asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that by the terms of the British-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, Great Britain has with Egypt a duty to ensure the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Suez Canal; whether he will propose to the Security Council that it order action to enforce compliance with the Council's directive to Egypt in 1951 not to obstruct free passage; and whether he will offer Royal Navy escort through the Canal to enforce compliance.

The answer to the first part of the Question is that Article 8 of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, 1936, does not expressly impose any duty to ensure the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Suez Canal. What it does is to give Her Majesty's Government authority to station troops in the Canal Zone with a view to ensuring in co-operation with the Egyptian forces the defence of the Canal, the authority to run until such time as the High Contracting Parties agree that the Egyptian Army is in a position to ensure by its own resources the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Canal. The answer to the second part of the Question is that the matter being now under consideration by the Security Council, it would be undesirable to disclose the instructions issued to our representative. As to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, our future policy must obviously depend on the outcome of this debate, and it would be most improper for me to commit Her Majesty's Government to any particular course of action at this stage.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend, to whom I am grateful for that reply, not concede that there is an implication in the Treaty and in the body of the relevant documents—such as our recognition of Egyptian independence—that we have a responsibility towards the free world for safeguarding, or helping with Egypt to safeguard, freedom of passage through the Canal? Would he not admit that we do not do well in eyes of the world to abandon this responsibility merely because a previous Government sought to shift that responsibility upon shoulders which were both unwilling and incapable?

I agree that we have certain responsibilities with regard to freedom of navigation through the Canal. The difference really is a question of method. We have no intention of abrogating our responsibilities in that regard.

Will the Minister be good enough to state categorically that the obligations upon Egypt to allow traffic through the Suez Canal will be insisted upon by our representative in the Security Council, and that there will be no deviation from this course?

There is another Question on the Order Paper dealing with that specific matter.

Would not the Minister of State agree that, whatever else experience shows, the presence of 84,000 British troops in this Zone and outside it has not ensured the free navigation of the Canal?

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the instructions are what matter?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken about the complaint to the Security Council by the Israeli Government in regard to the stopping of ships by Egypt in the Suez Canal; and the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this complaint.

The answer to the first part of the Question is that the matter is now before the Security Council. The answer to the second part of the question is that Her Majesty's Government's policy is to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal.

Is it not a fact that the action of the Egyptian Government is in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888, and it would be right for Her Majesty's Government to support the Israeli protest and to make it known that they are going to support it?

What my hon. Friend has said is the view of Her Majesty's Government.

I understood that the Minister, in answer to a supplementary Question earlier indicated that he would deal with it when Question No. 27 was reached. May I ask that supplementary Question at this stage?

No, I cannot allow that.