HC Deb 15 May 1956 vol 552 cc1961-70

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Wills.]

10.25 p. m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I have realised very clearly since I learned that I had the opportunity of raising the question of the Suez Canal that it is a very large problem to raise at such a time as this. I remind the House, however, that the reason for my doing so is my acute disappointment with the Answers which were given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs a few days ago in the House.

It is, of course, clear that no one can attempt to deal with the question of the Suez Canal and present any future problems divorced from the background of the Middle East. I want to start by saying to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that, while we all respect and admire a certain amount of caution on the part of the Foreign Office, we believe that that can be greatly overdone. One of the really urgent things to which the present Government must give their attention is the state of public opinion in the country. It manifestly needs leadership and instruction from those who are responsible for formulating policy.

In relation to such spheres as the Middle East, the public is now looking very anxiously for something much more definite in the way of guidance than the assurance that difficult problems are being looked into, borne in mind, considered and the rest. We definitely need a clear formulation of policy which people are able to understand.

We have the situation in relation to the Suez Canal that a resolution of the Security Council is being flouted. Can we really put up with that? How strong do we intend the United Nations to be? Is our loyalty to that organisation merely one of lip-sevice or not? One accepts, of course, and must accept, that the problems of the Suez Canal are affected by Arab-Israeli politics. It should be observed here that, quite contrary to the hopes that some of us may have cherished, agreement on the Suez base has not been followed in any way by improvement in Anglo-Egyptian relations.

I do not wish to waste my time on abusing somebody who may, after all, be only a very temporary leader of his country, but I would say that Colonel Nasser has seen fit to subjugate his people's interests and subordinate his own promise to the very dubious prestige that might be gained by being the possessor of a certain quantity of modern arms which one can say clearly and dogmatically will never be of any benefit to Egypt or anyone in the Middle East.

Perhaps I should say—I do not want to enlarge on this—that even sadder is the fact that in this dangerous part of the world Anglo-American co-operation has been conspicuous far too often by its absence. Mr. Dulles has given the appearance of being very much more easily influenced by anti-imperialist gibes and propaganda than by the desire to be helpful to his principal Ally.

It is also the unfortunate fact that there has been in that part of the world a series of Anglophobe American ambassadors who have really done nothing to manifest either a willingness to co-operate or to understand this country. They have gone further than that; they have been a constant source of embarrassment. If evidence is required, I would instance Mr. Cannon's statement the other day on the rather different question of the banishment of Archbishop Makarios.

To deal with the Canal itself, the present restrictions on navigation emanate, we know, from the present hostilities between Egypt and Israel, and I suppose that it is unrealistic to expect a complete cessation of those restrictions while the hostilities continue. Therefore, one is forced back to the general question whether we are really doing enough. whether we are playing a sufficiently effective part in bringing this highly explosive situation in the Middle East under effective control.

Look as one may for some sign of encouragement, it is not easy to find. The Tripartite Declaration, which in itself is a dangerously vague paper commitment, in fact really offers but a flimsy promise of stability. Indeed, it has not secured stability in the Middle East, and certainly it has not secured any friends for this country. But I think it would be most ungenerous if one did not pay tribute to the work which General Burns has attempted to do, though, at the same time, we must admit that we have asked him to do what in the long run is impossible. To ask General Burns, with a limited staff, to carry out his great task of pacification without greater force at his disposal is something which I cannot understand.

I think it is true to say that, so long as this dangerous situation is allowed to drift, the principal problems will be neglected, and one of those problems is certainly and incontrovertibly that of the Suez Canal. At the present moment certain arbitrary restrictions on navigation are being imposed, and I suggest that it is intolerable that such arbitrary restrictions should be imposed upon the use of an international waterway.

It is no use giving mere lip-service to a Resolution of the Security Council. It is no use merely stating in this House that it is on the whole rather undesirable, or something of that kind, that restriction should be placed on navigation. In my opinion, it must be stated clearly, beyond a peradventure, that restrictions placed upon the use of an international waterway of the kind of the Suez Canal are absolutely intolerable. It is true, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will remind the House, that the Canal is now being used by more ships than ever before, but I say that this fact in itself merely underlines the need for effective international control of the waterway of the Suez Canal.

It may be, and I am not prepared to deny it, that Egypt may have a strong claim to some share in the revenue of the Canal. But I do say to my hon. Friend that the present Egyptian Government have not yet given those who believe in freedom of commerce between nations any justification for thinking that their word can be relied upon or that their word is of any value.

It may well be that someone else far worse will shortly follow Colonel Nasser, but even as things are at present we have little justification for relying upon the word of the Egyptian Government. It is an intolerable situation that either now or in the future the body in control of the Suez Canal should fall entirely under the hand of Egypt.

