§ 2.43 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 whether they have any statement to make with regard to policy towards British nationals who are to-day suffering severe hardships as a result of their expulsion from Egypt and the seizure of their assets and properties.]
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)Yes, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government recognise that since the introduction a year ago of the existing ex gratia loans scheme the continuing delay on the part of the Egyptian authorities in restoring sequestrated property and paying compensation where it is due is leading to 123 additional hardship as a result of the prolonged deprivation of access to their property by the owners, and that this hardship is bearing particularly on certain classes of case. 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.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his Answer, which naturally will require careful study. In the meantime, may I make the first comment in the form of a question? Is the noble and learned Viscount aware that "the proof of the pudding is the eating"; and that the substantial advances, such as I had anticipated he was to forecast (although he did not), at any rate the advances now foreshadowed, are a matter of urgent necessity? And can he say what will be the procedure for the "prompt and generous" (his own words in a previous debate) handling of the claims?
Finally—and I feel I owe this to the House—does the noble and learned Viscount realise that the original Motion placed on the Order Paper for debate for to-day has been deliberately replaced, after much searchings of heart, by my Starred Question, for two reasons: first, that faced, as they have been since, by day-to-day political developments of the gravest nature in the Middle East, Her Majesty's Government obviously must find it difficult to devote adequate attention to the problem of these claims; and secondly, that it was consequently fairer to the claimants themselves and to Her Majesty's Government to adopt today's procedure? And do Her Majesty's Government appreciate that this alteration reveals no weakening in the attitude of my friends or myself on the fundamental issue, namely—the full and just satisfaction of these claims of innocent British subjects deprived of their businesses and means of livelihood directly as a result of action by the British Government in the autumn of 1956?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is that the proof of most puddings, as I understand it, is in the eating. In reply to the second part, I 124 believe that on studying my Answer the noble Lord will see that the correct procedure is for direct discussions between the appropriate interests and Her Majesty's Government through the Treasury. I believe the noble Lord in the third part was really making a statement as to his reasons for taking off his original Motion and substituting this Starred Question, rather than requiring an answer from me.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, the noble and learned Viscount's reference to the third part of my question is obviously correct. On the second part of my question I should like to ask whether we might have some more detailed statement on the machinery which would be used for the presentation of claims within the shortest possible time—without further delay. Could we have some information upon that?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, the first necessity is to ascertain the form which the extension of the scheme must take. That must necessarily be done through discussions between those involved as to the best use of public money to mitigate harder cases when they have been arrived at. No doubt machinery will evolve out of the form and during the course of the discussions; but if I can be of any assistance in expediting matters I will continue to act as I have acted in the past.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount for his Answer and for the advance on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government which it represents, and for which we are grateful, I cannot help being rather chilled by the word "limited". Is it really necessary for Her Majesty's Government on a subject of this kind, where generosity is so important, to put in a word like "limited", which gives a grudging effect? There is one question I should particularly like to ask: in view of the fact that numbers of claimants were entirely dependent for their livelihood on businesses in Egypt of which they have now been deprived for nearly two years, will Her Majesty's Government consider taking account of business assets under the extended scheme foreshadowed by the noble and learned Viscount in his reply? If we can have reassurance on that point I shall be most grateful.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, regarding the first part of his question, I believe the noble Marquess would have been rather surprised had I suggested that the extension should be unlimited, and that he would have been still more anxious to know what that word "unlimited" meant. As regards the second part, we shall certainly consider what ought to be done about assets of the type covered by the main scheme which are in private businesses.
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, will the noble and learned Viscount say whether it is possible to include in these discussions consideration of some method whereby securities held by Barclays D.C.O. Bank can be released to their rightful owners?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, that is rather a different point which I think is outside the ambit of my Answer, which related to possible extension of the loans scheme. Negotiations with Egypt have always had as their object the return to the owners of all property owned by British nationals in Egypt and the payment of compensation where compensation is due. Naturally if these negotiations are successful the arrangements would apply to cash and securities deposited in British banks in Egypt; but if the noble Lord is referring to certain securities held by London banks to the order of banks in Egypt for account of refugees who were customers of the banks in Egypt, I would remind him that it has not yet been decided by the courts whether these securities can legally be sequestrated. At the moment assets in both categories, here and in Egypt, have been treated in the same way as other sequestrated assets for the purposes of the loans scheme with which I have dealt.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, as the scheme for a limited extension probably will take some time to implement, and as a number of refugees have received from the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board advice that their maintenance allowance will be discontinued as from a certain date, Her Majesty's Government will consider requesting the Board to withhold such a decision until these claimants in need are able to profit by the extension of the scheme which the noble and learned 126 Viscount has now announced? That is my first supplementary question. The second is: does this limited extension of the scheme mean further repayable loans and no recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the rights of the claimants to full restitution for their assets lost?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, the answer to the first part of that question I could not give without notice; but what the noble Lord has suggested will be communicated to my right honourable friend and I shall try to see that the noble Lord is given an answer. As regards the second part, what I was referring to was an extension of the existing loans scheme and not anything else.
