§ 2.6 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy 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 whether examination has now been made of the case submitted for the British officials victimised by Egypt in 1951, prepared by the Association of (Former) British Officials of the Egyptian Government; whether these officials are still without redress, and what action Her Majesty's Government proposes to take in this matter.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD)My Lords, the circumstances of these former officials of the Egyptian Government have been fully examined and are well known to Her Majesty's Government. We have great sympathy with them, and we have, moreover, since the date of their dismissal in 1951, made continual efforts to assist them and to press their claim for reparation from the Egyptian Government. In the Anglo-Egyptian financial talks in Rome in May this year, the British delegation placed on record the claims of these officials. At the talks which were resumed last month, and were temporarily adjourned on December 12, our delegation continued to urge a settlement. Her Majesty's Government will do their utmost to secure this settlement.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his Answer. Have the circumstances of this particular group of ex-Egyptian civil servants changed somewhat since 1956? The dismissal of these people from their posts, in which they had every reason to believe they would have 1144 continuity of employment and status, was due to British military action, when the Forces destroyed the village of Kafr el Abdu, near Suez. All the negotiations that went on after that concentrated finally, I believe, in the agreement with the Egyptian Government in 1954, under which the Egyptian Government were going to examine the claim and were in course of doing so.
Since the Suez incident of 1956, however, Her Majesty's Government have especially taken upon themselves the responsibility for people who have been turned out from Egypt because they were forced out as a result of British military action. Is there any reason at all why the Government should not now take the same kind of direct responsibility for the people who were victimised in 1951, while continuing, whenever they think fit, negotiations with the Egyptian Government themselves, so that these people may not go on, year after year, suffering the hardship, which they undoubtedly do suffer because of Egyptian action taken as a result of British military action?
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, before the noble Earl answers that question, may I put a point of Order? We seem to have gone straight to the second Question on the Order Paper. What happened to the first?
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I explain? A Notice has been sent out to all Members saying that Question No. 1 was withdrawn for the time being, because I was asked to discuss the matter with the Admiralty in the interim period. But I am hoping to put the Question down again. I much regret it if the noble Earl has been caused any inconvenience.
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, there seems to be perhaps a little confusion about British military action. These officials were dismissed summarily by the Egyptian Government in 1951, and it had nothing to do with the action which took place in 1956. Although they lost their jobs at the time they were not expelled summarily from Egypt, and in most cases they were paid a certain amount of compensation, after insistence by the British Embassy. Moreover, the British Embassy has worked hard—and has succeeded in many cases—to obtain alternative employment for those officials 1145 who were dismissed in 1951. The Egyptian Government were pressed many times to give a judgment, a ruling, on further compensation for them; but up to the time of 1956, no reply had been received. The fact that military action took place at the end of 1956 cannot necessarily be held responsible for the fact that no reply has been received up to now. In any case, any of these officials who has property in Egypt can obtain an ex gratia loan on the same basis as the 1956 refugees, and any other of these officials who can claim or show hardship can and will be dealt with by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, again in the same way as the refugees of 1956.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, the answer of the noble Earl does not, perhaps, quite line up with the questions which I put, or with the facts of the case. First of all, the expulsion of these officials from their jobs in 1951 took place after British military action against Kafr el Abdu. Is that not so?
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHTherefore they lost their jobs in the Egyptian service as a result of Egyptian reaction to British military action. I am grateful for all that was done for them between that period and 1954, through the Egyptian agreement with our Government, but in 1956 the Government took a line in respect of other people who were expelled from Egypt as a result of British military action. Can the noble Earl say that in all points pari passu the people who were dismissed in 1951 will get the same treatment as the 1956 people?
TUE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, I think I have already explained that they are in fact getting the same treatment as the 1956 officials—victims, if you like—in that, if they have property in Egypt, they can obtain ex gratia loans. If they are in distress in any way they can obtain a grant from the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. That, I should have thought, would to that extent put them on the same level as the 1956 expellees, although Her Majesty's Government do 1146 not agree that in fact the cases are exactly the same.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, would it not be as well to have another look at this matter? These people include university professors, lecturers, educational people.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHIs it not as well to have another look at this matter for the reasons I am about to give? I think the Government Whip should keep himself a little quiet. These men and women are people of good standing, and is it not desirable that we, as a nation, and the Government, should wish to see them employed in situations of this kind in order to improve relations with those countries, and that we should not leave them with the feeling that they have in any sense been let down when a special situation of this kind has arisen?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDHer Majesty's Government are fully alive to all the matters of which the noble Viscount has spoken. As I have already said, the case of these people has been put down as one of the problems to be considered in the talks which are at present going on with the Egyptians.