§ The Minister of Defence (Mr. Antony Head)With permission, Sir, I will make a statement about the military situation in Egypt, based on the most recent information available to me.
Last night bombing attacks were made by British aircraft on four Egyptian air fields, Almaza and Inchass, Abu Sueir and Kabrit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] First reports show that bombing results were accurate. There was some heavy and light flak, but no damage to our aircraft. One aircraft was intercepted by a night fighter, but no damage resulted.
Ground attack aircraft, shore and carrier-based, carried out attacks on a total of nine Egyptian airfields early this morning.
H.M.S. "Newfoundland" sank the Egyptian frigate "Domiat" approximately 80 miles south of Suez.
We have no direct information about Israeli-Egyptian operations. Reports indicate that the Israeli attack is on two axes. In the south paratroops are holding high ground about 20 miles east of Suez, supported by a brigade. A second brigade is reported further to the east. 1620 In the north the Israelis claim to have over-run the Egyptian position at Qasseina with an armoured brigade.
Reports indicate that Egyptian armoured units, deployed west of Cairo, began to move eastwards on 31st October. This force includes one armoured brigade of up to two armoured regiments equipped with both light and heavy anti-aircraft units, and infantry in armoured personnel carriers. It was moving eastwards along the Cairo-Suez and Cairo-Ismailia roads.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the Minister aware that millions of British people are profoundly shocked and ashamed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Fascists."]—that British aircraft should be bombing Egypt, not in self-defence, not in collective defence, but in clear defiance of the United Nations Charter? Is the Minister further aware that the General Assembly of the United Nations is meeting today? Will he give an assurance, first, that any decisions reached by a two-thirds majority of the United Nations Assembly will be accepted instantly by Her Majesty's Government, and secondly, that, pending any such decision, no further military action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. HeadThe object of the operations so far carried out is aimed solely at one purpose, to induce the Egyptian Government to accede to the requirements put forward. These operations have been restricted entirely to military targets and the original requirement made to the Egyptian Government remains open at any time.
§ Mr. Shinwellrose—
§ Mr. S. SilvermanOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I would respectfully ask for your assistance and guidance to the House in what appears to be a completely unprecedented situation. The Minister of Defence has just made an announcement about the use of bombers and ships, the sinking of ships, the dropping of bombs, the destruction of property—[An HON. MEMBER: "And life."]—and the destruction of life in a country with whom apparently we are in friendly relations.
1621 There has been no declaration of war, there has been no breaking off of diplomatic relations. It looks as though the Minister has been telling the House of Commons that he has been using his authority to compel British subjects to commit illegal acts resulting in the loss of life. Is there anything that the House of Commons can do at this moment to make certain that those who have taken an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty are not required by that oath to commit murder all over the world?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). has addressed his question to me, but it is really a question for the House to decide. There stands on the Order Paper a Motion of censure against the Government because of their conduct of these affairs. My answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is that the House should get on with that Motion of censure as quickly as possible.
§ Mr. GaitskellMay I ask the Minister of Defence to answer my important questions, Sir?
§ Mr. HeadThe right hon. Gentleman asked me, I think, to give an undertaking concerning whatever ruling came from the Assembly. The question of future policy in this matter does not rest with me, and it is not for me to give any undertaking in that respect.
§ Mr. ShinwellMr. Speaker, whatever may be thought about the Government's policy, at any rate they are wise in furnishing whatever information is available to the House. [Interruption.] I understood that hon. Members wanted it. What I want to know is this: will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the precise purpose of the attack on the Egyptian airfields? Is it to occupy those airfields, or is it merely to prevent the Egyptian authorities from using aircraft against a further attack? The intentions of the Government appear to be very hazy. Since some information has been furnished to the House, could we know what the precise intentions of the Government are? Is it the intention to land troops following the attacks on the airfields?
§ Mr. HeadIn the original requirement, which was made to both the Israeli and Egyptian Governments, Her Majesty's Government stated that they held themselves free to take such military action as they thought necessary to ensure stopping the fighting and their troops being withdrawn from the Canal. This particular action is employing the sanction which we stated if our requirement was not met. This is a part of that sanction. So far as any future action is concerned, the House will not expect me to give any indication of what is intended.
