HC Deb 01 August 1958 vol 592 cc1806-15

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

I desire to raise the case of Mr. N. A. Smith, who is a constituent of mine and whom I consider has been unfairly and inequitably treated by those responsible for administering the affairs of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. I tried to get some satisfaction in this case by negotiations with both the Foreign Office and the Home Office. Indeed, I think I have written about a dozen letters in connection with this matter, but I have met with complete failure. Now, therefore, I take the only course remaining open to me.

Mr. Smith and his mother, who is aged 76, were forced to leave Egypt on 7th December, 1956, as a result of the Suez operation. This, of course, is not the time to pass judgment on that policy, or say whether it was right or wrong. Whatever view is taken, however, it is clear that, as a result of Government policy, Mr. Smith and his mother were forced to leave Egypt and to lose all their belongings. It seems to me that the Government's responsibility in this matter is clear and direct, and I regret that it has been necessary to press the Home Office to meet its undoubted obligations in this and other cases.

In fact, this is not the only case I have had. As the hon. Lady knows, there has been some public disquiet about the apparent attempts of the Government to do less than justice to these unfortunate expellees. On 23rd July, there was a short debate in another place, and I note that no fewer than six noble Lords expressed apprehension about the present position and pressed the Government to be more generous. I was glad to note that in that debate the Lord President of the Council said: The Government are therefore ready to consider sympathetically a limited extension of the existing scheme and are ready to enter into discussions with the appropriate interests concerned regarding the form which such an extension might take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd July, 1958; Vol. 211, c. 123.] I hope that this declaration of policy will make the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department less intransigent than I fear she might otherwise be.

What are the facts in this case? Mr. Smith is now 48 years of age. He has actually lived in Egypt for 45 years, though he is a British subject, being born while his father was a serving soldier at Folkestone, at Shorncliffe Barracks. Mr. Smith has held a position in Her Majesty's Forces for 28 years. During the last war, he was for three years a warrant officer in the Western Desert. His father also was a serving officer in the Forces overseas for about 26 years, so that, between them, the father and son have given over 50 years' service in the British Forces. I should have thought that fact alone would have had some little weight with those considering this matter.

For a year immediately before his expulsion, with other refugees, from Egypt, Mr. Smith was employed—having completed his Army work—by a British firm of contractors at a salary of £720 a year plus a cost of living bonus which, I understand, brought his emoluments to over £1,000 a year. I may add that at his age, and coming when he did to this country two years ago, he has not so far been able to secure a job at anything like that rate of remuneration. Part of Mr. Smith's gratuity, which he received when he left the Forces, was invested in a garage business in Egypt, to an amount of over £700. This he completely lost when he was forced to leave the country in December, 1956.

In addition, Mr. Smith had a home in Cairo, and another in Ismailia, which was chiefly used by his mother. At that time, she was aged 74 when she was expelled, and now she is 76. So these two people have lost both their homes and had all the worry and disturbance of coming to this country, a move which, in the case of the old lady, had to be made at a very late age. In addition, they have lost their personal belongings, their furniture and the fittings of the houses, and matters of that kind; the value being over £1,100.

To sum up this part of my case succinctly, one can say that Mr. Smith and his aged mother have lost both their homes in Egypt as a result of a decision which had nothing whatever to do with them but was the direct result of Government policy. Mr. Smith has lost his job and his invested gratuity and is in an extremely difficult financial position.

Mr. Smith and his mother arrived in this country on 8th December, 1956. I understand that, in common with other refugees, he received a clothes allowance valued at £50. Obviously, this was very necessary, as he and others had to leave practically everything behind. He received a resettlement allowance of £75, which seems to me a small sum. In addition, he received an ex gratia loan of £750, for which he is very grateful. But, of course, it is impossible at his time of life for Mr. Smith to resettle himself with a sum of that kind, or to get a house, or to make any of the normal provisions which are necessary.

In April, 1957, because conditions for the family were so bad, his mother took advantage of an offer made by her married daughter, and went to live in Cyprus. She thought that would be the end of her troubles. For this the Board provided £75 by way of expenses for the voyage and the mother had had the clothes allowance, as had other refugees. Unfortunately, on medical advice, Mrs. Smith had to return. I wish to emphasise that she did not desire to. She had hoped that her troubles were over and that she had found a haven of rest in Cyprus. But, on medical advice, she was forced to return to this country. The authorities have seen the medical evidence, as I believe has the hon. Lady's Department.

One of the distasteful things about this case is that this forced return has been used by the authorities as a means of washing their hands of Mrs. Smith. They say: Because she was helped to go somewhere else once, that is the end of the matter. Indeed, the hon. Lady wrote a short and rather curt note to me on 27th March about Mrs. Smith in which she stated: She received this help in place of the resettlement grant payable to people settling in this country. The Board cannot accept a continuing liability for people whom they have already helped to settle here or to emigrate. That is not a statement of the position. The old lady did go to Cyprus, but she was forced to come back, and I think it extremely unfortunate that the Board and the Home Department ride off on that sort of excuse. As a result, this old lady is at the moment in an institution. It is a pretty poor ending, for one who has been the wife of a serving officer and the mother of another, that she should have to spend the end of her life in some sort of home, because her son is quite unable to provide one, though he desperately desires to do so.

