§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether naval and military forces were used to take the place of the employé s of the Suez Canal Company who were recently on strike; if so, what was their gross number and from what units of the Army were they drawn; why are the forces of the Crown being employed for the purpose of breaking a strike; and at whose request and under what arrangements with the Suez Canal Company is this action being taken?
Mr. HARMSWORTHI would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wentworth on 22nd May. The inquiry as to the extent to which naval and military forces were used to assure the essential service of the Canal should be addressed to the representatives of the Admiralty and the War Office.
§ Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a strike of the employé s of the Suez Canal Company is still in progress; if so, whether the employé s have given formal notice of their demands, and what is the attitude of the Suez Canal Company towards these demands; whether any steps have been taken towards a settlement of the dispute; and will he obtain an assurance from the 2061W Suez Canal Company that the settlement will include the concession of the legitimate demands of the strikers and the reinstatement of the men who have been or are still on strike?
Mr. HARMSWORTHThe Suez Canal Company is an Egyptian Company with headquarters in Paris. A report received from the British directors, dated 19th May, stated that, according to the latest authentic information at their disposal, the questions raised by the men had been under discussion by telegraphic communication with Paris, with every prospect of settlement, and the strike of 13th May was not based upon labour conditions, but was of a political character. The intervention of the British authorities has been limited to maintaining order and seeing that the vital services of the Canal are assured.