§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD HORE-BELISHAMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the decree of the Egyptian Government nationalising the Suez Canal and the consequent threat to our maritime communications and, in particular, to the transit of our oil supplies, they will now give consideration to a suggestion made in this House on the 16th March, 1954 [Hansard, Vol. 186, Cols. 402, 403] for the construction of an alternative canal from the Gulf of Akaba, through Israel, to the Mediterranean.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING)My Lords, the noble Lord will readily understand that at this moment it is the immediate problems which are under discussion. But Her Majesty's Government will also be giving full consideration to longer-term measures and the noble Lord may rest assured that they will not neglect to take account of any possibilities.
§ LORD HORE-BELISHAMy Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, which I think quite inadequate and below the level of the important and momentous character of the events which we are discussing, I should like to call his attention to the fact that the Question relates to a constructive suggestion put in this House some years ago and which must have been in the minds of Her Majesty's Government. If the Answer given represents the stone-walling attitude taken up by the noble Marquess when a noble Lord puts forward a con- 356 structive suggestion, and if that has been the attitude in the past, I am not surprised that we have no alternative line of maritime communication to the Suez Canal. Can the noble Marquess at least say that this suggestion has been technically examined, is being technically examined or will be technically examined? I beg the noble Marquess to take this matter seriously and not to give replies which bring encouragement to Colonel Nasser and discouragement to his own friends.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I do not for a moment agree with the position which the noble Lord has seen fit to take up. It is just the momentous character of what is happening at the present time that I should have thought, quite obviously, made it inevitable that the Answer I gave should be in somewhat general terms; and I cannot help thinking that it would be in the interests of the country at large that it should remain so, and that we should not embark upon the detailed question of the merits of one possibility, as distinct from the many others that are open to us.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, appears to me to raise one problem that could immediately be solved. We are very anxious that action should be taken at once against this prospective interruption in international sea traffic.
§ A NOBLE LORD: That is a different question.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATENo, it is not a different question; it is the same question. This canal would require freedom of access to ships of all nations to the Gulf of Akaba, and at the present time Her Majesty's Government are party to an arrangement which denies complete freedom of access to the Gulf of Akaba. That is very relevant to the Question put by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT BIRDWOODMy Lords, may I be permitted to ask a supplementary question arising out of the noble Lord's question? Bearing in mind that such a canal obviously would be under Israeli control and that no Arab oil country would permit its oil to go through such a canal, would not Her Majesty's Government, if and when the time comes for such a proposition to be considered, 357 seriously consider also the question of internationalising the head of the Gulf of Akaba as an essential element in the success of such a canal?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI am afraid I can only repeat what I have said in terms before. I do not think that it would be in the general interest that I should endeavour to catalogue the various possibilities that are open to Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the long-term handling of this problem.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, would the noble Marquess, at some time before the House rises, be able to tell the House plainly whether the Government intend to enforce the right of passage through the Canal and through the Gulf of Akaba to ships of all nations?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, that is a question which is not on the Order Paper. Again let us bear in mind the momentous decisions which have to be taken and the very delicate character of the situation which at present obtains, and not endeavour, if I may say so respectfully, to extract piecemeal replies on one or two matters when the whole subject is under urgent arid careful review.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I say nothing about the curious phraseology of the noble Marquess in speaking about "extracting piecemeal replies". A Government comes here to be cross-examined by Members of your Lordships' House and must either give an answer or say that they do not intend to give an answer. This is a most relevant question. Are the Government going to secure the freedom of transit through the Canal and the Gulf of Akaba? What I asked was: will the noble Marquess answer that question before the House rises?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, a Government may come here to be cross-examined—I am not disputing that. What I am suggesting is that in the interests of the country at large there are moments when it is unwise and inexpedient to cross-examine the Government on matters of great seriousness and on which it has to take into consideration many factors which are at this moment under consideration.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? Even if there are objections to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord HoreBelisha, does it not represent at least some constructive thinking about the situation—namely, the seizure of the Canal Company, which was obvious to many of us was bound to arise, and sooner rather than later, once we had withdrawn from the Canal? Have Her Majesty's Government done any similar constructive thinking?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, the noble Lord has "got his piece in," if I may say so, but I really think that I should be doing the House no service by allowing myself to be drawn further into these matters, which are not matters which can be dealt with as individual questions.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, apologise for coming in again, but the object of my question is this. We were all surprised to learn on Friday night that apparently we had been taken by surprise by this action; and some of us were surprised if that was so, that the Government, as it seemed from what was published, had not got their plans ready in advance against such an eventuality. That is what I was trying to get at: have the Government done any such planning in advance?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I do not know whether that was a question or not, but, if it was, may I say in reply to the noble Lord that he should not make too many assumptions in the matter.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, may I say that the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha will meet with a responsive echo in many quarters of the House and that this consistent refusal to give information really defeats the object for which Parliament exists? As regards the specific Question which the noble Lord put, is it riot a fact that on the engineering side such a canal would present: the most formidable difficulties, owing to the mountainous nature of the country which would have to be traversed? And on the political side, is it not the case that a hostile Egypt would be able to make the position of Akaba or Elath almost untenable, especially if Jordan were also hostile, having in view 359 the fact that the King of Jordan has congratulated Nasser upon his gangster-like action?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord should insinuate, or indeed allege, a refusal to answer a question. I am in the hands of the House but I hope that in the course of the past years, during which I have been answering for the Foreign Office in this House, I have given as full replies as I possibly could, both at Question Time and in debate, to requests for information from noble Lords. If, at this moment, it is difficult to give a full and what the noble Lord may consider adequate reply, I think that he and other noble Lords know precisely the situation that creates that difficulty. The kind of detailed question that the noble Lord has put is exactly the kind of question which, in my humble judgment, it would be most inadvisable for me to try to answer at this moment.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, is it not the intention of the Government to make a statement at the earliest moment on the larger issue which has been raised in most of the supplementary questions this afternoon? If that is the case, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he has not answered the question of the noble Lord. Lord Hore-Belisha, by saying that the Government are prepared to give consideration to his practical suggestion? If that is the case, will not the various elements which have been referred to in the supplementary questions be taken into account at that stage?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord and I should have hoped that the House would take the advice implied in his question.
§ LORD VANSITTARTMy Lords, cannot we hope for a statement on the technical aspect of the suggestion raised by the noble Lord. Lord Hore-Belisha, as soon as possible after the present consultations are over? I can see a case for not going into details to-day, but we could wish for a reply on the technical aspects at the earliest possible moment. It is a very important point.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, so far as I concerned, I am in 360 the hands of the House in that matter. If somebody puts down a Question, I will do my best to answer it, if other conditions make it possible and advisable to answer. We are nearly at the end of the Session and I cannot prophesy what may happen within the next few days.