EGYPT: DISTRESS OF EXPELLED BRITISH NATIONALS

HL Deb 12 November 1958 vol 212 cc393-406

2.58 p.m.

LORD LLOYD rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the continuing distress of British Nationals expelled from Egypt; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had a number of debates on this particular subject during the last two years, mainly initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, who has, I think, done more than anybody to keep the cause of British Nationals in Egypt before the minds of your Lordships. Your Lordships may ask why I should have thought it necessary to raise the matter again at the present time. It seems to me appropriate, because it so happens that it is almost exactly two years since British troops first landed on Egyptian territory. It is no part of my intention this afternoon to revive the bitter controversies of that time. We all had our individual views, and for my part I do not apologise for saying that I was a strong supporter of the Government. But the rights or wrongs of our intervention in Suez are really irrelevant to the issues which I wish to place before your Lordships this afternoon. I think myself that they are much better forgotten, and I hope that during this debate they will be forgotten. But what it seems to me cannot be forgotten and should not be forgotten are the consequences of that intervention.

At the time of Suez the present Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on October 31, 1956, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 558, col. 1571]: We in the present situation are, I believe, taking the right course in order to achieve peace, in order to protect British lives and interests"— I should like to repeat that sentence— in order to protect British lives and interests and contribute to a final settlement. Well, my Lords, I do not doubt the intention of the Government at that time, but I think that your Lordships, after two years, will have to agree that the results, unhappily, have turned out very differently, because British property, far from being protected, has been expropriated and all British nationals have been expelled from Egypt. I do not wish to labour unduly the connection between those two happenings. Frankly, the connection seems to me, self-evident, and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will be prepared to go in greater detail into that particular point. But since, in my opinion, this is a matter of cardinal importance, I should at this stage wish to make clear ray view that the expulsion and the expropriation suffered by British subjects were acts of direct retaliation by Nasser for the landing of British troops in Egypt: I think that the two things followed as night follows day.

I do not wish to waste your Lordships' time, because we have had many debates, by going too much into the history of this matter, but your Lordships will perhaps feel it appropriate that I should briefly sketch the events that have happened since then. Most of those people who were expelled came to this country, as your Lordships know, and when they arrived they had little more than the clothes in which they stood up. Everything had been taken from them—their houses, their cars, their furniture, their money, their businesses. Many of these people, of course, had few or no assets in Egypt, and in their case the problem of compensation did not arise, although the problem of rehabilitation did arise. Where they were capable of finding jobs, the Government (I wish to be perfectly fair, and to pay tribute to the Government wherever I think the Government deserve tribute; and I think they do here) did a great deal in helping them to find jobs, and also fed and clothed them while they were doing so. It is a fact that a number of these people did find new jobs and started new lives, either in this country or in the Commonwealth. On the other hand, there were many who were unable to find jobs on the same level as the jobs they had in Egypt and who are still in financial difficulties. That is not really surprising when we consider that a great many of these people were leading executives in Egypt or had their own businesses.

There were others who, through age or infirmity, were unable to find employment. It so happens that I am the President of an organisation known as the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society, which is a charitable body to help these people, and I know something of these very pathetic cases; and I think perhaps they deserve more attention than Parliament has yet devoted to them. Here again I would pay tribute to the Government: the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board has done a great deal of good for these people, and I think it would be a valuable thing, in the light of the last Report of the Board, if, either to-day, or possibly, since I have not given the noble Viscount notice of this point, fairly soon, we might have some statement of the Government's future policy about the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board.

Apart from those people who had no assets, there were many people who had assets in Egypt. Those assets ranged from those of great enterprises like Shell and I.C.I. to those of small shopkeepers, and most of the people who had assets in Egypt lost everything. Even those fortunate enough to have cash or securities in a British bank found those assets frozen, so that, in practice, they were no good to them. Like the people who had no assets, those people were also given accommodation in hostels by the Government and assisted to find jobs. Here again, in many cases, the only job they could find was well below the level of the job they held in Egypt. These people owned their own businesses or were leading executives in Egypt, and the jobs they found in this country were inferior in status and salary to those they held in Egypt. On the other hand, their commitments in most cases, with regard to children, education, and so on remained the same.

