HC Deb 22 July 1957 vol 574 cc32-40
Mr. Grimond (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wheher he has any statement to make on the situation in Muscat and Oman; what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard thereto and the reasons for such action.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)

Disturbances have recently been taking place in Central Oman, a remote and difficult area in Arabia, over which the Sultan of Muscat and Oman re-established his authority at the end of 1955. These disturbances have been stimulated by the former Imam of Oman, whom the Sultan allowed to retire peaceably in 1955 to a village in the area. The former Imam and his brother, Talib, appear to have managed to acquire a limited quantity of arms and have been trying to persuade some of the local tribesmen to defect against the authority of the Sultan. While they have had some initial success, the unrest still remains localised.

The Sultan of Muscat and Oman has requested British assistance and this request has been agreed to. The local British authorities are considering with him the best form which this might take. They have been given discretion within certain limits to take military action. Small-scale precautionary movements of our forces have already taken place. I will keep the House informed of further developments.

The reasons for this action are that the dissidents have clearly received assistance from outside the Territories of the Sultan. It is, therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, right that we should respond to the Sultan's request for help. We have had friendly Treaty relations with the Sultan and his predecessors for the past 150 years.

Mr. Grimond

May I ask whether British troops are already in the area and, also, whether there are British citizens engaged in prospecting and other activities in the area who may be in danger?

Mr. Lloyd

There are certain British citizens prospecting for oil at a place called Fahud, which is some considerable distance from the area of disaffection.

At the moment, as far as I know, there are no British troops on Muscat soil.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that in September, 1955, before the International Arbitration Tribunal at Geneva, incontrovertible evidence was given of attempted bribery by King Saud of Sheikh Zaid, accompanied by threats of force. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that due precautions are being taken by Her Majesty's Government against any armed incursions on the part of Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Lloyd

Sheikh Zaid is Sheikh of Abu Dhabi. As far as that area is concerned, we have no reason to expect any trouble of any sort. The other aspects of the matter are certainly being kept carefully under review.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker

The Foreign Secretary has made it plain that this is potentially a very grave matter. I wonder whether he could tell the House more precisely what are our treaty obligations in the matter. Would he consider giving us a White Paper, setting out the basic documents and a consecutive account of how the present situation has come about?

Mr. Lloyd

I will certainly consider that matter, but I think perhaps it might assist the right hon. Gentleman if I said straight away that up to 1793 the Sultan of Muscat was also Imam of Oman. Then a separate Imam was elected, who ruled under the Sultan. In 1913 the then Imam revolted and from 1913 to 1920 there was a period of uncertainty. But in 1921 an agreement was reached whereby the Imam was given a certain autonomy within the realm of Muscat. The situation deteriorated towards 1955 for reasons about which some hints have been given today, and in 1955 the Sultan re-established his authority in the area.

Mr. G. Brown

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we shall respond to the Sultan's request for help. Is he aware that it has been stated in eye-witness accounts that the request cannot be answered at the moment because of a muddle over transport planes; that three Beverley planes could shift the troops required; but that there are simply not enough serviceable troop carriers anywhere in Middle East Command to shift them? Does he not think that this is uncomfortably like what we heard nearly a year ago? Is he having an inquiry into this?

Mr. Lloyd

I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no question at all of there not being adequate transport facilities available to lift the forces required.

Mr. P. Williams

In view of the great danger of the situation, can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that there will be American support for British foreign policy?

Mr. Lloyd

I do not think that that question arises. We have decided to take the action we have because of the long traditions of friendship between the Sultan and ourselves.

Mr, P. Noel-Baker

May I press the point which I made to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Have we decided to take action simply in response to a request, or in virtue of a treaty obligation?

Mr. Lloyd

May I make it clear that we are not doing this under a treaty obligation? We have no treaty obligation to deal with internal affairs in the territory of Muscat. We have certain duties in respect of external affairs, but not in respect of internal affairs. We are giving the full support which we think a staunch friend requires.

Mr. Benn

While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making absolutely clear that none of the treaties between ourselves and the Sultan provides for British intervention in the internal affairs of Muscat and Oman, may I ask him whether he will give an assurance to the House that British troops, aircraft and ships will not be engaged until the House has been told of it in advance?

