the Egyptian Government; and in how many cases goods have been confiscated.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydBetween 1948 and 1950, 38 British ships were delayed or turned back by the Egyptian Government on account of cargoes for Israel which were held to be contraband. Two further British ships were also held up in 1952, since when no British ship has been detained.
Figures are not immediately available for ships of other flags affected before 1953, but in that year one Greek and two Italian ships were held up and, in one case, a cargo of meat was confiscated, although subsequently released. A small cargo was also confiscated from a Norwegian ship early this month.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs it not a disgraceful outrage that so many British vessels should be interfered with in violation of international law? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that recently a vessel proceeding from East Africa, with which we are very closely associated, carrying goods destined for Israel, was actually stopped and the goods confiscated? Is not action to be taken in view of that additional outrage?
§ Mr. LloydThe vast majority of the ships which were delayed or turned back were delayed or turned back between 1948 and 1950, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that during the past few weeks there has been an apparent intention to extend this blockade or embargo to a cargo of meat which, I think, was the one to which he referred, which was confiscated and subsequently released, and later to this small Norwegian cargo which, I think, included some clothing. That is an indication that it is getting far beyond chemicals or arms or anything of that sort. The Government take a serious view of that matter, and are considering what further steps should be taken.
§ Mr. AttleeAs the right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained our inaction by saying that the matter concerns other nations, what steps are being taken to get concerted action between all nations 1447 and, if necessary, to bring the matter before the International Court if there is any doubtful law?
§ Mr. LloydSo far as this later development is concerned, we have under consideration what international action should be taken.
§ Sir H. WilliamsAre we not entitled to escort our own ships with our own forces in view of the failure by the "Insecurity Council" at "Lake Failure"?