HC Deb 09 August 1966 vol 733 cc1392-5
Q7. Mr. Dickens

asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of the Anglo-French-Israeli Treaty of October, 1956 in the Library of the House; and if he will make a statement.

Q9. Mr. Molloy

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek the consent of the French and Israeli Governments to publication of the secret treaty that the three countries signed prior to the attack on the Suez Canal in 1956.

The Prime Minister

In accordance with the accepted convention in these matters, the Government can have no knowledge of any engagement of this kind which may have been made by a previous Administration but which, in the nature of things, can no longer be valid or operative.

Mr. Dickens

Notwithstanding that reply, will my right hon. Friend confirm whether or not this treaty exists? Will he not also reconsider whether it would not be advisable to place a copy of the treaty in the Library on, say, the 10th anniversary of the signing? If there happen to be any difficulties about the precise date, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) no doubt will be helpful.

The Prime Minister

As my right hon. Friend knows, it is a convention that documents which are internal to a particular Administration are not seen by a later Administration. Only those are seen which bear on their relations with other countries. Since this treaty cannot be regarded as valid or operative today, it would be contrary to convention for me even to see it, and I have not seen it.

It is a fact that, since many recent disclosures, including the frank statement of M. Pineau, the then French Foreign Minister, there is clear prima facie evidence that there was collusion, and it is now up to the Leader of the Opposition or a colleague to make a clear statement as to why this House was so grievously misled, in the absence of which the House will have to decide what action is appropriate.

Mr. Molloy

In view of M. Pineau's frank revelations—and he was French Foreign Minister at the time—does not my right hon. Friend think that there should now be an official inquiry into the alleged collusion between the Tories and the other Governments so that the House can know the position at the time and the very serious circumstances involved?

The Prime Minister

The prima facie evidence, including the evidence of M. Pineau, now suggests that there was a clear agreement in advance and collusion that a joint attack should be planned in this way and that, so far from British intervention being to separate the Egyptian and Israeli forces, as we were told, the whole thing was a put-up job.

The House was kept in ignorance and misled on the question, and so, I believe, were three-quarters of the then Cabinet. Thus, all the prima facie evidence suggests that it is now up to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to dispel the very strong feeling that everyone having read or heard this evidence must feel.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if it had not been for the actions of his predecessor those operations would have been successful and the Suez Canal would still be an international waterway?

The Prime Minister

I am not sure to what operations the hon. Gentleman, who was I think a junior Service Minister at the time, is referring——

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

I was not a junior Service Minister. The right hon. Gentleman must withdraw that.

The Prime Minister

Of course, I will accept that. Whether the hon. Gentleman was or was not, he would not have been told anyway. If he is saying on such authority as he must later have enjoyed that the operation was designed to stop the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, then he is confirming all that is being said by M. Pineau. What the House of Commons was told at the time was that this was a peace-making move to stop the Israelis and Egyptians fighting one another and not to reverse the nationalisation of the Suez Canal.

Mr. Grimond

Does the Prime Minister remember that one of our colleagues was driven from public life partly because he is said to have misled the House of Commons? In view of the very direct accusations which the Prime Minister has made this afternoon, which would imply possibly that other people have misled the House, can he tell us what further action is being taken? I hardly feel that this matter can be left here. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have a debate in the House of Commons if no statement is made?

The Prime Minister

I would say that the prima facie evidence, based on M. Pineau, who was one of the parties to the alleged treaty, as well as other information coming from the Israeli Chief of Staff at the time—which would be more interesting if we could see the chapter which has been suppressed from the book—suggests that the House was gravely misled at the time. I believe that the right action to be taken is for the Members of the then Government who held the responsibility, particularly the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), but also the right hon. Gentleman who was the Chief Whip and persuaded so many of his hon. Members to accept these stories, to get up and give the House the whole facts.