§ Mr. BennOn a point of order. Following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, Sir, may I appeal to you, as Speaker of this House, to clarify the constitutional position? As I understand, the matter of peace and war is a matter of the Royal Prerogative, and in that respect Her Majesty's Ministers are responsible for advising Her Majesty and they are also responsible to this House.
Now. Mr. Speaker, traditionally in the past you have been the spokesman for the Members of the House of Commons in order to ascertain the intention of the Executive and even of the Crown, and to see that the Crown is responsible to this House. On one famous occasion your predecessor rebuked the Sovereign who came to this House. Therefore, Sir, I ask you now, as Speaker of the House of Commons, to ascertain the legal position so that we may be informed about it.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am willing, so far as my limited powers and abilities extend, to discharge any duty which the House lays upon me. It is my duty to do so. If the House were to pass a resolution, I would act upon it if I could, but I am not the authority on constitutional law. I do my best, within the restricted sphere of the rules of order of this House, to interpret the law of Parliament but these wider matters are surely for Ministers and the House as a whole, and not for me.
§ Mr. CallaghanFurther to that point of order, Sir. May I ask a question—
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Sydney Silverman.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanFurther to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that there is one very important practical question involved in this? Some of our men may some day be taken prisoner by the Egyptians. What is their position? If they are carrying on activities of this kind on Egyptian territory in a state of war, that is one thing, and they have their rights, but if they are not, what is their position? Unless that question can be cleared up, there arises a most important constitutional difficulty.
§ Mr. SpeakerI really must refuse to extend the sphere in which I have to operate. I find my task quite arduous enough without giving opinions on these abstruse questions, many of them hypothetical, of constitutional law.
§ Mr. GaitskellFurther to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, you feel yourself unable to answer my hon. Friend's question. Therefore, with your permission, I would like to ask the Government whether a declaration of war on Egypt has been made?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder, order.
§ Mrs. L. Jegerrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder, order. I said just now that I was unwilling to extend my powers over an area over which I was not responsible, but I am responsible, as far as I can be, for securing that this House conducts its debates properly—[Interruption.] Order. Also, I am jealous for the reputation of the House. [Interruption.] It would be a very bad thing if we were to enter upon the very serious debate which lies in front of us in an atmosphere of noisy interruption. I do hope that we can conduct ourselves, as this House always does on grave matters, with a proper sense of what is due to Parliament and to the House of Commons.
§ Mr. GaitskellWe all appreciate. Mr. Speaker, the difficult position in which you find yourself. It is out of no disrespect to you that we must, and are determined to, press this matter. I put it 1624 to the Government that the issue raised is an extremely serious one, affecting the position of our Armed Forces. It really is essential that the Government should give us a reply on this vital issue of whether or not a declaration of war has been made, or is to be made in the very near future. I appeal to the Prime Minister, if he has any control over the situation left at all, to make a statement.
§ The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden)The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have put down a Motion of censure—
§ The Prime Minister—which they are perfectly entitled to do, and the Government speakers will deal with all aspects of the situation in reply to what they say.
§ Mr. BevanThat is not an answer to the question put to the right hon. Gentleman. The question put to the right hon. Gentleman simply amounts to this. Under the orders of the Government, British airmen, soldiers and sailors have been sent into action. If they are captured and no declaration of war has been made, what protection have they under international law?
§ The Prime MinisterThe action which has been taken has been, as I explained yesterday, in accordance with the statement we made. [Interruption.] No further declaration has been made going beyond that.
§ Mr. BevanIn my respectful submission, that is not the answer to the question which was put. The question which was put was an extremely serious one. We on this side of the House are desirous that the Government should have all the instruments of authority that a Government should have, and that nothing should be said here or elsewhere that would deny the Government the exercise of those instruments. However, they can only be exercised if the Government act in accord with the sentiments and aspirations of the British people—[An HON. MEMBER: "With existing law."]—with existing law. As we understand, at present British soldiers, sailors and airmen have been sent into action without the normal protection available to them. We want to know what protection they 1625 have should they fall into the hands of those against whom they are conducting hostile actions. Can we have an answer to that question, which has nothing—
§ Captain Pilkingtonrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder, order. I cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time. Would it not be possible for all these matters to be brought out in the course of the debate?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs I read the Motion, it is in the widest possible terms. All these matters could be raised.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that the Motion—
§ Mr. Gaitskellrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Motion is a general one.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the House will not listen to me—
§ Mr. Speaker—I will suspend the Sitting. [Interruption.]
