§ 2.38 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR INCHRYEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government if they are satisfied that Article V (a) of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement (Cmnd. 723) is being fully implemented by the Egyptian Government.]
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNENo, my Lords. We have, however, made repeated representations to the Government of the United Arab Republic on this subject, and on March 12 they assured us that, despite the severe shortage of foreign exchange from which the United Arab Republic is at present suffering, they will make every effort to facilitate transfers in full as soon as the necessary sterling becomes available. Meanwhile, they have offered to give instructions for the immediate transfer of up to £E1,000 on account in each case. Her Majesty's Government have accepted this offer on the clear mutual understanding that it does not imply their acquiescence in any derogation from the validity of the undertaking given by the Government of the United Arab Republic in the Financial Agreement.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, this is very unsatisfactory. May I ask the Minister this further question? In view of the fact that, while the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement was going through Parliament, at no time did the Government face either your Lordships' House or another place with the likelihood of an Egyptian exchange prohibition overriding the provisions of the Agreement; and, further, as we were told that the release of £41 million 111 of blocked Egyptian sterling was the security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government, is it not now incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to make sterling available to Egypt to meet these particular claims? May I press the Minister for an answer on that point?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, this is hardly a question of exchange prohibition. As I tried to explain in my first Answer, this is a question of an inability to pay at the moment. As I also explained, the acceptance of £E1,000, as opposed to £E5,000 which is due, is in no way a derogation from the Agreement. This is made perfectly clear by Her Majesty's Government, and this is accepted by the Government of the United Arab Republic. I can assure the noble Lord that for our part we shall continue to press the Government of the United Arab Republic to meet the obligations in full as soon as it is possible for them to do so.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister, but he really has not answered my question. The specific question I asked him was whether, in view of the fact that the Agreement to which Parliament assented is virtually overridden by the Egyptian exchange prohibition, it is not incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to make sterling available to the Egyptian Government for this purpose. That is the question, and I should like to press the noble Marquess on the point.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I cannot allow the word "overridden", because that is not the case. The Agreement is not overridden. This is a physical inability to pay at the present time, and there is no question whatsoever of the Agreement being overridden. I must assure the noble Lord on that. As regards the £41 million to which the noble Lord referred, this was, as the noble Lord and others of your Lordships will remember, a matter which was debated very closely at the time, and I do not think any useful purpose will be served by our re-debating this matter which was extensively discussed in your Lordships' House.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, with the indulgence of the House, may I ask one further supplementary question? Did not the wise men of the Treasury, and the wise men of the Foreign Office, foresee this shortage of sterling in Egypt? Surely they must have been able to forecast the trading position over the next year or so at the time when the Agreement was made?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I cannot do crystal-gazing for others.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, may I ask whether all other Egyptian obligations are now being paid at the rate of 20 per cent. only?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, with great respect, I do not think that this question arises out of the original Question.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMay I ask the noble Marquess whether that has not a bearing upon the question of the ability or inability of the Egyptian Government to meet its obligations?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am afraid that it still does not arise. But if the noble Lord wishes to put down another Question, I shall be very pleased to try to answer it.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, referring to this matter of the release of £41 million sterling which was the residue of the blocked Egyptian sterling credits at the time of the Suez affair, will the noble Marquess bear in mind the very positive assurance which was given in the House of Commons on May 16, 1957, by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? He said (col. 584):
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 thatIs not the position now that owing to lack of sterling, or alleged lack of sterling, the paltry £E5,000 transfer allowed under the Agreement has now been cut down to £E1,000, apparently with the welcome of the British Government, despite the fact that we parted with the only credit which we had and which was formally pledged by the 113 Government as a security for our claims? How can Her Majesty's Government reconcile that with what has arisen? Is it not a very peculiar state of affairs? I put it to the House.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I quite appreciate the feelings of the noble Lord on this matter, but I hope that he does appreciate that the £E1,000 which is paid on account is only an interim payment. What is due will, in fact, be paid in full: I am sure the noble Lord is fully aware of that.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, may I ask, on that point, how many transfers in fact 'have been made, even of the £E5,000, which is now cut down to £E1,000? So far as I am aware, the number of transfers authorised can be counted on the fingers of two hands. Is that a fact?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, the information that I have is that we have received full payment of some 14. We know of some 30 more.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, in view of the replies given in 'another place on Monday of this week on the same question, and 'his replies to-day, would the noble Marquess say whether it is to be understood that the difficulties of paying the desequestrated claims is in any way tied into the slowness of distribution against the Egyptianised claims?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I am not absolutely clear what the noble Lord means, but I think he is referring to a quite separate question which was raised in another place last Monday and which does not arise out of the Question to which I have given a reply.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply. The point was that the reply given by the Government spokesman was that it depends upon the speed of desequestration of this property. Will the noble Marquess inquire if some statement can be made shortly after the Recess with regard to the intended next distribution of these Egyptianised assets?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI should like to help the noble Lord on this matter. I can give him only the same reply which was given by my right 114 honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place, when he said he would very much like to be able to give a final date by which this matter will be completed, but it does, as the noble Lord said, depend upon the speed of desequestration of this property, and we cannot predetermine that speed.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government if any British subjects who are claimants in respect of assets covered by the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement (Cmnd. 723) have been refused permission for entry and exit from Egypt as provided for under Article VII (1) of that Agreement.]
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, Article VII (1) of the Anglo Egyptian Financial Agreement states that
the two Governmenrts shall permit such freedom of entry and exit, and accord such other facilities, as may be necessary for the implementation of the present Agreement".Although I am aware that in a comparatively small number of cases of British subjects wishing to go to Egypt the Government of the United Arab Republic have refused entry visas—an internationally recognised right of refusal which we ourselves exercise—I have no knowledge of any case where the absence of a British subject from Egypt has prevented him from obtaining his rights under the Agreement. It would seem therefore that the United Arab Republic authorities have committed no breach of the Agreement in this respect.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister: who is to interpret the words "as may be necessary" for a British subject to go to Egypt to pursue his claim? Is it to be the Egyptians, against whom the claim is being made; or is it to be the claimant who feels that his presence in Egypt is necessary? Furthermore, may I ask the Minister this question? Do not the terms of Article VII of the Agreement really foreshadow that the Egyptian Government will not invoke International Law rights in these 115 cases, but will admit these people into Egypt without exercising the right to which the Minister has just referred?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I think that Her Majesty's Government would receive any complaints from claimants that, because of their inability to go to Egypt, they had not been able to obtain their rights. So far, as I have told your Lordships, that has not occurred. In the event of it occurring, this matter would be taken up by Her Majesty's Government and of course at once referred to the Government of the United Arab Republic; and they would be held, of course, to the terms of this Agreement. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, arising out of what the noble Marquess has just said may I ask him this question? When the Agreement was signed in February, 1959, was it in the minds of the signatories that there was this loophole of the exclusion of British subjects of any class, because it does not read like it?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I think that is a terribly difficult question to answer: "What was in the minds"—
§ LORD KILLEARNHeaven knows what was in their minds! That is just the point.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take comfort from the fact that, so far, this situation has not arisen.