§ 3.5 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 whether they will issue a statement showing what is the present state of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and/or British nationals and the Egyptian Government concerning claims:
- (a) arising before the revolution,
- (b) for seizure of the property of British nationals,
- (c) for losses suffered by shareholders in the Suez Canal Company owing to the premature termination of the concession,
- (d) for the loss of stores in the Canal Base,
- (e) on other grounds,
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD)My Lords, talks on a financial settlement have been resumed in Rome this week between delegations representing Her Majesty's Government 1020 and the Egyptian Government and I regret to say that while these are in progress it would not be appropriate for me to make any statement.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I understand the difficulty, but the public are also in a difficulty. I put the Question down in detail, because I think that some of the information which has been vouchsafed—officially, apparently—should be corrected. First of all, may (with the indulgence of your Lordships, because I have done my best to put the matter in detail upon the Order Paper) ask about the evicted British nationals? The Government have stated that their claim is for £145 million, but I see in the Press that these people are refusing food at the camps because they are given only 15s. a week out of unemployment pay—is that correct?
Secondly, as regards the shareholders in the Company, of course, that is an international affair, but we have abandoned what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said—namely, any attempt to make an international issue of this; but are we going to pay for that part of the damage which we did to the Canal and enter into any inquiry? The third question is in regard to the Canal Base. Have the Government any idea of what was the value of that Base? I do not know whether there was a capital assessment of Government property, but the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, told me in a debate in your Lordships' House that we were spending £2 million a year in keeping up the Base, restoring it and so forth. Fourthly, on what grounds is it correct to say that the military expenditure that we incurred was £54 million? Finally, as regards the Egyptian claims, there is no need for delay there. The claims have been stated by the Government to be £71 million. The aggregate of these claims is very great, and it is useless to say that negotiations, which, so far as one can see from The Times this morning, are to be quite bootless, are going on and on that ground refuse information about the loss caused to the public by the Suez adventure.
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, while these talks are going on it would not be in anybody's interest for Her Majesty's Government to make a statement. As regards the hunger strike, I 1021 have no information. I did see a Press report but I know no more than the noble Viscount about that matter. If he would like me to investigate this, I will do so, but I had not considered that to be part of the Question and was not prepared to answer it. As for the value of British equipment and stores in the Canal Base, I think that the best thing I can do is to refer the noble Viscount to the statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War on January 22, 1957.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, what amount did he state, because I did not include that?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDIt was somewhat more than £60 million. I regret that I cannot give any further answer to the noble Viscount.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, is it true, as stated in the Press this morning, that all claims have been put together globally—that is to say, that the attack on Port Said, for which Egypt claims £71 million, is being lumped together and considered along with the case of the businessmen who have been evicted? That is the first question. As to the first part of the noble Earl's answer, does he mean to say that the Foreign Office disclaim all responsibility for the fate of these unfortunate people who have been evicted from their property as a direct result of the Government's attack on Egypt?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, to take the last question first, the Foreign Office certainly do not disclaim any responsibility. Nevertheless, the fact is that, technically speaking, these refugees in hostels are the responsibility of the Home Office. I have already told the noble Viscount that if he wants further information about this particular incident, if in fact it did occur, I will gladly do my best to obtain it for him. With regard to the first part of the noble Viscount's supplementary question, I do not know to which report he is referring. The only one I know about is the report in The Times.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEYes, that is the one.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI am much obliged to the noble Earl. It is not news but it is interesting to have it from the Government Bench.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord because I had not quite reached my place when he was answering my noble friend's Question. I was glad to see that my noble friend Lord Stansgate had put as his first item, claims arising before the revolution. Some of us have had large correspondence with those who have been waiting for five or six years for settlement of their business claims. Surely these claims should be taken separately from the other matters. These men and women have a good civil claim. Can we not have some idea of how they are being treated at the present time, and whether some advance could not be made to them? Some of them are in a very different business position to-day from that in which they were formerly, owing to the unwarranted action of the Egyptian Government at that time.
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, I regret to say that I cannot give the noble Viscount any information. These talks are in progress, and it is quite contrary to all practice to give information about talks which are going on, if there is a possibility that by doing so those talks would be prejudiced.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, I also must apologise to my noble friend Lord Gosford for being a little late in arriving, but arising out of his Answer, which I understood to be "no comment", or the equivalent of no comment, and referring especially to paragraph (b) of the noble Viscount's Question—that is, seizure of the property of British nationals—may I put the following supplementary question? Can the noble Earl give an assurance that the claims of British subjects for full compensation for property seized by the Egyptian Government will be fully protected in any agreement come to with Egypt, at Rome or elsewhere?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government are doing their fullest to protect all British nationals in this case.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, in that case, why does the warden of the 1023 hostel, according to the Press, inform these unfortunate refugees that they are very lucky, because they are not as badly off as the unemployed?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, I think the noble Viscount will appreciate that that was, so far as I know, purely a Press statement. I have no knowledge of that and no information to give him.