There were also a number of people who had reached, or were approaching, retiring age and who were unable to find jobs. I think your Lordships know that it is very difficult for a man over fifty years of age to find a job of any standing in this country to-day. Those people have worked hard in Egypt all their lives in a not entirely congenial climate. They were indeed the foundation of our whole economic position in Egypt; and let us not forget that. Yet, having saved for their retirement in this country, to which they looked forward, they found they had lost their lifetime savings in a night. That was a bitter blow to them, and it is not surprising that, in those circumstances, for the last two years all that most of those people have thought of is how they could get compensation for the losses which, through no fault of their own, they have suffered.

In their distress they turned, not unnaturally, to Her Majesty's Government for advice and for assistance. They got both. The advice they got from Her Majesty's Government I think I can paraphrase as follows. The Government said, "We cannot accept any responsibility for compensating you for your losses. We are very ready to help you to lodge your claims and to pursue them, but we must make it clear to you from the word 'Go' that your claims are against the Egyptian Government and not against us." So much for the advice. So far as the assistance is concerned, as your Lordships are aware, for those with assets the assistance has taken the form of ex gratia loans.

The first scheme for such loans was announced in your Lordships' House on July 15, 1957, and the second was announced about a fortnight ago, in response to a Question which I put down. Before I deal in more general terms with the question of these ex gratia loans, there is one point that I should like to clear up; and it is a matter which arose out of a reply by the Lord President to a Question that I put down. I would remind your Lordships that the Lord President made a statement on this matter in this House on July 23. He was talking about the question of discussions on these loans, and he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211, col. 123]: 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. Later on, in answer to a supplementary question on this point, the noble Viscount said (col. 124): My 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. I must confess that, having heard those two statements of the Lord President, I got the general impression that not only would the claimants have a further opportunity of stating their case, which they did (actually they stated their case on two different dates; two bodies, I think, stated it on one day, and the remainder stated it on the other) but they might be informed of the Government's intended proposals before they were announced and be given a chance of commenting upon them.

Here I should like to take the opportunity of repudiating something which was imputed to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on October 30 last, when in response to a supplementary question, he said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOI. 212 (No. 3), col. 81]: If my noble friend is seriously suggesting that a discussion is a discussion only if the claimants agree to everything that is said, it is not a view that I should care to endorse. My Lords, I have never suggested that the Government should agree to everything the claimants have said, and I must say to the noble Viscount that I think that his comment was less than fair. All I have ever said was that I thought it would be better, from everybody's point of view, if, before the Government finally made up their minds on these proposals, they gave the claimants an opportunity of making some comment upon them. It might even have been that the claimants would have suggested something useful. Indeed, I am bound to say that, if such an opportunity had been given, I think the last scheme might have been rather better than it is at the present time.

However, as I see it, and by my understanding of the normal use of the word "discussion", on this last scheme that has been put up there was no discussion in the proper sense with the claimants. That is my view. That is what the claimants have told me happened, and I must leave it to your Lordships' judgment as to whether you think the discussions, in the sense that I think we all understood the noble Viscount to mean when he made that statement in July, ever took place. My Lords, let me turn to these ex gratia loans—

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that part of his most interesting speech, could he give us a rough idea of the number of people involved in the different categories to which he has referred?

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, we are all in great difficulty over this particular point, for the simple reason that the claims have not all been put through the same channels.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

My Lords, I do not know whether I can help my noble friend or the noble Lord opposite. Of course I do not want to stop my noble friend from giving any information in his possession, but it may assist the noble Lord opposite to know that it is my intention to give as accurate an account of this matter as I can; and it will be, I think, fairly accurate.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, if that deals with the noble Lord's point, I will not bother to pursue it now; in any case, I am sure that the noble Viscount's information is more accurate than mine.

