HL Deb 20 May 1957 vol 203 cc893-5

2.36 p.m.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, in what manner the composition of S.C.U.A. was decided; whether the membership of the State of Israel was considered; what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to such membership; and what action they have taken, or are prepared to take in this matter.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD)

My Lords, with the noble Viscount's permission, I will answer together both the Questions standing in his name.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

May I say, on that matter, that the Government must choose their own way of answering a Question, but different points are raised in the two Questions. Therefore, I hope the noble Earl will not complain if I put supplementary questions to each.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

Certainly not. As it was impracticable to include all users of the Canal, the membership of the Suez Canal Users' Association was made up of the principal users of the Canal by tonnage and trade; it was on these criteria that membership was based. The Association has not subsequently laid down any new criteria for membership; this is a question for the Association, not for Her Majesty's Government alone, to decide. Rights under the 1888 Convention are in no way dependent on membership of S.C.U.A.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, I asked in the first Question "whether the membership of the State of Israel was considered," and my first supplementary question is: was the membership mentioned or considered; and, if so, what attitude did the Government assume?

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, if I interpret the supplementary question of the noble Viscount aright, the answer is that there was no consideration at all of any particular member per se, except on possible membership on the tonnage and trade of the shipping of that country which goes through the Canal.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, the answer on this point is that they took the tonnage that passed through the. Canal, and they took the highest number of tons. If that is so, why did they exclude Israel, which was not allowed to send a ship at all? I do not think the noble Earl has answered clearly. Does he say that at this meeting settting up S.C.U.A. the matter of the admission of Israel to membership was not mentioned?

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, I regret that I have not a verbatim script of all that went on at this particular meeting. All I can inform the noble Viscount is that the basis on which nation members of the S.C.U.A. were chosen was by the amount of use, starting from the top, which those particular nations made of the Canal. As I said in my original Answer to the Question, if we had accepted all the countries who use the Canal, it would be quite impossible to make an organisation like S.C.U.A. workable.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for pressing my Question. Was the name of the State of Israel mentioned, and what did our representative say?

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, I am afraid I have not got the answer to the noble Viscount's question. I do not think, in fact, that the wording of his original Question calls for that particular answer. If he wishes it, I will do my best to obtain the information.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, I can only say that I do wish it, and I do not think that words could be clearer than the Question: was the membership considered; and what was the attitude of the Government? If the noble Earl wants another day to answer the Question, he can have it; but at the same time may I say that the purpose of Questions is that the information asked for should be secured.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, I think I have replied to the noble Viscount perfectly adequately. All countries who use the Canal were, in fact, considered; but it was decided, as I have already said, that a line had to be drawn somewhere. It was not possible to have all countries as members of S.C.U.A., otherwise it would not be a workable proposition. Some form of arbitrary line had to be drawn, and the decision was taken, irrespective of who or what the country was, that the line should be drawn on a definite basis of tonnage and trade.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, am I to understand that answer to mean that the Government, knowing that the State of Israel was, as we think, illegally excluded, decided to adopt a line that was based upon tonnage passing through the Canal?