I have to inform the House that if it will not listen to me, I shall suspend the Sitting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That appears to some hon. Members to be a desirable course. I am certainly not going to have the Chair put in the position of not being heard in this House of Commons. The Sitting is suspended for half an hour.
Grave Disorder having arisen in the House, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 24 (Power of Mr. Speaker to adjourn House or suspend sitting), suspended the Sitting of the House for half an hour.
§ 4.27 p.m.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I would just like to say a word to the House. I understand and sympathise with the fact that on the issue which is about to be 1626 discussed opinions in the House are sharply divided and that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel a considerable degree of tension and excitement. With all that I sympathise. I am too old a Member of this House not to have endured the same feelings myself, but, at the same time, I am now by your leave elected to a position in which I have certain duties to discharge, and I hope that the remainder of this debate will proceed in a manner which is creditable to the House. That is my concern.
I would say—and I am the judge of what is relevant—that a large amount at least of what has been asked hitherto would be relevant to the debate, and I should certainly never rule it out of order on the ground of irrelevancy. I understand that there are points of elucidation still in the Minister's statement which it is desired to elucidate and that I certainly would allow; but I have to say to the House quite frankly that my sense of my responsibility is so great that if disorder of this kind persists—I am sure that it will not now—I shall have no option but to adjourn the House.
§ Mr. GaitskellAs you say. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions arising out of the statement of the Minister of Defence which we wish to elucidate. When you suspended the Sitting we were endeavouring to obtain from the Government a clarification of the vital question of whether or not we are in a state of war with Egypt. I should, therefore, like to ask the Prime Minister two questions: first, is it the opinion of the Government that we are at war with Egypt or not; secondly, if it is the view of the Government that we are not at war with Egypt, what protection have any members of our Armed Forces who happen to fall into the hands of the Egyptians?
§ The Prime MinisterI hope it is not unreasonable if I say that these questions do involve certain definitions. I am quite confident that I can give a satisfactory and reassuring answer to the House, but I would much rather do it—if the House will allow me—in the speech which I am shortly to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are legal matters involved in this. I will give the House an account which I am sure will reassure the House on the points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but 1627 I would prefer to do it like that rather than by question and answer.
I ask the House to believe that I am not in the least attempting to dodge these questions, but I would prefer to put them in their context, in which I think that the House itself will much more readily understand them.
§ Mr. GaitskellI am surprised and disappointed at the Prime Minister's statement. This is an extremely important issue, and an important issue now; and I cannot understand why, if the Prime Minister is shortly to say something about it in his speech, he should not do so in advance of the debate. It is really far more convenient for the House if there is an opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to put supplementary questions to the right hon. Gentleman, an opportunity which is far more easy to carry through if we have these statements made before the debate actually takes place.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman once again, in the interests of the House and of the country, now to make plain exactly what the position is and to answer the two clear questions which I put to him.
§ The Prime MinisterSo far as supplementary questions go, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in a matter of this complexity and gravity it is not unreasonable that I should be allowed to make a statement in the course of the speech I shall be making in, I suppose, half-an-hour's time or a little more. I am absolutely convinced that I shall persuade the House that the position is a satisfactory one, but I do not want to do it by answering "Yes," or "No" to this or that particular point, because there is a complicated legal position in connection with the Geneva Convention.
In view of the fact that we have a debate, and that there was no notice that this question was to be asked—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that there are legal complexities which it is necessary for me to answer, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will get a better answer if they will allow me to develop this, which I will gladly do at the outset of my speech, to meet the feelings of the House.
§ Mr. GaitskellOne further question. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance 1628 that he will give way to questions on this statement, if we wish to put them, in the course of his speech?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that the right hon. Gentleman knows my general attitude to giving way. Of course I would give way to the Leader of the Opposition, or anybody else who wishes to ask a question on these matters. I hope that I shall also have an opportunity to develop the rest of my speech.
§ Mr. GaitskellIn that case, I think we can proceed to the rest of the matters in the statement which we wish to have elucidated.