I want to say a word now about these ex gratia loans, because, in my opinion, both these schemes have a number of defeats. It is only fair to say to the Government that I think that the second scheme which they have produced corrects a number of the more obvious defects of the first scheme. For example, the business assets of these people are now reckonable when the question of loans is being considered, and undoubtedly the scale of loan under the new scheme to people with assets of up to £20,000 is a great deal more favourable than the scale in the old scheme. I think it only fair to pay that tribute to Her Majesty's Government, because I believe it to be true. Nevertheless, there are a number of anomalies even in the new scheme: for example, it seems to me absurd that a man who has assets of £19,999 should qualify only for a loan of £7,500, while a man who has assets of £20,001—£2 more, or the cost of a television licence before the price went up—should qualify for a loan of £10,000. That seems to me a complete anomaly and quite absurd.

Again, if we look at the list of business assets, it seems to me slightly odd that there is no mention of such items as "Bills receivable" and "Sundry debtors", which in most businesses are an important part of the assets. All these things are left out. Those are just two small points that I pick at random. I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time than is necessary, and no doubt other noble Lords will amplify the point. I do not want to get too deeply involved in the details of these loans because, to be perfectly frank, I do not believe that, on their present scale or in their present form, they provide any solution to the problem with which these people are faced. If I have wasted any time on these points it is purely because it seems to me that if the Treasury are going to produce a scheme in that form the combined brains of that organisation might have produced something slightly less absurd than the two things which I have mentioned; and I should have thought that they ought to have been remedied after two years.

As I say, I do not believe that the sort of scheme which has so far been produced is going to meet the situation, and I should like to tell your Lordships why. If your Lordships will examine the two schemes, you will see that under the first scheme the maximum loan for any man—no matter what his assets were: they might have been £1 million or only £20,000—having over £20,000 was £5,000. Invested at 5 per cent. that £5,000 would have produced to him, on my calculations, an income of £250 per annum, or rather under £5 a week. I do not think I need address your Lordships on that point. I am always told by my own agricultural labourers that they are the worst paid people in this country; but they get £7 16s. 0d. a week, a cottage, a pint of milk and various other things. Is it really suggested that these people should live—my noble friend, I think, says, not his. If that is so, he is contravening the law, because the minimum wage is £7 16s. 0d.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I was saying something to my noble friend next to me, and I did not say that which was attributed to me by the noble Lord. I said something quite different, and it was not intended for his ears.

LORD LLOYD

I did not think that so eminent a lawyer would break the law, and I was horrified to hear what he said.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

What in fact I said was, that mine had not got £5,000.

LORD LLOYD

Perhaps I might point out that if the noble Viscount's people were told that they were to get £5,000, but that they would have to work for it for the next fifty years, many of them would not take it on. In point of fact, as I was saying, that sum invested would produce to those people an income of rather under £5 a week. Again, I must leave it to your Lordships' judgment as to whether you really believe that these sort of people ought to be compelled to live on £5 a week in this country to-day. Incidentally, I might say that under the old scheme a man who had worked all his life in Egypt and had saved only £10,000 got a loan of £2,700, which would produce about £2 10s. 0d. per week. I do not know how anybody can be expected to live on that sum. I wish to be fair, and I acknowledge that these sums were intended by the Government as temporary expedients because in due course, we were always told, a settlement with the Egyptians was going to be made, and this was merely to help these people along. I do not wish to make an unfair point. That was the Government's argument.

Next I wish to point out that under the new scheme the maximum loan that a millionaire can get is £10,000. That is double the amount provided under the old scheme, and I should like to pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government for that increase. That amount invested at 5 per cent. will produce £10 per week. But, of course, your Lordships must remember that for two years these people have been receiving only £5 a week and have not been able to live upon that, so that they will have spent a certain amount of capital and will not have another £5,000 to invest, with the result that they will probably be living on a good deal less than £10 a week. Again I must put it to your Lordships for consideration: do you think it right that these people, who toiled all their lives, not entirely for themselves but for this country—because in Egypt they have done great things for us,—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD LLOYD

They have built up the economic position in the country. Is it right that in the evening of their lives they should be reduced to a standard of living of this kind?

