§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the apparent disregard in the case of s.s. "Ingetoft" of the rights of free passage for all ships and cargo through the Suez Canal, what, if any, action they intend now to take.]
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, as noble Lords are aware, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been personally discussing with the United Arab Republic the whole question of the rights of free passage for all ships through the Suez Canal. He has, no doubt, particularly been concerned with the question of the passage of Israel shipping and cargo.
The view of Her Majesty's Government has always been that the Suez Canal should be open to the shipping of all nations. Your Lordships will recall that we supported resolutions to this effect in the United Nations Security Council both in September, 1951, and again in October, 1956. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government no useful purpose would be served by British intervention at the present time.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, in thanking the noble Marquess for that explanation of the position, may I put this supplementary? Would it not appear that the apparent ineffectiveness of the United Nations in this case appears similar to that with regard to Hungary, and that it will cause still further concern among those who fear that the United Nations as an instrument of settling international difficulties is steadily diminishing?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, with great respect, I hardly feel that the noble Lord can consider that his supplementary has any bearing whatsoever on the original Question.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, the noble Marquess spoke about our view that ships have the right to pass. Is that another way of saying that we hold the Suez Canal Convention—I think it was 1888—still valid in its entirety?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, the position of Her Majesty's Government I should have thought was abundantly clear. We subscribe to the United Nations Security Council resolutions of September, 1951, and 1956. upholding the rights of the passage of all ships of all nations through the Suez Canal. That is still our position.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATESurely it is not improper to ask the representative of the Foreign Office whether the overall treaty, the Convention of 1888, is still valid.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEAs the noble Viscount is well aware, and so am I, there are many complications about the Convention of 1888. I therefore referred specifically to the matter to which this Question was originally addressed, and that is the free passage of all ships. Under those two resolutions to which I referred, of 1951 and 1956, our position is absolutely clear, and we stand by that.