Mr. Lloyd

Certainly not.

Mr. Nabarro

In view of the supreme importance of British oil supplies from the Persian Gulf and the fact that allegations have been made in the last few days that the supplies of arms reaching the Imam are modern arms, of American origin, can my right hon. and learned Friend say what representations are being made to the United States in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd

I have no knowledge at all that the arms concerned are of American origin. All that we know is that there are modern arms in the area which must have come from outside the territories of Muscat.

Mr. Wigg

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to inform my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)that aircraft were available at the present time. Would he be kind enough to give the House a categorical assurance that the movement of troops from Kenya has not been limited because aircraft have not been available? I am asking this question in the past tense, not the future.

Mr. Lloyd

As far as I know, there has been no limitation upon the movement of the troops required from Kenya by reason of the lack of any transport facilities.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Benn

On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The decision of Her Majesty's Government to offer British military assistance to the Sultan of Muscat and Oman.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The decision of Her Majesty's Government to offer British military assistance to the Sultan of Muscat and Oman. I think that this submission must fail on the ground of urgency. We have just heard that, at the moment, there are no British troops in Muscat—I understand that to be the position—and we are not in possession of any of the facts of the situation which would entitle me to regard this as an urgent matter.

Mr. Benn

Mr. Speaker, may I submit very briefly the grounds on which I ask leave to move this Motion? First, it is a definite request by the Sultan to Her Majesty's Government, so that of the grounds of definiteness there may be no question. Its urgency arises, surely, on two grounds. There is, first the Foreign Secretary's refusal to give an assurance that British troops will not be committed before the House is informed; and secondly, that Middle East Land Forces, and also Army spokesmen in Kenya and in this country have made it perfectly clear that military action is contemplated. Only a year ago precautionary measures of this kind did lead, within a week, to armed conflict.

May I, further, put this? It is a well-established principle of international law that intervention by a foreign State in a country where there are civil disturbances is contrary to international law, and that it was on those grounds that the Foreign Secretary condemned Russian intervention in Hungary.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has raised a large number of questions, I would remind him, which might very properly be the subject of an extensive debate, but, under the Standing Order, it has to be one definite matter, which the hon. Member has specified—the decision of Her Majesty's Government to offer British military assistance to the Sultan of Muscat and Oman. What I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say was that the British Government had decided to respond to the request of this sovereign for help. If the hon. Gentleman says that it is against any treaty that we should do so, that is a legal matter that he should argue at the proper time.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Mr. Speaker, you must have misheard the Foreign Secretary, because he specifically said that the intervention was in pursuance of a treaty obligation.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must excuse me. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that it was not.

Mr. Paget

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the point of urgency is this. The Foreign Secretary has said that he has issued instructions that British troops may be employed, and committed to battle on foreign soil, not pursuant to any treaty obligations but because it is the way one likes to help a good and firm friend. Now, Mr. Speaker, surely it is impossible to say that an announcement by the Government of an intention to commit British troops to battle on foreign soil is not urgent, that it does not matter.

Mr. Speaker

It was not so specific as that. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—and I have just seen his statement—is this: The local British authorities are considering with him the best form which this might take— that is, the aid: They have been given discretion within certain limits to take military action.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker

Order. In my view, unless we know something more about this case—[Interruption.]—Order—and the limits which have been placed on that discretion, I do not think that I can call it under the Standing Order.

May I also remind the House that there are this week four, I think, Supply Days, that next week there is the Appropriation Bill, and that on any of these days this matter can be discussed in all its aspects. That is, in itself, sufficient ground, as has been ruled by all my predecessors, for my refusing to receive a Motion of this sort. It is my view, on what information is before us—which is extremely sketchy—that I would not, in those circumstances, be justified in accepting the Motion.

Mr. Hale

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have ruled on the point of order to the best of my ability. if there is a new submission, I will gladly hear it.

Mr. Hale

I wish respectfully to raise a completely new point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that you, of your own act, terminated the discussion of this matter when a large number of hon. Members were on their feet desiring to put further questions and to ascertain the facts? Is it not, therefore, unfortunate that there was an immediate Ruling from the Chair that we cannot take Parliamentary action because we have not ascertained the facts, when we were actually prevented from understanding the facts from the right hon. and learned Gentleman by your action in ruling that the matter had already been sufficiently discussed?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is really obliquely criticising my action in the Chair. If he wishes to criticise my action, he knows that there is one way of doing so.