In any event—and this is the point I particularly wish to put to your Lordships—in my view the situation has changed. Hitherto, as your Lordships will remember, in all the debates we have had on this matter we have always been told by Her Majesty's Government, "You must not press us too hard: we are on the verge of negotiation with Colonel Nasser." or, "We have just concluded one round of negotiations with Colonel Nasser and things look hopeful. We hope to start again." Always there has been held out the chimera of a settlement round the corner. We have waited two years. Does anybody really believe to-day that a settlement with Colonel Nasser is round the corner?

I myself have always rather wondered whether there was ever a prospect of a settlement with Colonel Nasser—and when I speak of a settlement I mean a reasonable settlement. Here I should like to pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government. If there has not been a settlement during these two years I believe that part of the reason is because Her Majesty's Government have had the courage and right thinking to defend our people's interests against Colonel Nasser and have not been prepared to accept any kind of settlement for these people. For that Her Majesty's Government deserve full credit, which I give to them. The fact remains, however, that we have not got a settlement and I do not think we are likely to get one in the near future. I will give your Lordships one or two reasons why I believe that to be the case.

In the first place, apart from anything else, these assets have been in the hands of the Egyptians for two years, and my information is that practically everything that was not nailed down—every liquid asset—has already been dissipated. I have one case which I should like to give your Lordships as an example of what has happened. I believe this to be true. This was an old-established and successfully run British agency business, which was typical of many of those taken over by the Egyptian sequestrators following the expulsion of their owners. Since the sequestration the loss on the working of that business has amounted to £25,000, on a capital of £30,000. A copy of the balance sheet shows, under "Liabilities", overdrafts from the different banks, with whom the owner had hitherto not done any business, totalling some £49,000. This amount is partly offset by a single item on the "Assets" side of £41,000 for "Sundry debtors." That is the only item. I would only add that this business has never allowed a credit of more than £4,000 to any customer. Does anybody really think that if that business were returned it would be worth anything, except possibly for the building and land?

I believe that what applies to that business applies to every other business taken over by the Egyptians; and when we speak of despoiled by the Egyptians" that is indeed what has happened. It is perfectly clear to me, therefore, that if any reasonable settlement is to be reached it is no good the Egyptians merely handing back the only things they have not been able to dissipate. They cannot dissipate the land, and they have not knocked down the buildings; but obviously there would have to be very large cash compensation to every single claimant. The hard facts of the situation are that Colonel Nasser has no cash. The only cash he has is the £80 million-odd (I believe that is the right figure) of sterling balances held in this country. Incidentally, I should like to remind your Lordships of what the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said about those sterling balances in another place on May 16, 1957 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 570. col. 584]: The blocked accounts"— and presumably he means all the blocked accounts— are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position. The House can be sure of that. The answer is that Colonel Nasser has no advantage, from his point of view, in a settlement, for all he wants is to get hold of the sterling balances; and if there is to be a just settlement most of those sterling balances will have to go to meet the claims of these people. For those reasons I do not believe now that there will be a settlement. I dare say that we shall be told again this afternoon that a settlement is round the corner, but again I must leave it to your Lordships' judgment whether you think that is probable.

If, as I believe, there are no prospects of a settlement, I feel that the time has now come when we have all to consider what is to be the future position of these unhappy claimants. Are they to be expected to struggle along indefinitely, on a series of temporary and rather inadequate loans? Has not the time come for Her Majesty's Government to face up to what I believe are their responsibilities in these matters? Hitherto Her Majesty's Government have maintained that these claims lie exclusively against the Egyptian Government and have refused to accept any responsibility. I am not a lawyer, but the noble and learned Viscount Lord Hailsham is. No doubt he will tell your Lordships that legally that is perfectly right—and for all I know that may be so. Certainly I am quite convinced that Her Majesty's Government were right to try to squeeze every penny they could out of the Egyptians. But, whether legally that is the position or not, it is my belief that, morally, we as a nation—not merely Her Majesty's Government—are in honour bound to see that these people obtain fair compensation for the losses which they have suffered as a direct result of the intervention of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt.

