§ 3.37 p.m.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, with your permission I should like to give your Lordships a statement which is being made in another place, and at the same time to answer the Private Notice Question which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition put to me earlier this afternoon.
Her Majesty's Government strongly disapprove of pressure from any source on British firms to discriminate between British subjects on any grounds. We have made our views known to representatives of the Arab Embassies in London. In doing so, we have expressed our disapproval of action by these Embassies designed to bring pressure on British firms to comply with the Arab boycott of Israel, and we have said that we hope these practices will not continue.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving us this statement. May I ask whether the whole of the Arab peoples were represented by the representatives who happened to visit the Foreign Office yesterday? Whom did they represent—which countries?
§ LORD CARRINGTONYes, my Lords, they were representing all the Arab countries, and they were the Ambassadors of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Libya.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI think the noble Lord himself saw them. Did they mention what they said on the television: that they considered themselves in a state of war with Israel? Did they repeat that? Could we know what was the comment of the British Government on that?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, that was one of the things that was said to me. I did not see the television interview, so I cannot judge whether the same words were used; but I think that has always been the position of the Arab countries, and we have always said that we take no sides in the matter.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHThe statement made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, of 1125 course, gives the proper position in relation to our trade and commerce in the Middle East. I should like to know whether the noble Lord expects an early reply from the central Governments of the countries which were represented, and, if they do not propose to depart from this kind of practice but repeat it in other instances, what action the Government propose to take.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, do not think a reply is called for. What we have done is to express our grave disapproval of what has been done in the past. This we have done, and I am confident that the Arab Governments will take account of our views.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI hope that may be so. Good friendships have been established in many ways between this country and the Arab world in trade and commerce, which I take it are working both ways, and we ought not to have our British trade and commerce interfered with in such a manner when there is at least an armistice agreed to, under the influence of the United Nations, between the countries concerned. There ought to be no interference with commerce in any way at all.
§ LORD CARRINGTONI think, my Lords, that if the noble Earl reads the statement he will see that Her Majesty's Government agree with him.
LORD REAMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if there should be any further reactions arising out of his conversations, he will inform your Lordships' House? And might I also say that I think it is probably the sense of this House that they view with great gratification the dignified manner in which this matter was treated by one Member of your Lordships' House who was involved in this rather humiliating situation?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I will certainly do that; and I am sure that my noble friend will be grateful for the words which have been spoken.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, is it not possible to give a more positive lead to the 80 or so British firms who have been treated in this way, and who have been asked for detailed information about their business and the people they employ? If the Government could give 1126 some positive lead to these firms and encourage them to refuse to give this information, I am sure it would be of great help.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I should have thought that the statement that I made and the statement that was issued by the Foreign Office last night made the Government's view perfectly clear; but of course it is for a firm to decide, in the light of its own interests, what it should do.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, may I raise a point which is related to this? This is the injury to British trade with Israel by the fact that Egypt refuses to let British or other ships go through the Suez Canal if they are destined for Israeli ports; and they similarly bar Israeli ships. This came up at the United Nations but nothing effective has been done. Moreover, this is not a question of there being a state of war, because I believe that consideration was, if I remember rightly, excluded by the treaties concerned. May I ask whether the Government are doing something vigorous and effective to restore the right of freedom of traffic through the Suez Canal?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think that is rather wide of the statement I have made; but if the noble Lord would like to put down a Question I will do my best to answer it.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, may I venture to disagree with the implications of an answer by the noble Lord the Leader of the House? He said that in cases of this kind it is entirely the option of the firm to decide what to do according to its own interests. Legally, that is the position; but I should hope that the Government in this situation would indicate what they thought to be the duty of the firm; and I should hope that the Government would have deplored the attitude in this case of the firm which has behaved in a shocking way.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I do not think there is anything between the noble Earl and myself. All I said was that I thought we had made the position of Her Majesty's Government quite clear: that we have no standing in the matter. It is up to the firm to decide what it wants to do itself.