§ 3.14 p.m.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy 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 (1) whether they are aware that their continuing failure to provide adequate reparation for British subjects expelled from Egypt is causing lasting ruin of many of their lives, future hopes and fortunes; and (2) whether, in the light of the significantly revealed unease of this House, they would now consider the following scales of payment as being more equitable than those announced in this House on 30th October and which would take account of the criticisms made during the debate on 12th November.
| Claims | Percentage of Advance |
| Up to £E.1,000 | 80 |
| next £E.4,000 (from £E.1,001 to £E.5,000) | 75 |
| next £E.5,000 (from £E.5,001 to £E.10,000) | 70 |
| next £E.15,000 (from £E.10,001 to £E.25,000 | 65 |
| next £E.25,000 (from £E.25,001 to £E.50,000) | 60 |
| next £E.50,000 (from £E.50,001 to £E.100,000) | 50 |
| Surplus in excess of £E.100,000 | Subject to discussion.] |
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord amended his Question late last night by making what are in effect detailed suggestions for the expenditure of public money after I had told him that Her Majesty's Government could not consider the matter in time to give an Answer to the latter part of his Question to-day. As I explained on the November 12, Her Majesty's Government have taken a whole series of measures designed to relieve hardship and to rehabilitate all classes among those who were expelled, and I cannot accept the general implication in the noble Lord's Question that these measures have proved ungenerous or inequitable. There could in any event be no question of further revising the scales of payment while the last extensions so recently announced are being put into effect, and as was made clear in the recent debate Her Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage of the matter 218 to depart from the principle of advances against tangible assets. Her Majesty's Government continue to be prepared to receive details of cases of hardship or suggestions for the improvement of the scheme. I must add that I would myself consider that the form of the noble Lord's amended Question raises serious constitutional issues upon which it would be improper for me to attempt to pronounce finally at the last minute. But I must not be taken to endorse the view that the submission of detailed proposals of this kind for the expenditure of public moneys should be put forward by means of a Starred Question, or by a private Member, or in this House of Parliament.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his very learned reply. Of course, I am not qualified on the constitutional issue—I am a comparative new-comer to your Lordships' House. But I would, in the form of a question, remind the noble Viscount of what the Leader of the House said in the debate on November 12, when he moved that Lord Lloyd's Motion should be rejected, as in fact it was. He said of the Motion, if I may quote [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212 (No. 8), col. 494]:
We should have to reject it for the time being"—that was the point—so as to think about the great principles"—
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords on a point of order, I really think that the noble Lord must try to frame what he has to say in the form of a question. He has made no such attempt. He is simply presenting an argument. There must be some interrogative form in a supplementary question.
§ LORD KILLEARNBut I did make it in the form of a question.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMThen I do not know what the question is.
§ LORD KILLEARNI did put it in the form of a question—"may I remind him?". Is that a question?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI think it is well-established that that form is not an interrogative form.
§ LORD KILLEARNThen may I vary it and say: Is it not the fact that the Leader of the House, in the debate on 219 November 12, used these words when he moved the rejection of Lord Lloyd's Motion:
we should have to reject it for the time being"—that is the point I want to emphasise—so as to think about the great principles which are raised.To-day is December 11. So that was a month ago. Am I not in order, on the basis of that statement, in making certain suggestions which, one would hope, were helpful in the direction of great thoughts on this subject? Before I sit down, I should like to revert, in the form of a question, to the first part of my original Question, in which I asked whether the Government are aware that their continuing failure to provide adequate reparation, and so on, has led to the ruin of the lives and fortunes of many of the residents in Egypt. I do not think that the noble Viscount answered that point. Are Her Majesty's Government aware that that is so?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I think the noble Lord will see when he reads Hansard that I did answer that. What he is really seeking to do is to redebate the question by way of a supplementary question.
§ LORD KILLEARNNo, I am not.
LORD LLOYDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a question arising out of my noble friend's question? May I first of all ask the noble Viscount whether the Government have taken any note of the very strong expression of unease manifested in this House on the occasion of that debate? Secondly, may I ask the noble Viscount whether there is to be no future reconsideration of the scale of payments? Finally, may I ask him whether or not the Government are prepared, notwithstanding the form in which this scale has been put down, to consider the scale put forward by my noble friend?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMThere are three supplementary questions there. On the first, I would say that of course the Government take note of everything that is said in the House, including the result of the Division. The second one was?
LORD LLOYDThe second was: How long has the existing scale to be in 220 operation before the Government realise that it is no good?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMThat is a supplementary question of which I do not accept the implications. It does not seem to arise out of either the original Answer or the Question.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMWould the noble Lord also remind me of the third question?
LORD LLOYDMy Lords, I do not know how many times I have to put it in the form of a question, but for the third time I ask the noble Viscount: will Her Majesty's Government take note of the proposals put forward by my noble friend?—although the noble Viscount suggests, for some reason which I am not at all clear about, that it was improper for my noble friend to put them forward.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMThe noble Lord has secured by the form of his question that we have all taken note of it.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, might I ask one further supplementary question before I sit down—namely, does the noble Viscount confirm what he said in the debate on July 23 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211 (No. 98), col. 127]:
that the Government take a very serious view of their responsibility in this as in other matters.Does the noble Viscount confirm that they continue to take a very serious view of this matter?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, we certainly took a very serious view of cur responsibilities in this, as in other matters, and I see no reason to depart from that.
§ LORD KILLEARNThen in fact the noble and learned Viscount confirms it.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, arising out of the first Answer of the noble and learned Viscount, one likes to get things clear. May I ask whether he does not agree that this is the constitutional position: your Lordships are entitled to express any opinion you care to, on any financial matter whatsoever, but you may be on dangerous ground if you proceed to a Resolution. The noble Lord's Question is framed in such a manner that if 221 Her Majesty's Government acceded to and agreed with the proposal there put forward, it would be tantamount to binding the Government to a Resolution in another place. That is what leads to difficulty and prevents an answer. But on the general constitutional position I should like the noble and learned Viscount to confirm that what is stated in the first part of my question is correct.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, it was exactly that thought, which my noble friend has so well expressed, that was passing through my mind. As I told the House in my original Answer, this was brought to my attention in amended form last night, after any kind of advice was available to me, and I am bound to say that I do not think a matter raising an issue of this kind should have been put on the Order Paper of this House at such short notice.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, I do not want to speak again, but in view of what my noble friend has just said, I feel that I owe the noble and learned Viscount an apology for having put up so late, I admit, a matter which has raised a constitutional issue. I can only say that it was put through the proper channels.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I hope that I did not convey the impression that I had any kind of personal resentment, but I am put in a difficult position when matters of this kind are put in at a very late stage—matters which I might be rebuked for treating in such a way as to create a precedent.