I know it has been argued that that would create a precedent, and that British nationals abroad cannot expect compensation from their own Government in times of trouble. That is as may be; but, as other noble Lords, I am sure, will say later on, in our view this case is sui generis. I know of no other case where our nationals have been exposed to these losses as a direct result of our intervention in a foreign country, and I should be interested to hear of any such cases. For that reason it seems to me that this would be creating no precedent and that this is a case on its own. I agree that if compensation could have been obtained from the Egyptians it would have been so much the better. But since it has not been, I believe that the only source from which the claimants can hope to obtain justice is Her Majesty's Government. I would conclude by just saying this: that to my mind the obligations of Her Majesty's Government in this matter are quite clear, and I believe that the time to discharge these obligations is now. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the continuing distress of British nationals expelled from Egypt.—(Lord Lloyd.)

3.29 p.m.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

My Lords, you will have heard from my noble friend the Leader of the House that at about half-past three he intends to make a statement about Cyprus. It is not in order to make it before the moment has arrived and it would probably be for the convenience of your Lordships if I did not embark upon my speech for thirty seconds or so and thus postpone that statement. In the thirty seconds which remain to me perhaps I can make one or two preliminary observations. I hope that that will be entirely to your Lordships' convenience, rather than that the statement should be postponed until after the speech which I propose to deliver.

I think that no one can complain that my noble friend Lord Lloyd should have reintroduced this subject for discussion. It is some time since we had a full debate about it and, speaking for myself, I am glad of the opportunity which I now take early in the debate of laying what facts I can before your Lordships. Likewise, no one can regret more than I do the reason why a further discussion has become necessary. Whatever criticisms may or may not be levelled against the Government, it is vital that one reason, at any rate, should not be obscured, and that reason is the failure, so far, by the Egyptian authorities to implement what is manifestly their duty on any view of International Law—namely, the return to the property-owners of sequestrated property and the payment of compensation in those cases where the property has been expropriated. I was glad to notice that during the course of my noble friend's remarks he, at the appropriate place in his speech, emphasised that point no less than I do.

I confess that, rather unlike my noble friend, I am surprised at the delay; and I hope to convey to your Lordships a certain element of my own surprise at it. Lest there should be any mistake about it at all I must say categorically that it has always been our desire to normalise relations with Egypt. It remains our desire to do so. As your Lordships know, there have been quite a number of negotiations; there have also been a number of informal contacts. I have, I confess, heard something, although not everything, of what has transpired, and I am bound to say that I still find myself somewhat surprised, after what I have heard, that they have not by now reached a satisfactory conclusion. I can assure the House—and I was glad that my noble friend accepted it—that so far as we are concerned the fault does not lie with us in this matter; and the fault appears to be political rather than any fault or argument connected with the merits of the case.

However that may be, what we have to consider this afternoon is how we should act in the face of this delay. My noble friend is rightly concerned with the hardship to those who have been expelled from Egypt and how that hardship can be mitigated. But d think he would be the first—and I think, as I understood his speech, that he would willingly be the first—to agree that that is not the only factor which the Government have to take into consideration, even in the interests of the refugees themselves. We are all put in a false position by this delay, and I would suggest that it behoves us all to show a considerable degree of restraint and understanding both for the position of the British nationals concerned and for the situation of Her Majesty's Government.

To my own infinite regret I am still convinced, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was so long ago as March 28, 1957, when he was answering the debate which was then held on behalf of the Government, that—and here I quote his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 934]: … if by anything we did at present we prejudiced the final settlement of claims which might be owing, we should have done the refugees themselves no good at all.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I need only remind the noble Viscount that he is still where I was a year ago. I have changed my view in the light of changed circumstances.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

The noble Marquess is utterly arid completely mistaken. We are not where he was a year ago. The whole of the loans scheme, which is what we are discussing this afternoon, has emerged since the noble Marquess left the Government. So we are not where he was a year ago. But I hope by the time I have sat down to have made good the case which I ventured to express in the words of the noble Marquess and also to have convinced the House that there are quite a number of public interests involved which really cannot be overlooked or brushed aside.

My Lords, I hope it is to your Lordships' convenience if I now postpone the remainder of my speech. I am sorry to have had to adopt this method, but I think it would be convenient if I broke off now in accordance with what I said.