We all know that in addition to the standard help to which I have referred the Board can and does make ex gratia grants. I have the names of six people to whom sums of over £700—in one case over £1,000—have been made. I do not intend to read out their names, I have nothing against them, but I have this information and we know that the Board has a discretion. When I took this matter further, the Home Secretary himself wrote to me on 25th April and stated: … the Board are given discretion within certain limits to meet the particular needs of individual people. I know that a number of individuals have had a grant, and I am not prepared—this is one reason why I have continued with this case—to see my constituent, in such deserving circumstances as in this case, treated worse than other people. His service and the service of his father to the British people may be much greater than some of those who have been helped by loans as well.

Here is a family who have indeed done well for this country. The father and the son both served for 50 years. As a result entirely of Government action, Mr. Smith and his mother have lost their homes. The son has lost his job and his belongings. He strongly and naturally desires to look after his mother. The main obstacle is that the Board refuses to treat Mr. Smith other than as a single person although, in point of fact, his obligations are precisely those of a married person. He cannot now look after his mother because he is only able to live in one room, his mother being forced to be in an institution. I press that the Board should use its discretion and be a little more imaginative and generous in this case. I hope that the hon. Lady can give Mr. Smith and his widowed mother some encouragement so that she will not end her days in an institution.

12.40 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith)

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has put his case very plainly and slightly provocatively and I hope I shall be able to point out that, far from taking an ungenerous attitude, the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board has dealt absolutely scrupulously with this case, as with other cases with which it has to deal, and within the general rules that apply to the very differing needs and claims of many of these people.

Mr. Smith and his mother are two of several thousands of Anglo-Egyptian expellees and British subjects who were forced to leave Egypt in 1956. The Government felt very real sympathy with the hardships suffered by these people and accordingly they decided that they ought to be given special help over and above what would normally be available through the social services of this country. The Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board was, therefore, set up to administer schemes of relief under the general direction of my right hon. Friend. The funds of the Board are entirely provided by the Exchequer.

So far, the Board has spent £6¾ million, mostly on loans and grants to refugees. I mention this sum so that the House may see that the total amount of help has been quite substantial, to say the least. The Board has two main functions. The first is to give temporary relief to refugees coming here to settle down to a new life in this country or abroad if they wish it. It is the Board's administration of help in resettlement which the hon. Member has called into question in this case.

There were various ways in which help could have been applied. The Board might have been instructed to give general relief. For example—and here is where I differ from the point raised by the hon. Member—the Board could have taken the attitude, "We will treat every refugee in precisely the same way and give him so many hundreds of pounds and say that that is a refugee sum which he will receive regardless of his needs, or his family claims, or whether he is able to get a job within a short or a long time." That would have been an easy scheme to administer and no one could have said that the refugees were not being treated alike. But that would not have met the type of individual needs which I have mentioned.

I do not think the House would have considered that either a fair or a humane way of dealing with the problem which gave rise to their particular and individual circumstances. As a result, within certain rules which have been clearly laid down, individual consideration has been given to every case and they have been treated on their merits under the scheme which has made provision for all expellees alike within the framework of those general rules.

It was made absolutely clear to Mr. Smith when his mother, of her own volition, had decided to emigrate and live with her daughter in Cyprus, that having been aided by the Board to go there she would thereafter have no further claim on the Board. This is no individual case; 1,400 people have emigrated. Is the hon. Member to suggest that the 1,000 people who have emigrated to Australia, if they do not like it there and do not do well, should automatically come back and be entitled to make claims?

Mr. Skeffington

That really is being unfair. This is a case of an aged lady, who was not emigrating for work but to go to the home of her daughter, and she was forced back through ill-health. This is an entirely different case.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

The hon. Member says that she was forced back through ill-health, but one of the arguments was that the accommodation there was not adequate. I agree that she was an aged lady and she went out to live with her daughter as she would probably be more able to look after her than would her single son. Having got to Cyprus, Mrs. Smith then made a claim on the Board, which was refused on the ground that the Board had fulfilled its responsibilities by paying for her passage and making the grants which had facilitated her going to Cyprus. In this respect, all refugees in similar circumstances have been treated alike and the hon. Member has no ground for saying that Mr. Smith and his mother have been treated differently from other people, or unfairly.

I believe that the Board follows the right course in giving help according to need. This means the operation of flexible schemes and individual consideration for individual cases. For example, the Board, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Labour, has helped people to find suitable jobs. If they have found such jobs quickly the maintenance allowance has ceased. Unfortunately, some have not yet been able to find employment and are drawing maintenance allowances. To that extent they receive far more than those who quickly find employment.

