HC Deb 29 July 1957 vol 574 cc868-70
50. Mr. Teeling

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Mr. W. Hall, aged 59, who was allowed to give up a secure post of many years standing in the British Embassy in Paris in June, 1956, and take a transfer to Nice, at a time when it must have been known that the Nice Consulate was to be closed in January, 1957, has not been transferred to some other post: and what steps he is taking to assist him and his family since he cannot obtain a French worker's card, is not entitled to the French dole, and cannot obtain any benefits from the Service Sociale.

Mr. Ian Harvey

Mr. Hall's transfer to Nice, which was made in response to his own request, was approved in April. 1956, although it took effect only in June, 1956. The special review of staff at Foreign Service posts in France was instituted in May, 1956, and the decision to close the Consulate-General at Nice was not taken until some months later. Termination of temporary appointments is bound in many cases to cause hardship; and it was to mitigate this hardship in the case of Mr. Hall that, exceptionally, his service in Paris, which was terminated by voluntary transfer, was taken into account in calculating his terminal gratuity. Her Majesty's Embassy in Paris are in touch with Mr. Hall and will bear him in mind for any suitable vacancy which may arise in Paris or at a Consular post in France.

Mr. Teeling

Does my hon. Friend realise that Mr. Hall will be grateful for part of that reply? Does not he think that the Ambassador or the Embassy in Paris must have known in May that there was a possibility of this and, in view of his good service in Paris, they might have warned Mr. Hall? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a little more human help might be given to people in this position, as at the present time there is a case coming on in which we are being sued for not giving enough?

Mr. Harvey

My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of this problem at Nice. Regarding the point in the supplementary question about the Embassy in Paris, I do not think any presumption could be made at that point about what adjustments there would be, and, under the circumstances, I do not think that the Ambassador can be held to blame in any way.