LORD LLOYDMy Lords, whilst appreciating the point made by my noble friend that it would have been equally surprising if he had said that the extension was going to be unlimited, may I ask him whether he is not aware that the use of the word "limited" will suggest to most of these people that they are merely going to get another "dose" on about the same scale as they had before? Will my noble friend bear in mind that the previous loans scheme—whilst those who benefited thereby naturally appreciated that something was done for them—has in most cases been quite inadequate to help these people in their difficulties; and that a mere repetition of the previous scheme, if that is what is meant by the word "limited", would really be of little value to the claimants?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I think that my noble friend should also remember that the larger number of those who are refugees from Egypt were people without assets for the loans scheme and others who had businesses and had been deprived of their means of livelihood but who do not, for one reason or another, qualify for the loans scheme at all; and one must bear in mind, in considering what should be done to help these people in their difficulties, that those who could hope to live on investment income do not form the largest category of those in need.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, may I ask a further supplementary question on this subject? I should like to ask the noble 127 Viscount who is replying to these questions where the Government responsibility to these people, who are now in this deplorable situation, begins and ends. It seems to me, with great respect, that we should have an answer to that question. It is not their fault that they are in a condition—I see the noble Lord opposite laughing—wherein, although they used to buy clothes such as he is wearing from Savile Row, they now have to get their clothes from any jumble sale to which they can go; and they are men of very substantial monetary property. I hope that the Government will take a serious responsibility in regard to what these people are going through, through no fault of their own, and I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give us a reassuring statement on this point.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I think that my noble friend will realise that the Government take a very serious view of their responsibility in this as in other matters. He is not quite right in saying that those who are now in need all used to buy their clothes from Savile Row; the contrary is the case.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but we are in a slightly difficult position owing to the fact that the debate has been postponed and replaced by a Starred Question. Arising out of the answer given to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my previous remarks about limited assistance, I should have felt happier if the noble Viscount had been able to say that the assistance would be substantial. Is this point borne in mind? I would ask the Government whether they will take it into account. To give people advances in small instalments on the capital value of their claim is really to force them to use those instalments which are really capital in the form of income; and to that extent all that the Government, with all their anxiety to help, are achieving in some of these cases is to enable these people over a further limited period to live upon their capital.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his generosity in recognising the Government's anxiety to help in this matter. I deliberately did not use and have not used words like "substantial", which are 128 really as long as a piece of string because what is substantial must depend upon the circumstances—
§ LORD KILLEARNAnd "limited" is as short as a piece of string.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM—and the word may possibly give rise to different impressions in different minds. It is extremely important for a Minister answering matters of this kind to use concrete language which will mislead nobody, if accuracy and precision in language can achieve that result. As regards the second point, I think the noble Marquess will realise that we are aware of the very different kinds of difficulty to which the different kinds of refugees are being put. I am bound to say that I think that those who would otherwise have been able to live on their investment income alone are relatively few, although their special difficulties will be borne in mind.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, is the noble Viscount's original Answer intended to cover the case of British officials who were evicted in 1951 and received very little assistance from the British Government?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I am very well aware of the position of those officials, but as the noble Lord knows, the situation of the British officials evicted in 1951 and the nature of their claims are quite different from the type of situation and claim which qualifies for the loans scheme to which I was referring and to which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, was referring. The claim of the officials evicted in 1951 was in the nature of an unliquidated claim based on deprivation of the opportunity of earning their living in another way. The loans scheme cannot be fitted to meet their claims and their special needs must be considered under a quite different head.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, if one is trying to meet the case of all those who have suffered as a result of Egyptian action, is it not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do something more for the class of person to which I am referring?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI think it would be unwise of me to discuss the very different situation of this class of person on a supplementary question on a 129 matter so different in category. I should be happy, of course, to answer any Question about it which the noble Lord puts down. I am not prepared to say more at the present time than that the Government are aware of the nature of their claim and are certainly prepared to urge it upon the Egyptian Government who were responsible for their disturbance in 1951.
LORD MIDDLETONMy Lords, can the noble Viscount give any idea of the percentage of the claims that are likely to be met, and say how soon they will be met? And is the noble Viscount aware that some of these claimants are facing penury and some have been invited to go to the National Assistance Board to help them to subsist?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, the answer to the latter part of the question is that I am not aware of that. If the noble Lord desires to bring any particular cases to my attention or to that of my right honourable friend they will naturally be considered. Obviously I cannot give any indication of the number of claims which will be met until I know what claims are put forward for this limited extension. If previous experience is any guide, the great majority of claims which were put forward were met.
§ LORD MILNER OF LEEDSMy Lords, the noble Viscount used the term "loans". Is the House to understand that nothing more is intended than loans, and there is no proposal for out-and-out compensation for these unfortunate people? Secondly, if there are so few (as I understood the noble Viscount to say) who had substantial assets in Egypt, is that not a very good reason for compensating them in full?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, this raises a question much wider in effect than the Question on the Order Paper, and if the noble Lord studies my original Answer I think he will see its exact scope and limitation. It does not, of course, either prejudge or prevent the compensation of British nationals for assets which have been expropriated, but Her Majesty's Government take the view, and have always taken the view, that this is something which ought to be, and is being, put forward on behalf of the claimants, in the negotiations which are not yet complete.
LORD LLOYDMy Lords, will my noble friend also bear in mind the fact that many of these people are now really in dire need? They have been waiting a very long time. Is he therefore able to give the House any information as to how soon negotiations between the representatives of the claimants and the Treasury will begin? And will he bear in mind—as I am sure he will—that Parliament will shortly be going into Recess, and that we who take an interest in this matter will have no further opportunity of raising it for some months, and that therefore an assurance on this point is very important?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI think the noble Lord will see from my original Answer that the Government are ready, and I take it that that means what it says.
§ LORD KILLEARNBefore the noble Viscount sits down, may I just make it clear that during this debate there have been various points raised that we want to study very carefully, and we therefore reserve the liberty to raise the matter again at the earliest possible date.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI do not think that the liberty to raise matters again need be reserved. It is always present.