§ 3.21 p.m.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy 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 whether statements made by the Earl of Dundee on July 10 in this House (column 138 of Hansard for that day), in answer to supplementaries to a Question by Lord Balfour of Inchrye, are to be taken to mean that the prior undertakings given by Ministers with regard to full compensation for British subjects who have suffered as the result of the Suez operations are now regarded by the Government as having been nullified by the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1959, or whether it is merely the obligation of the Egyptian Government to pay compensation that was limited by that Agreement.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME)My Lords, perhaps it will clarify the situation if I answer my noble friend's Question in this way. The situation with regard to compensation is governed by the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement of 1959 and the Prime Minister's statement of March 16 of that year when he said in respect of a settlement "we" (that is the Government) "do not exclude a further contribution from public funds" [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 602, col. 150].
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his Answer, and arising from it I should like to ask him whether he is aware that, in addition to the statement that was made by the Prime Minister to which he has referred in his reply, the Prime Minister also said, on April 11, 1957, quite unequivocally OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 568, col. 1296]:
It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure from the Egyptian Government restoration of those assets in full,he was referring to the assets of the claimants—or alternatively complete compensation.That means, as I understand it, that in the Prime Minister's view the claimants 541 were entitled either to restoration of all their assets or to full compensation. I would ask my noble friend further, in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have failed to obtain restoration of assets or full compensation from the Egyptian Government, whether he does not think there is an obligation on the Government and people of this country to make good the difference, in view especially of the fact that those who have suffered are in their present plight entirely because of events for which the British Government are directly responsible.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, Parliament—both Houses of Parliament—accepted the Financial Agreement settlement of 1959; but, because it was recognised that that might not entirely solve the problems to which my noble friend has referred, the Prime Minister used the words I have quoted: that he would not exclude a further contribution from public funds. I hope that before the House rises I may be able to make a statement on one aspect of this matter, that is the sequestration aspect, but I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has this other matter very much in mind. Of course before we can settle the matter of compensation the claims have to be fully adjudged; and that, as the noble Marquess knows, is something that is bound to take time.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I do not wish to press my noble friend unduly, but the fact remains that many of these claimants, even at the time of the Suez operations, were very elderly. Some have already died; others will die shortly, inevitably in the course of nature, and it is not a question that can be left, year after year, for rather dilatory settlement. What I am urging on the Government is: will they not undertake to assume responsibility for seeing that these people get justice. Up to now they have not done that; they have undertaken to see that the Egyptian Government should do what it should. I am asking that the British Government should do what they should.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I have no objection to being pressed by the noble Marquess on this matter because I think we must see justice is done to these people. I must, however, 542 remind the noble Marquess that the House accepted the settlement of 1959, and at the same time the Prime Minister made this statement. Thus the reply I gave him really does govern the situation at present. We will certainly do our best for these people, and I will try to ensure that there is not undue delay. I believe that, so far as the smaller claims are concerned, 90 per cent. of them have been met.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, the noble Earl has referred to acceptance by Parliament of the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement of 1959. May I remind him of the fact that when that Agreement was accepted, it was very clear in both Houses that it was only because of the assurances given by the Prime Minister and, presumably, the assurances given in the past, which, so far as I am aware, have never been repudiated? Therefore, might one not argue that the Agreement was accepted on conditions that have not yet been fulfilled?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, when we are able to assess the full amount of the claims, and the claims have been adjudged, that will be the moment to decide how much money, if any, is to be given by the Government in excess of the £27 million. I repeat the Prime Minister's words: "we" (that is the Government) "do not exclude a further contribution from public funds". That was said at the time, and those words govern the situation now.