A second point which I should like to make is that the problem of the future use of the Suez Canal is not one, surely, which should be postponed until 1968. It is something that we must deal with now. What does my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary anticipate will be the future traffic through the Suez Canal? Does he anticipate that the physical limitations of the Canal are such as will gradually tend to diminish its usefulness, or does he think that the physical limitations can be overcome? If they can be overcome— and probably they can— to deal with an immensely increased volume of traffic, I suggest that that is something which we must face now, immediately.

To do that, we must quite clearly go into consultation with all those other nations who are directly interested. Of course, I include Egypt as one of them. I think that a clear approach and a clear lead—I know that that is a painful word nowadays—with clear leadership from this country, is called for to lay down, in the name of international law, the conditions for the future use of the Suez Canal. It would, of course, be preferable that that should be done in the name of the United Nations.

There is one question that I should like to ask my hon. Friend, in view of the need for finance for widening or other works on the Canal. What use is being made of the revenues of the Suez Canal? If my hon. Friend has not that information available tonight, I should be interested to hear it as soon as possible. I am sure that the House would be interested to know it also.

I do not want to prolong my remarks, as I want to leave time for other hon. Members to take part in the debate and for my hon. Friend to reply, but I want to say this. There was a time when this country was not afraid to enunciate policies and was not unable to persuade others to support those policies in partnership with us. I find it difficult to believe that a few propaganda gibes have so sapped our courage and robbed us of our confidence that we are unable to face this problem boldly. I am quite certain that if we attempt now to run away from the hard facts of the situation in the Middle East, we shall indeed be released from the control of the civilised world— a situation fraught with danger, not only for those who use the Suez Canal and for all who live in the Middle East, but for the world as a whole.

I make no apology for having raised in a very short time some of the points which bear closely upon this vital international waterway, and I hope that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends at the Foreign Office will realise that there is an increasing demand in this country for a clear formulation of policy on behalf of our people.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams (Sunderland, South)

The House and the country should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for raising this matter. It is perhaps significant that hon. Members opposite are not assembled in serried ranks in order to take part in this discussion. The fact that there is not a single member of the Labour Party in the Chamber shows to some degree the interest taken by hon. Members opposite in essential and vital British interests.

I wish to stress two points to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. Without some further protest, influence or sanction, we can no longer tolerate the absence of freedom of navigation through this international waterway. I wish to remind my hon. Friend of the sanction which remains within our power, the sanction and influence which we hold and which we could use to bring home to the Egyptian Government the importance and the sanity of our point of view. I refer to the fact that we still hold sterling balances in this country.

It may be that in the months ahead we are committed to payments under a previous agreement. But where the Egyptian Government is presently in default in respect of an international agreement, I think it perfectly reasonable to say that this country should be willing to review commitments to that Government with a view to saying that unless they are willing to allow freedom of navigation through the Canal, we shall block their sterling balances.

10.41 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker)

When this debate was arranged, referring to the Suez Canal, I did not anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) would raise other issues affecting the Middle East, and I do not think that he expects me to discuss those controversial subjects on this occasion. I have to guide me not only his remarks tonight but the points which he raised in supplementary questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who replied to Questions by my hon. Friend on 7th May.

From those questions and the remarks which my hon. Friend has made this evening, I think that two points emerge. The first is the freedom of navigation of the Canal, which is impeded by the Egyptians against Israeli interests. The second is the future operation of the Canal, which as my hon. Friends have said, is of the greatest importance to us all and of the greatest interest to hon. Members of this House.

I wish first to make clear the present position regarding the "blockade" or rather the freedom of navigation of the Canal. It has been made clear on many occasions by my right hon. and hon. Friends, both in this House and in the Security Council. Of course, the Arab countries take a view different from ours. They consider themselves to be still at war with Israel and therefore entitled to take measures of this sort. We differ in our view of the armistice, but I am trying to make clear the view taken by Egypt, as one of the Arab countries.

Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the original Suez Canal Convention, under which Egypt is bound, laid down categorically that the Canal must be kept open at all times, whether in peace or war, to all ships, whether ships of war or not?

Mr. Dodds-Parker

I was coming to that point.

We do not agree with the line taken by the Arab countries on this question. But I do not think that anyone would pretend that we can remove these restrictions by saying that we do not agree with them.

In 1951 Israel referred this matter to the Security Council. Very briefly, the history of the matter is that from May, 1948, onwards the Arab States have imposed an economic blockade on Israel, and in particular the Egyptian Government have refused to grant passage through the Canal to Israeli shipping or to shipping of other nations bound for Israel. Those restrictions, together with the cutting of the oil pipelines from Iraq, had certain most unfortunate economic effects upon the important oil refinery at Haifa, and from that point of view, and others, the question was brought before the Security Council by Israel in July, 1951.

On 1st September of that year the Council adopted an Anglo-French-United States Resolution calling upon Egypt to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping through the Suez Canal, wherever bound, and to cease all interference with such shipping That, as has often been made clear from this Box before, is how the matter stands at the moment. It is no longer a matter, therefore, for unilateral action by Her Majesty's Government, but for all countries represented at the United Nations. and particularly for all countries interested in maritime matters and free transit through the Canal.

