HL Deb 05 February 1974 vol 349 cc706-8

2.39 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg leave 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 whether they will propose a ban on the passage of all warships through the Suez Canal when it is reopened.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL FERRERS)

My Lords, warships could be banned from the Suez Canal only as the result of general agreement to amend the 1888 Constantinople Convention to that effect. Such agreement is most unlikely to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, is it not rather a question of whether the Government might take an initiative, at least to commence the discussion of such an agreement? Bearing in mind the regrettable, but fortunately slight, increase in the American base at Diego Garcia and the disappointment which that causes to the Indian Ocean countries, principally Commonwealth countries, who want to make their own ocean a zone of peace, can the Government try to do something constructive from now on and would not the demilitarisation of the Suez Canal be a very good starting point?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, if anyone put forward a proposal for such a demilitarisation we should certainly wish to look at it carefully. But I am bound to tell the noble Lord that we do not think that the practicalities are such that it is likely to come about.

LORD KENNET

But, my Lords, is it not true that it will take at least a year to reopen the Canal and that Egypt herself has voted for the zone of peace in the Indian Ocean? Is it not also correct, according to the statement of our own Commander-in-Chief (Fleet), that from a military point of view the reopening of the Canal will be principally to the advantage of the Soviet Union? Why do we not take a lead?

EARL FERRERS

Because, my Lords, it would mean a complete renegotiation of the Constantinople Convention. With regard to the Indian Ocean, I can only tell the noble Lord, as my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie said a few days ago, that while we have always given careful consideration to the idea of an Indian Ocean peace zone, it seems to us to be unrealistic; because a zone of peace covering such a vast area—even if it could be defined, which is questionable—would be impossible to verify.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that that is an extremely negative and flaccid reply, and that we might well pursue the matter later?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I was not aware that my reply was negative or flaccid, but I understand that the noble Lord might pursue the matter later. However, I can tell him that we are as concerned as he is to see that there is no build-up of military forces in these areas. With regard to the demilitarisation of the Suez Canal, although it may be possible and may seem acceptable, for the reasons I have given we do not really think that it is possible to achieve it.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, in view of the extraordinary and variegated forms that modern warships can take, and the even more extraordinary and variegated forms that fleet auxillaries and other attendant vessels can take, can the noble Earl tell me who will define a "warship" and how it will be done?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I can tell the noble Viscount that Article 1 of the Constantinople Convention states: The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open in time of war as in time of peace to every vessel of commerce or of war without distinction of flag.