HL Deb 25 February 1959 vol 214 cc490-2
LORD KILLEARN

My 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 the sum of £3,300,000 has been released by Her Majesty's Treasury from Egypt's blocked sterling balances to enable the Egyptian Government to make the first annual payment of compensation to the Suez Canal Company; and (2) if this is so, how such action can be reconciled with the categorical assurances given by Her Majesty's Government on May 14, 1958, that "Any question of a special release of Egypt's sterling balances will arise only after the present negotiations with Egypt for the settlement of the claims of British citizens have been concluded "]

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

The answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the release of the £3.3 million was made by Her Majesty's Government at the urgent request of the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development who had been asked by both Governments to lend his good offices in bringing about an agreement. The statement quoted by the noble Lord in his Question referred to the case of special releases under paragraph 7 (a) of the Heads of Agreement, the text of which was given to the House on May 14, 1958.

LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his Answer, is he not really shirking the issue? Did he not give a formal pledge in this House and was not that pledge made in reply to a specific question I asked about this specific matter—the release for shareholders of the Suez Canal—in response to which he stated that no special release would be made? Am I right in believing that a special release has been made?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord is not so right. The release to which reference is made in the first part of the noble Lord's Question was not a special release under the Heads of Agreement referred to. Even if it were, I am bound to tell the noble Lord that, while the Government are bound to answer for every item of development of policy as it is undertaken, I gave nothing in the nature of what the noble Lord described as a pledge. What I did was to tell the noble Lord what the Government's policy was at that moment, and we are bound to answer both for that policy and for any variation in the development of it.

LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, may I pursue this matter a little further? I asked a specific question, whether in particular any of Egypt's blocked sterling would be released in order to be utilised for the payments to be made by Egypt under the Suez Canal shareholders agreement. In response I received the assurance quoted in my Question. The obvious inference is that one was answering the other. Now apparently (I do not want to make a speech) there is an endeavour to ride off on the word "special", which I submit has no relevance whatever to my point, which is that we must place full and absolute confidence in any assurance given from the Front Bench.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will continue to place full and absolute confidence in any assurance given from the Front Bench, but he has misread and inadequately quoted the passage concerned. The special release mentioned in my answer clearly refers to the special release referred to in Article 7 of the Agreement, and if the noble Lord will be good enough to look at what he said in Col. 303 [Vol. 209] of Hansard, it will be perfectly apparent that he so understood it at the time.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount this question? Is he saying that the Government's pledges are dependent on Government policy at the moment; and if so, would he expound that?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

The noble Viscount did not hear me say that or anything like it.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, did not the Foreign Secretary in another place say that the retention of these sterling balances was in fact our security for the satisfaction of British claims? And while it may have been expedient, in deference to Mr. Black's wishes, to release some of these sterling balances, is it not in fact an act which to that extent prejudices the statement the Foreign Secretary made?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I would not be prepared to accept that unequivocally but I think it is the kind of argument which will need to be discussed when we come to debate the matter.

LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that a release of this kind has caused a great deal of alarm amongst the claimants?—hence this question. I am afraid their alarm will not be allayed by what he has told us to-day, which is, apparently, that at the request of Mr. Black a departure was made from his assurance.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, quite clearly whether the release of the £3.3 million was wise or otherwise is something which can be discussed only in debate and not by question and answer. I am sure the noble Lord will do his best to allay any alarm. I am sure he will make it his business to do so, because I can assure him that the alarm is not, at any rate in my judgment, well founded.