§ 2.38 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what, if any, capital sums have been spent on the Base in Egypt since 1946, when it was provisionally agreed to evacuate the country.]
§ THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS)My Lords, as the noble Viscount is aware, the provisional Agreement reached in October, 1946, was never ratified. Between April, 1946, and March, 1953, about £14 million was spent on capital works in the Canal Zone. These consisted almost entirely of the building or rehabilitation of temporary living quarters and the modernisation of airfields.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, the Minister of State in the Commons referred to capital sums amounting in all, I think he said, to £500 million. When was that done? As the noble Earl will remember, in the provisional Treaty which was made in 1946 there is no mention of this base at all; it was treated as a thing which would be surrendered, together with the occupying positions.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISMy Lords, the figure of £500 million can be made up like this: £300 million was spent on the construction of the base over a period of many years. I am sorry that I have forgotten the exact figure which was spent during the war on construction, but I have an idea that it was something like £113 million, or not far from that figure. If you deduct £300 million from the £500 million, it leaves £200 million, which is the estimated figure for the replacement of various stores and articles, tools, et cetera, in the base—the bill which would have to be paid if they were replaced by new articles. There are 14,000 trucks in the base, and they are probably not of much value now: most of them are war-time vehicles. But if they had to be replaced now, it would mean a very heavy bill.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI am asking the noble and gallant Earl to consider this fact: that in 1946 we had seven years of the Treaty to run and yet we continued to spend millions of pounds, knowing that after that we should have no Treaty rights to maintain these installations at all.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISMy Lords, I think the answer to that is that although we hoped in 1946 to get an Agreement it was never ratified. We did not get any Agreement. Since then we have had to maintain bases, because after 1946, as your Lordships know, the whole situation deteriorated. As we consider that the United Kingdom—or Great Britain, if you like—is responsible for the safety and protection of the Middle East area, we had to maintain and keep a base in this area. As a matter of fact, owing to the cost of building and prices generally in these days, I do not think £14 million is a very large figure, spread over a period of seven years. Most of it has been spent on temporary structures; there is only a sum of about £2½ million for permanent construction, and I think most of that is for airfield runways.
§ LORD CALVERLEYMy Lords, would Her Majesty's Government consider stating in concise terms what are the proposals which the Government are placing before the Egyptian Government, as there is an uneasy feeling in the country that Her Majesty's Government are really giving away £500 million?
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the flow of question and answer between the Minister of Defence and the House, but the question which the noble Lord has just asked goes far wider than anything in the original Question. I think the Minister of Defence has gone a very long way in giving the fullest information, and I hope the House will not press him any further.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for using the encouraging word "interrupt" the flow of question and answer. My question is based on the Question down on the Paper. What I should like to know is this. Are we working under the Treaty, or are we working under some conception of our own as to where we should have strong points? Because, under the Treaty, everything that can be built is laid down in the Annex to Article 8, and there is not a word there about this £500 million. That is why I am asking why this money was spent and why it was spent at a time when we not only had no guarantee that the Treaty would be renewed but when we ourselves, through the mouth of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, had undertaken to take the whole lot away and to close the job.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISI do not know whether the following information will answer the noble Viscount's question. The Annex to Article 8 of the Treaty of Alliance says:
It is, of course understood that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom may, when the barracks and accommodation are being used by the British forces, make at their own expense improvements or alterations thereto and construct new buildings in the areas specified in paragraph 2 above.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATESince the noble and gallant Earl is good enough, for the first time, to refer to the Treaty—because the statement of the Leader of the House had nothing to do with the Treaty; it was to do with general world politics—may I ask him this? The noble Earl has referred to the Annex to Article 8. But under paragraph 5 a Committee was to be set up to supervise these buildings. Has such a Committee ever met? Finally, may I ask the noble Marquess this question. Is it not a fact that 1027 reference to this Treaty is all nonsense, and that we are in Egypt because we want to be in Egypt and because we are too strong to be kicked out?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIf I may say so, that is a most poisonous suggestion, which everybody but the noble Viscount will regret. The fullest answer has been given to his Question. His Question itself did not mention the Treaty, and now he takes the opportunity of tagging on to it, as usual, an assumption inimical to the interests of his own Government. I think the less said about that, the better.
LORD STRABOLGIWhy is it inimical to the interests of Her Majesty's Government to say that we are too strong to be kicked out?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe suggestion was that we are not there by any right at all, but merely by force, and that we would not be kicked out. If the noble Lord thinks that that statement is all right, he is welcome to that idea. I think we have a stronger basis for being there, but that point does not arise on the Question on the Order Paper.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI would not have asked any further questions had not the noble Marquess imparted a certain heat to this matter. The Treaty says that our forces are limited to 10,000 men. We have had 80,000 men in that country for years. How does the noble Marquess defend that?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Viscount is still going a great deal wide of his Question, which I will now read to him, because he appears to have forgotten it. It was:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what, if any, capital sums have been spent on the Base in Egypt since 1946. ….He is now asking questions about the number of troops in the country and the conditions under which those troops are there. That certainly does not arise on the Question on the Paper. If the noble Viscount likes to put down on the Paper another Question, it will be answered.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI do not want to put down a Question—
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE—because I consider that a debate on this matter in 1028 these heated terms would do no good at the moment. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that we ourselves are bound by Treaty obligations which we are not observing.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Viscount said that a debate would do no good, but what he does is to make a number of unwarrantable assumptions, having given no notice that he was going to put these points. That seems to be far more damaging than any debate could be.