SUEZ OPERATIONS (SPECIAL COMMISSION) (Hansard, 27 April 1965)

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to constitute a special commission to inquire into the origin, inception and conduct of the operation by British forces directed at Suez and elsewhere in Egypt in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six. I am sure that the House will understand from what I have said that my proposal is simple, uncontroversial, straightforward, well-nigh self-explanatory and highly topical. It is topical in two sense, first, because next year is 1966 and will be the tenth anniversary of the Suez expedition and it is quite certain that many comments will be made in many quarters ten years after the events of 1956. Whatever view may be taken of those events, I think that it would be highly desirable that the British Government, and, in particular, those who participated in this event, should be able to state their views, which they have hitherto been denied, or at least have denied themselves, the opportunity to do. So I think that in that sense it is topical.
It is also topical in another sense, that several books have been written and recently published on this subject. Hon. Members may think that there is nothing novel about that. A whole series of books have been written on this matter. I once wrote a book myself on this subject, in association with Mr. Mervyn Jones, and the House will not be surprised to hear that all the allegations I made on that occasion have been fully upheld by subsequent scholarship. Indeed, looking back on what I said, like Robert Clive, I marvel at my moderation.
However, this is topical in the sense not merely that another book has been written, but that the latest book which has been written on the subject carries the matter very much further. It is not a question of the author of the book relying on his own evidence. What he has presented in this book—it is by Mr. Terence Robertson, and is entitled "Crisis"—is the evidence given by several of the foreign participants in this event, headed by the present Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Lester Pearson, who, at that time, was Foreign Minister, 227 or Minister for External Affairs, of Canada, and by M. Pineau, who was at that time, in 1956, the Foreign Minister of France. There are a number of other Ministers, Israeli and French Ministers and Ministers from Commonwealth countries, who have contributed to this book in statements published under their names and no repudiation of these statements has been made during the past three months.
Perhaps I could explain best and more simply the exact nature of what this book says by quoting from one of the reviews, which states: The principal point of obscurity over the whole Suez transaction has been the extent of British knowledge of, and involvement with. Franco-Israeli plans for the synchronisation of Franco-British with Israeli attacks on Egypt. Here, Mr. Robertson is detailed, specific and convincing. Relying obviously, on accounts given to him by the French and Israeli Ministers concerned, he states categorically that on October 23rd, 1956, a secret draft agreement was concluded at Sevres, just outside Paris, between Mr. Ben-Gurion, M. Mollet, M. Pineau and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. M. Pineau goes on in the book—these are quotations not merely from the book, but from the Foreign Minister of France at that time—to discuss the nature of the agreement made between the British Government representative, among others, and M. Pineau. He says: I recall very well this clause that we should appear to be defending the canal against both sides … it struck me then, and I do not hide it, that it was a little hypocritical, and I said so. But Ben-Gurion thought the need for British bombing of Egyptian airfields so important that he accepted it; and the British would not participate without this ruse or something like it. So we, Mollet and I, had to agree. He says, a little later, that they sent a copy of this agreement to London and that according to his allegation, it was accepted by Sir Anthony Eden, who was Prime Minister at the time.
M. Pineau concludes: When we received Eden's approval of the text it was incorporated into a formal document signed that afternoon by Patrick Dean for Britain, Ben-Gurion for Israel, and myself for France. I believe three copies were made, one for each government, and we decided that the agreement should never be published. So the allegation made by M. Pineau is that there was an agreement entered into by the representative of the British Government to conceal the facts from the 228 British Parliament, the world at large, our allies and posterity.
Of course, there are some hon. Gentlemen or right hon. Gentlemen in this House who are particularly associated with this matter. There is the Leader of the Opposition, who was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at that time, and who is particularly referred to in this book by Mr. Lester Pearson, the Prime Minister of Canada. I notified the Leader of the Opposition that I proposed to refer to him in this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman was present a few minutes ago, but he has now left the Chamber.
Other ex-Ministers are involved. There is the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who was Chief Patronage Secretary at that time, and, in particular, there is the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who was more directly associated than anyone else. I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown better manners than the rest of his party. I informed him that I intended to refer to him this afternoon and he sent me a very courteous note saying that he was sorry, but he could not be present for purely personal reasons. I accept that from him. I do not know whether they apply to all the other ex-Ministers who have left the Chamber.
Here is a direct charge of collusion. That is the charge made by M. Pineau against former members of the British Government. The meaning of the word "collusion", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is: A secret agreement or understanding for purposes of trickery or fraud; underhand scheming or working with another; deceit, fraud, trickery.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He had some doubt when I ruled him out of order the other day. This definition makes it very awkward for him now. I must remind him that if I think fit, he is entitled, under this Standing Order, to make a brief statement explanatory of his Bill.

§ Mr. Foot
I do not think that I have said anything out of order at all. I was quoting to the House—as I would have thought I was entitled to do—the statements made by a former French Foreign 229 Minister as to what happened in 1956, and my proposed Bill refers directly to the events of 1956. We now have fresh evidence, given by the French Foreign Minister.
What I am saying—and I do not see how anybody can dispute this—is that the allegation by the French Foreign Minister amounts to an allegation of collusion against the right hon. Gentlemen whom I have named. What I am saying is that the proposal in my Bill is that this allegation should be investigated. It should be investigated by the only body in this country which is properly equipped to investigate it, and that is the House of Commons.
There is a long precedent in the country that when events of this nature took place—whether it was the expedition to Walcheren, or the defeat at Saratoga, or more recently the events at Gallipoli—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman, with respect, has not followed. To make an accusation of dishonesty against another hon. Member, right hon. Member, former Minister or other is something which requires a substantive Motion. When he begins, when explaining the meaning of "collusion", to say that, in the mouth of another, there was an allegation of what amounted to fraud, he then, as he well knows, cannot, by putting the allegation in the mouth of some other person, make it here except by substantive Motion. That is the point.

§ Mr. Foot
I would need to look to many precedents which I would have thought would have covered this point. What I must content myself with saying is that charges of the most serious character have been made against a former Administration. They have been made not by people who have no responsibility for these matters, but by the former representatives of a foreign Government. One of the main reasons that I wish to have my Bill accepted by the House is that these allegations should be investigated by a body set up by the House of Commons.
I am asking that this body should follow precisely the precedents which have 230 been accepted by the House on previous occasions. That is, when there have been military expeditions which have ended in disaster, or military expeditions which have been thought by some not to have been required to start, the decision has been made by the House of Commons to set up a special commission to examine the matter. That is what my Bill proposes, to set up this Commission in exactly the same terms which were accepted by a former Government when special commission was established to inquire into the Gallipoli disaster. This demand for an investigation to be set up by the House of Commons is in absolute accordance with precedent. Indeed, the refusal of the former Government to set it up was, in my opinion and in the opinion of many hon. Members—I hope the majority—a grievous departure from previous high standards in the House.
Because of that, I believe that we should now have an inquiry to investigate this matter. It is the one way in which such serious allegations as this can be disposed of. On previous occasions when a similar Motion has been moved, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have refused to accept it. I hope that they will accept it on this occasion, because in their absence I give them the chance to clear their names.