The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was raised again I think, in Questions yesterday when reference was made to the reaffirmation, in the 1954 Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government, of the principle of freedom of navigation. In Article 8 of that Agreement it is laid down that The two Contracting Governments recognise that the Suez Maritime Canal which is an integral part of Egypt, is a waterway economically, commercially and strategically of great importance, and express the determination to uphold the Convention guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Canal signed at Constantinople on the 29th of October, 1888 That referred particularly to Article I of the Convention of 1888, and was reaffirmed by the Egyptian Government and Her Majesty's Government in 1954. It is a matter of deep regret to Her Majesty's Government that restrictions imposed by Egypt on Israeli shipping and ships bound to and from Israel should have continued for so long after the armistice agreements between Israel and her neighbours.

I might say, in passing, that we have welcomed, and I am glad that both sides of the House paid tribute to the efforts made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in attempting to solve this problem, among others. We intend to give him and the United Nations our whole-hearted support in working for a general settlement of the dispute between Israel and her neighbours whereby so many problems, including that of Egypt impeding navigation of the Canal, can best be solved.

Mr. Peyton

I am glad that we give support to the Secretary-General, but I ask my hon. Friend that we should take the initiative in the United Nations and, in very close consultation with the United States and others interested, really get the free nations to take some effective action.

Mr. Dodds-Parker

If my hon. Friend had studied what has been going on in the last few years in the United Nations he would realise that a very great deal of initiative has been taken by this country. As the Minister of State made clear yesterday, it was the present Foreign Secretary who put forward a number of ideas which led to action taken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his trip. I can assure my hon. Friend, if he needs assurance, that we are taking a considerable amount of initiative in these matters—far more than he and others sometimes give us credit for.

Now we have the matter within the United Nations, it is not one for unilateral action by Her Majesty's Government, and we shall continue, as I say, to give all support to the Secretary-General and to the United Nations in trying to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. It is, after all, a matter which is of great interest to other maritime nations and not only to the United Kingdom.

So I come to the actual administration of the Canal. As I think the House realises, the Suez Canal is a major international waterway of vital importance to the world as a whole, and particularly to Western Europe and the maritime countries.

I think it is sometimes not remembered what tremendous developments have taken place in the last few years in the transport of oil through pipelines which reach the Near East coast of the Mediterranean, and by reason of the air lines which carry so much passenger traffic between the Mediterranean and the East. Despite all this, however, the Suez Canal remains of vital importance to all of us. The tremendous growth of Middle East oil production has added to its importance. Today, half the oil consumed in Western Europe comes through the Suez Canal.

Events in the Middle East and the evolution going on there bring up for consideration the future of the Canal, what we are doing, and what we can do, to ensure the operational efficiency of the Canal. Use of the Canal increases rapidly. In 1938, the last full year before the war, 34 million tons of shipping passed through the Canal; in 1945, the figure fell to 25 million tons; but five years later, in 1950, the figure was 81 million tons, and in 1955, 115 million tons.

Britain remains the largest single user. In 1955 British shipping accounted for 28.3 per cent. of the tonnage passing through the Canal. It is clear that this expansion will continue, if only because of the rate at which the production and sale of Middle East oil is increasing. We cannot foretell what the position will be in ten years' time, or even five years from now. It is not just a question of the number of ships which wish to pass through the Canal; it is a question of the capacity of the Canal, the size of the ships, and so forth

It is important to assess the nature of the problem which will arise in the next few years. The Suez Canal Company, with the support of the British directors, is making a constant study of all these problems. Those of us who were involved in this matter—however briefly—in the years before and during the war should pay tribute to the management of the Canal for what they have succeeded in doing, in view of developments in the last ten years—developments which were quite unexpected in 1945.

This brings me to the management of the Canal, and to stress, which I am sure is not necessary in this House, that the Suez Canal Company is an Egyptian Company operating a concession which expires in 1968. The Canal is in Egyptian territory, and Egypt benefits considerably from taxes and dues paid by the company and by ships using the Canal. But the company's obligations are international. It has to meet an expanding volume of shipping. It has to maintain the waterway, and provide the hundred and one facilities that this demands.

It must be free, we believe, to do this. It is not in the Egyptian Government's interest that the company should be restricted or impeded from providing the service which is required. I would stress again the commercial nature of this problem. We believe, from the experience of the past, that the Egyptian Government recognise this. Many subjects come up for discussion between the company and the Egyptian Government, and we believe that these questions affecting the administration of the Canal are best left to them to settle on the basis of cooperation and mutual interest.

We have three Government directors on the Board of the Company, through whom Her Majesty's Government maintain close touch with the company's affairs—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. SPEAKERadjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.