§ Q2. Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken in consultation with the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth and the President of the United States of America to ensure the unmolested use of the Suez Canal by international shipping?
§ Q8. Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister if he will state what is the present position on the reopening of the Suez Canal accessible to the ships of all maritime countries.
§ The Prime MinisterThe House will recognise the acute difficulties we are facing in our efforts to get the Suez Canal open We are in close and direct touch with all the Governments concerned and are also playing a full part in the United Nations' consideration of this question. Certainly it is our view that any lasting settlement in the Middle East must provide for freedom of passage in international waterways for the ships of all nations.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamIs it true that the south exit has become silted up and unusable, and as it has been some months now since the Canal has been closed, will it be a matter of years before anything is done?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, but it is certainly a fact that the longer the Canal is not in use the more there will be problems of silting, not only in relation to the exit but also in relation to the actual Canal itself, and ships which could have passed through six months ago will not be able to pass through, even when the Canal is opened, till further action is taken. We are concerned with the urgency of getting the Canal opened, and then clearing up all the technical problems, the administrative problems and the physical problems which have arisen through silting of the Canal.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs it not extraordinary that the United Arab Republic can defy the wishes of every maritime nation in the world and of the United Nations? Will my right hon. Friend suggest to Lord Caradon, our representative there, that instead of indulging in pious platitudes he should adopt a more vigorous and less unprejudiced attitude?
§ The Prime MinisterMy noble Friend is doing a tremendous job in the United Nations. With respect to my very dear and right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), his remark just now, I feel, was more in the nature of a pious platitude and less in the nature of something unprejudiced than what my noble Friend has been enunciating in New York. It is intolerable that any nation should keep the Suez Canal closed to international shipping. It is also intolerable that any nation on either side should not co-operate in agreeing conditions in which, with good will, this Canal could be opened. My right hon. Friend has put forward proposals under which there could be a withdrawal from the Canal shores, and an opening of the Canal, and under which we could move forward to settling some of the broader and more long-standing issues such as the right of all nations, including Israel, to use the Canal, and such as the settlement of the refugee question. But for people to insist on standing on their rights, getting everything they want and keeping the Canal closed is intolerable, from wherever it may come.
§ Mr. HeathCan the Prime Minister say what is now the cost to the British balance of payments of the closure of the Canal and the Middle Eastern situation per month?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is a serious cost, though I think that that cost will shortly be diminishing. I should answer the right hon. Gentleman frankly that during the period of closure so far—[Interruption.]—No. I could follow abundant precedent in all Governments and say that it is not in the national interest. But it is a fair question, and it will get a fair answer. While the Canal has been closed in recent months, the cost to Britain has been something of the order of £20 million a month. That is the estimate which we have been able to make. That figure will fall even if the Canal remains closed. In the early months, we had to buy a lot of very expensive oil in non-Middle East areas. In addition, B.P., for example, was very much under-tankered and had to charter large tankers at very expensive freight rates. Now, tanker rates are falling. This £20 million will fall, but it is still an intolerable cost for this country, just as it is for India and other countries which are suffering through the non-delivery of goods which they urgently need.
§ Mr. LubbockIn view of the fact that it has now become cheaper to take oil in 200,000-ton tankers round the Cape than in very much smaller tankers through the Suez Canal, would it matter very much in the long term to our economic interests if the Canal remained closed permanently?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is not in our interests or anyone else's—least of all is it in Egypt's interests, because she is paying a very heavy price for the maintenance of the closure of the Canal—to see the Canal closed. At the same time, those who think that anyone is in a position to be blackmailed by the continued closure of the Canal is wrong. The growth of big tankers is making the Suez Canal rather a pathetic irrelevance for oil tankers very soon. Certainly it is the intention of the Government, as I indicated some months ago, to see that we take all measures necessary to ensure that we get our requirements of oil to this country without being dependent on a canal which is subject to the political whims of people on both sides who can interfere with an international waterway.
§ Mr. SheldonCan my right hon. Friend say how much of that £20 million is represented by foreign exchange costs?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is a cost on our balance of payments, and I gave a clear answer to the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). Obviously, if we have to buy expensive oil in Venezuela and the United States, as we did for a short time, that increases our imports bill. Again, if we have to pay for foreign chartered tankers—some of them are British, of course—that adds to our foreign exchange costs. As I have said, the cost of the closure is sharply diminishing, but it is still intolerable, just as it is on India and all other countries which depend on the Canal.