Those who are married and with dependent families may be given grants to help them to get a house, provided they are able to keep up mortgage payments. It may be that some of the cases that the hon. Member mentioned fall into that category. In other cases council houses are obtained for them by arrangement with the local authorities, but, normally, single men are not given housing grants because they do not need a home of their own.

Again, some of them may have prospects of getting a business of their own and the Board may give help to them for that. Some want to emigate, and about 1,400 have been given the opportunity of emigrating. Every assistance is given them to do so. The Board gets in touch with authorities in countries abroad and gives refugee grants to meet their needs on emigration. In administering the different schemes of assistance the Board inevitably spends more on some people than on others.

I got the impression from the hon. Member that he thinks this unfair, but it is, on the other hand, the inevitable consequence of treating people according to their needs and their classification. Some, as I have said, find employment quickly and others are still being maintained by the Board. The Board works on the principle of giving everyone a good start in his new life.

But it would be a different matter altogether—this is what the proposition of the hon. Member would amount to—if the Board were to go beyond this and make itself responsible for the continued welfare of those people whom they have helped to resettle.

In that case, there would be no end to the responsibilities of the Board. It would have to continue in existence indefinitely and it would be acting, in effect, as a body charged with the job of giving preferential treatment and help indefinitely to a small section of the population and making an invidious distinction between those people and ordinary citizens who may fall on hard times.

Emphasis must be placed on the defined responsibility of the Board, that it gives aid and help only for resettlement in the community and thereafter these expellees are treated on the same basis as any other members of the community. The Board has taken a great deal of trouble to make sure that before any refugees pass out of its hands they have a good chance, so far as can be foreseen, of being provided for or of standing on their own feet. If, in spite of this care, something unforeseen happens and, in spite of being helped to resettle in the way he chooses, a refugee falls on hard times again, he must avail himself of the not inconsiderable social services built up in this country, which apply equally to all residents.

I have dealt with some of the principles on which the Board gives assistance to explain, if I can, why the Board cannot give Mr. Smith and his mother any more help. It is not through any lack of sympathy that it does not do what the hon. Member wants, but because to do so would be to change the entire policy of the Board and that would not be justified. I have looked into the facts of the case very carefully, as has also my right hon. Friend, to see whether there are any grounds for treating Mr. Smith and his mother exceptionally. I am bound to say it would be wholly unfair to do so and, short of altering the whole function of the Board, we could not do so.

The hon. Member left out one or two quite relevant figures in giving his analysis of the case. As he has been very critical of the Board, I should make plain the extent of the help which has been given. Mr. Smith and his mother were helped to resettle here separately in accordance with their own wishes and I do not think that the Board can be expected to treat them on a different footing. After their arrival in December, 1956, and until Mrs. Smith emigrated to Cyprus they received a total of £346 19s. in maintenance allowances. The Board gave Mrs. Smith a personal allowance of £50 and £75 for her passage and travel expenses to emigrate. After his mother's emigration Mr. Smith received £167 by way of maintenance allowance, which stopped in November, 1957, when he was given a single man's final resettlement grant of £75. He had also a personal allowance of £50 and an ex gratia loan, under the scheme announced in the House by the Foreign Secretary, of £758.

Here I should make clear the responsibility which the Home Office has. The task of the Board is to provide for those in need and to enable people to be resettled in this country. The provision of ex gratia loans on assets which have been sequestered in Egypt is administered by the Foreign Office in that the claims are registered and the amount of loan to be paid is decided by the Foreign Office. On that basis, Mr. Smith has received £758, which is about 70 per cent. of the reckonable assets included in the claims he lodged with the Foreign Office. In all, Mr. and Mrs. Smith received £1,522. Mr. Smith and his mother were not left in any doubt about the limit that would be placed on the help given by the Board. It was made clear that if the Board helped Mrs. Smith to go to Cyprus she would not be eligible for further assistance, and that was repeated to her when her return to this country first became a possibility. It is a rule that acceptance of an ex gratia loan precludes further help and this was made amply clear to them.

The choice whether to set up as a family unit or to live separately was entirely for Mr. and Mrs. Smith to make. I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member that the Board dealt unfairly with them or in any way departed from the pattern of aid and help it has given on similar terms to other applicants under this scheme.

Mr. Skeffington

The hon. Lady said that to give any further help would be to put these sort of people in a privileged position as compared with the rest of the community, but their position is different. As a result entirely of the Suez operation they have lost their homes and their jobs. Following from that, would she not concede that it might be possible to add to Mr. Smith's loan so that his mother, an aged lady, need not live in an institution? Surely something could be done to reunite this family. Will the hon. Lady consider that?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

The hon. Member may be more aware than I am of that aspect of this case, but from the facts he has given me it is highly possible that the old lady's stay in the institution is at the cost of the taxpayer.

Mr. Skeffington

That is what I should like to stop.