§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government having regard to the recently announced bilateral commercial trading arrangement between British nationals and the United Arab Republic:
- (a) If this arrangement was made without the intervention of the United Kingdom Government.
- (b) If such bilateral arrangements can in any way prejudice or retard further distribution to the United Kingdom claimants against Egyptianised assets.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)My Lords, I presume that my noble friend's Question refers to the agreement concluded on July 9 between a British firm of export consultants and the United Arab Republic. Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo extended to the firm assistance of the type normally given to United Kingdom exporters in overseas markets.
As to whether such bilateral arrangements can be prejudicial to the interests of claimants against Egyptianised assets the answer, my Lords, is No. The Foreign Compensation Commission have, as noble Lords are aware, already received for distribution the compensation for all Egyptianised assets under the 1959 agreement.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for that reply, may I ask him, with regard to the 384 first part, whether it is to be understood that this indicates the beginning of a departure by the Government from their purist orthodoxy of disapproval of bilateral barter arrangements, which it has been understood have hitherto been viewed with disapproval by the Government? With regard to the second part of his Answer, may I ask if he can say whether he is likely to be in a position to make some statement with regard to this matter before the House rises?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEAs I tried to make clear in my first reply, the assistance given by Her Majesty's Representative in Cairo was perfectly normal assistance in a private commercial enterprise, and therefore there has been no alteration whatsoever in normal practice. With regard to the second question, I would simply say to the noble Lord, that I should hope so.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his reply to the second part of my question, may I say that on the first part I evidently did not make myself plain. For the record, I would say that I refer to what has hitherto always been regarded as the traditional attitude of Her Majesty's Government of frowning upon barter arrangements between countries. It had nothing to do with the active participation by Her Majesty's Government in such a deal.