When there are a large number of supplementary questions, particularly after the time for Questions, they tend to drag on to a disorderly debate, and in my view, if this matter is considered important by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, it should be debated when all the facts can be gone into properly. I do not, at present, think that it is definite enough or urgent enough to justify my accepting this Motion.

Mr. Gaitskell

I must say that I had rather hoped that we should have had an opportunity of putting one or two further questions to the Foreign Secretary, in the light of the point that you, Mr. Speaker, yourself made, that everything was not yet completely clear. I do not wish in any way to criticise you, but I would like to establish that your decision today does not in any way prevent us from proceeding to move the Adjournment of the House tomorrow if, as a result of a further statement, which I hope we shall have from the Foreign Secretary, and further questioning, this seems to us to be an appropriate course to follow.

Mr. Speaker

Of course, what the right hon. Gentleman says is perfectly true. I have come to the decision which I have given on this issue on the information that I have before me but, naturally, if we get further information, that might alter the whole thing.

Mr. Benn

May I point out, Sir, that the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman is a sovereign State? It is not a British Protectorate in any sense. What the Foreign Secretary has said today is something that has not been said since last November, which is that British commanders have been authorised to take military action in the territory of a foreign Power. Admittedly, there are certain limitations, but those instructions have already been issued to military commanders, though the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman is an independent foreign State. In those circumstances, is it not clear that a matter of the very gravest urgency has arisen, on which the House may not have time, if it waits even until tomorrow, to debate properly?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think so, really.

Mr. H. Fraser

Is it not a fact that urgency has been added to this matter, as far as our friends in the Persian Gulf are concerned, by the manifest near-treachery of certain hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker

May we ask the Foreign Secretary for an assurance that he will give us another statement tomorrow?

Mr. Lloyd

I will certainly consider that matter, and if I have further information I will consider giving it to the House.

Mr. C. Pannell

Are you prepared, Mr. Speaker, to condone the remark of the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser)? Is it not an un-parliamentary observation?

Mr. Speaker

As I heard him, what the hon. Member said was "near-treachery". I do not know what he means by that, but it is a very undesirable expression to use in this House. I deprecate the use of such language very much, but I cannot say that it falls within the limits of un-parliamentary language.

Mr. Paget

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not urgency been added by the Foreign Secretary's latest intervention? He has said, first, that he will not give us an assurance that British troops will not be committed without his coming to the House, and he now says that he will not give us an assurance that he will make a statement even tomorrow. I would respectfully say that the urgency here is that if it is left to one of the opportunities later in the week—even if it is left until tomorrow—the very thing which is the basis of those British troops being committed to battle on foreign soil may have happened.

Mr. Speaker

I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was: Small-scale precautionary movements of our forces have already taken place. I will keep the House informed of further developments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he will, if he has anything further to say. I think that the House should rest content and wait for something which may make such a Motion as this definite and urgent. At present, it is not so, to my mind.

Mr. Fernyhough

While it may be true that this week there will be further opportunities for discussing this matter, many of us on this side of the House are very much afraid that British troops, especially National Service men, will have been committed to battle before we get that further opportunity, and some of us are very much opposed to that. That is why we think it is urgent, so that we might restrain the Government from committing a second Suez.

Mr. Speaker

That is all very hypothetical for me at the moment.

Mr. Gaitskell

May I ask the Foreign Secretary this question, Mr. Speaker? We are anxious to be kept in the closest touch with the situation. At the moment no British forces are engaged. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give a definite undertaking to come to the House tomorrow and tell us what further developments, if any, have taken place and whether any British troops have been committed by then, I think that would, at any rate, give us the opportunity of raising the matter if we should feel it necessary to do so tomorrow. Will the Foreign Secretary give that assurance?

Mr. Lloyd

Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Wigg

If between now and tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, it is decided that questions from this side of the House are not near-treachery but treachery, would you be good enough to persuade the Prime Minister to have a General Election and let the country decide?

Mr. Speaker

I have no influence over the Prime Minister in these matters, except to call on him now to move the Motion which stands in his name.