§ LORD KILLEARNMy 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 they can report any progress in their negotiations with the United Arab Republic concerning the return of British property which, originally sequestrated in 1956 and released under the Financial Agreement of 1959, was again sequestrated in 1961 before the rights of transfer provided for under the Agreement had been carried out by the Egyptian authorities, and further, if this re-sequestrated property is not to be returned and if the Egyptian authorities agree to pay compensation, have Her Majesty's Government been informed of the basis on which this property will be valued, and how payment for same is to be made?]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)My Lords, there have been no negotiations. Frequent representations have been made to the United Arab Republic authorities at various levels both in Cairo and in London on this subject. Apparently the United Arab Republic Government accept the principle of compensation for that part of the re-sequestrated property which is not returned to its owners. But so far the United Arab Republic Government has not stated how and when this property is to be valued and compensated for, nor when the remainder of 130 the property is to be released. The Cairo Press has published a text of a new United Arab Republic decree on this subject, but I have not yet seen an official text and I cannot comment on these Press reports.
As regards transfers, Her Majesty's Government were assured by the United Arab Republic authorities in 1962 that British subjects whose property had been re-sequestrated would nevertheless continue to enjoy their rights of transfer under Article V of the Financial Agreement of 1959. Since February, 1963, 21 such transfers of cash totalling some £57,760 sterling have been effected. Arrangements also continue to be made for the transfer of jewellery and personal household effects.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, I rise once more to thank the noble Earl for his reply, and it provokes certain subsidiary points which I hope, despite my croaking voice, to put to your Lordships. The first is that as this matter was raised as long ago as November, 1961, is it not a long time for it to remain still unsettled—from 1961 to April, 1964? This seems quite an adequate time, perhaps even over-adequate. The second point is this. Is it not in fact an act of spoliation by the Egyptian Government? That is a factual question. Thirdly, is it a fact that the patience of Her Majesty's Government is not inexhaustible over this matter?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, my noble friend is correct in saying that the re-sequestration referred to took place, in October, 1961. It did not, of course, apply particularly to British subjects, but mostly to Egyptian subjects and a number of foreigners, including a few British subjects. I agree that it is a long time to take, and we have been continually pressing the Egyptian Government on this matter. With regard to the patience which my noble friend mentioned at the end of his supplementary question, I doubt whether impatience on our part would do any good to anybody—least of all to the British claimants.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's reply, may I ask this question? Do Her Majesty's Government regard their representations to the Egyptian Government 131 as being protests against Law 138, which is the re-sequestration law, or do they regard the matter as a breaking of the 1959 Agreement, which in fact it must be if one remembers the Minister's statement of July 25, 1963, that the United Arab Republic authorities accept that British subjects whose property was re-sequestrated under Proclamation 138 of 1961 shall continue to enjoy their transfer rights under Article V of the 1959 Agreement? In view of that statement, surely it would be entirely wrong if Her Majesty's Government protested only against Law 138, and they ought to protest against the breaking of the 1959 Agreement.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, I mentioned in my original reply that Her Majesty's Government were assured that the rights of transfer under Article V of the 1959 Agreement would continue to be enjoyed; and that since February, 1963, a number of such transfers—I mentioned 21, totalling £57,760—had been effected.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, I am sorry, but the Minister has not answered my question. Does he, or does he not, regard the Egyptian action as breaking the 1959 Agreement? Could I have a simple "Yes" or "No" to that?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, what my noble friend said was that he thought it might be breaking the 1959 Agreement because the transfers under Article V of the 1959 Agreement might have been adversely affected; but they have not been.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are going to take any further immediate action in the matter. The noble Earl has indicated that he thinks the situation is unsatisfactory. He said that conversations had taken place at various levels. There seems to me to be a much more massive need. What is needed is the strongest possible representation and protest to the Egyptian Government; and that, as I understand it, has not been done. I should like to ask the Minister why it has not been done.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, as a matter of fact, our protests have 132 been fairly frequent and strong. We made representations only two days ago to the Sequestrator-General about this matter. We pointed out that we have not yet been informed of the terms of compensation; and he himself, I understand, has not been informed by his own Government what these terms will be. It is not a question which affects British subjects only.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNo, my Lords, it does not. But we do not represent Egyptian subjects; we do represent British subjects. Is anything going to be done about the British? I do not care what the Egyptian attitude is. It is our attitude I am worried about.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, I quite agree that we are not concerned with anybody except British subjects, but I was anxious to make it distinctly clear that this is not a discriminatory measure against British subjects. That was the point. We have made, and will continue to make, what representations we can, and I think the degree of strength and indignation that we express must be left to the judgment of our Representatives.