§ Mr. CallaghanArising out of the statement of the Minister of Defence in relation to the naval action, may I ask him whether he can give us a little more information? In view of the great disparity in fire power between our cruiser and the Egyptian frigate, was an order given to the frigate to surrender? Was any action taken by the Egyptian frigate, was an opportunity given to the frigate to surrender without loss of life such as took place?
May I ask the Minister of Defence whether, in any of these naval operations and other operations, no more force will be used than is necessary to compel surrender, and that we shall not indulge in actions involving the needless loss of life? Is he aware—although his report says it was sunk 80 miles south of Suez—that there is a report that the frigate has been sunk in a channel and blocks the Canal? Is this so?
§ Mr. HeadThe hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions. As yet I have no details of this action. If he likes to ask me in the future, I will, of course, give the House a much more detailed account. I have no report whatever concerning casualties or details of the action. What I do know—but it is not checked, and I would like the House to treat it as advance information—is that about 69 survivors were picked up. Of the details regarding casualties, I know nothing.
I am absolutely certain that it is in the minds of all our forces that this is a particular action in which the destruction of life, be it on military targets or especially be it civilian, should be reduced to the minimum consistent with effective action 1629 and the task they have been told to carry out. So far as the hon. Gentleman's question about the Canal is concerned, I have no information whatever regarding the point he mentioned.
§ Mr. CallaghanIs not the Minister of Defence aware that these matters were reported in the newspapers this morning? Is not the Admiralty wireless station in Whitehall in constant communication with H.M.S. "Newfoundland" and other ships by direct message, and, if so, could not information be obtained within the matter of an hour about an issue of this sort? Why has not the Minister of Defence come to the House with information?
§ Mr. HeadI am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman was long enough with the Navy to know that there are times when communications are very quick and other times when there is wireless silence. I have given the House every single bit of information available to me, and I checked it at three o'clock, before I came to the House. Directly I hear more, I will, of course, inform the House, but I have no more information at present.
§ Mr. StracheyWe are told that the whole purpose of this operation is the protection of lives and property in the Canal Zone. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what arrangements have been made about the numerous civilian staffs which have taken over the Army base and base camps in the Suez Canal Zone, and the number—I should imagine it amounts to some hundreds—whose position may be precarious in the extreme?
§ Mr. HeadSome considerable time ago, when the crisis over the Suez Canal first arose, all except those essential to the running of the base were evacuated. Subsequently to that, when the situation recently deteriorated very much, a special warning was given, special arrangements were put in hand. Special communications were sent to those in the Canal base regarding the precise situation at the present time. We have had no information since this started.
§ Mr. JayIf there has been no actual declaration of war, and in view of the decision already taken by the Security Council, do not these operations amount to an act of organised murder by the British Government?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that these questions have had a good run. I cannot compel answers from Ministers. It is not my place to do so. I am concerned only with the House. I will ask Mr. James Griffiths to move the Opposition Motion.
§ Mrs. BraddockOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Tonight, when this debate has finished, there will be a vote. It is known that there are hon. Members of this House whose firms are supplying stuff to Egypt at present. In view of the difficult situation that will be created, can we have an assurance from you that there will be a declaration from every one of those hon. Members that they are concerned in supplying materials to Egypt, before the vote tonight?
§ Mr. SpeakerAny objection against the vote of an hon. Member ought to be made immediately after the Division. I cannot answer for every hon. Member of the House.
§ Mrs. BraddockIs it not part of the procedure of this House that if anybody is interested in any matter, particularly financially, he should make a statement about his personal interest?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is the usual custom. Mr. James Griffiths.
§ Mr. ChapmanOn a point of order. May I ask you this. Mr. Speaker? I tried to get your permission to ask a Question, by Private Notice, about the civilians, not those in the Canal Zone but the 1,500 British civilians, who are now in Cairo. The information I hoped to elicit would have been of great interest to people in this country who are involved in this matter, because they have relatives there. Would you consider my putting this Private Notice Question down again for tomorrow, in view of the fact that it has not been answered now?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member was too late to give me notice of his Private Notice Question. I hope that we shall get the earliest possible information about the position of British citizens in Cairo. That is what the hon. Gentleman is asking for?
§ Mr. ChapmanYes, Sir.