HC Deb 23 March 1939 vol 345 cc1481-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, after having had the opportunity of considering the points raised yesterday, he has any further statement to make with regard to them. There were several questions which I raised myself, including the relationship of the Bill to the Government loan and gift to Czecho-Slovakia; and there was also the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) relating to possible procedure in the case of sums of money that are held in safe deposits.

3.56 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon)

I think it will be convenient if I answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman at once. We had a discussion yesterday, in which we went over the ground pretty fully. A number of points were made, and a number of questions were asked. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary, at the end of the Debate, dealt with most of them, but I agree that there are one or two to which it would be right to make reference now, because I desire by every means in my power to get general and as far as may be universal authority for the passage of this urgent Bill. First, as to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has just repeated regarding the relation between the amount of £10,000,000 standing to the credit of the National Bank of Czecho-Slovakia at the Bank of England and the present Measure, I agree with him that it is desirable to make the plainest possible statement on that subject, and I think the correct answer would be as follows: As the Committee know, the £10,000,000, to the extent of about £3,250,000, has been drawn upon, and, therefore, £6,750,000 or thereabouts remains in the Bank of England at the present moment to the credit of the National Bank of Czecho-Slovakia. This balance of £6,750,000, held at the Bank of England for the account of the National Bank of Czecho-Slovakia, comes directly and precisely within the provisions of this Bill, and I think the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he thought it did, but he wished to be assured that it did. That balance is covered by the terms of the Bill, and is blocked, being an account held for a corporation incorporated under Czecho-Slovakian law, just as completely and effectively as any of the other accounts dealt with by the Bill. The position, therefore, will be, as soon as Parliament has passed this Measure, that that account will be held blocked in exactly the same way as any other account which is blocked by the Bill. That is a matter on which we ought all to be perfectly clear, and I am very glad now to have the opportunity of giving the answer for which the right hon. Gentleman asks.

One or two other matters were mentioned in the Debate with regard to which, perhaps, it would be well that I should make a statement. With regard to the question of moving money from one blocked account to another, which was raised by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), and was also mentioned by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), I think the best way to deal with it is to recognise that, if such a case does present itself, it must, of course, be judged on its merits, but permission will be given in all cases where it is clear that the money will remain blocked; we could not, of course, allow It to pass out of control. We shall be prepared to deal with these cases according to their merits. I was asked an important question about payments to industrialists who have come over here from Czecho-Slovakia. The hon. Member who put the question said that some came over here before 15th March and others have come since that date, and have started businesses here. Some, I am very glad to say, are starting businesses in the Special Areas. The hon. Member asked whether people who have done that would find themselves held up in their business transactions by the terms of the Bill or whether he could get an assurance that that would not be so. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary dealt with the point, but I would repeat it because it is important. It would be plainly impossible in such cases for these people to carry on their negotiations with the banks if they had to go to the Treasury each time they wished to make a payment. Nor would that be necessary. Therefore the answer to the hon. Member is this, that where the Treasury are satisfied that there is a proper case for more general permission to enable business to be carried through properly, such permission will be given to draw on the blocked account; and it can be given in a general form which will not require that every one should come back for permission every time.

A question was asked about safe deposits. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) and another hon. Member mentioned it. I have been looking into the matter and I thoroughly understand the importance of the suggestion that there might be a loophole to be stopped. We must clearly have in our minds what is the nature of the safe deposit business. It is the very essence of a safe deposit business that it should give to each person who rents a strong box or a safe, first of all, a key, by means of which he can get in and out and others cannot, and, secondly, that the safe is one which he opens and shuts as he pleases without the permission or authority of the proprietor or anyone else, and that he alone knows what is inside. I do not think that the safe deposit business could go on if there was any alteration in that fundamental arrangement. I therefore question very much whether the suggestion made could very well be carried out. I think it would be a very difficult matter as a practicable proposition, and while I see the importance of testing the point and we shall watch it, I do not think it is possible for us at this moment to put forward a practicable proposal in regard to it.

I think it is much more important to have this Bill quickly operating and effecting its main purpose than to have an elaborate Bill which produces a lot of difficulties. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) thought that the Bill might inflict injustice on individuals in this country who had come from Czecho-Slovakia and on individuals in Czecho-Slovakia itself. I am entirely at one with the moral principle that you should not do wrong so that right may come. I do not want to inflict injustice on individuals any more than the hon. Member does, but I think that the matter is not really quite as serious as he supposes. We are taking every step to consider both classes of cases. As regards persons who have come over here from Czecho-Slovakia, I am confident that we have in the Treasury an organisation which will deal with the cases which arise extremely promptly. As regards those in Czechoslovakia, I am not quite convinced that we are necessarily serving their interests if we say that we will facilitate the withdrawal of money which stands to their account. I think that that is the general feeling of the Committee.

Miss Rathbone

I am not clear from the statement made yesterday whether the money, the balance, will be available for refugees who have not yet become refugees or only for those who are already refugees. That is not settled in the Bill. Is the whole £10,000,000 and not merely the £4,000,000 intended for the benefit of refugees inside or outside Czechoslovakia, and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider arranging that the whole £10,000,000 will eventually be available for refugees?

Sir J. Simon

I must be careful here, because this is getting very near the territory which the hon. Lady was informed by Mr. Deputy-Speaker yesterday was forbidden ground. I can only answer in a sentence. The matter was mentioned yesterday and is not strictly the subject-matter of the Bill. I referred yesterday to Lord Hailey's Committee. I have now communicated with Lord Hailey in accordance with what I said yesterday, and I have reason to believe that my communication is welcome to his committee. We cannot discuss here how much will be available to assist refugees, because strictly speaking the Bill does not deal with that subject. It is a Bill which blocks various credits and assets in this country and prevents their being drawn away. It does not make positive provisions as to what is to be done with them. That is a matter which will have to be considered further. It may be that if we are going to make the sum which we provided in the earlier Measure to assist refugees available in the new circumstances, we may need legislation to authorise it. That is a matter which is being examined and I cannot do more now than say that I entirely share the view of hon. Members generally that we ought to try to devise a useful way of employing this money sympathetically for the refugees, as far as we can.

Mr. F. Anderson

It may be inopportune to ask the question straightaway, but there are Czech subjects who have sent money to this country in various ways, and it has been turned into bar gold. Is any provision made that when these people arrive in this country they can withdraw their assets when they are in bar gold?

Sir J. Simon

If I followed the hon. Member's question correctly, I must answer that I am not quite clear how the Bill would apply, because of course the Bill is in the nature of a prohibition addressed to certain classes of persons—to banks, to finance houses, to any person who is answerable on an account. I will look and see whether the case mentioned is covered, and I dare say if the hon. Member will speak to me or to the Financial Secretary about it we can clear the matter up entirely. I shall be glad if we can now carry this Measure with the general good will of the Committee. It has been rightly described by hon. Gentlemen opposite as an important Measure, and if we can pass it with general assent I believe that we shall add very greatly to its force.

Mr. Bracken

I want to raise a technical question. I am told that a number of Czecho-Slovakian subjects have insurance policies in London. If these policies are to be surrendered at the behest of the Nazi dictators in Czecho-Slovakia and the proceeds forwarded to Czecho-Slovakia, surely that is against the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed to us just now.

Sir J. Simon

The point was mentioned yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth. It is a point which has been looked into, and I think that the answer must be the same as the answer I gave to another question about safe deposits. We have examined this possible loophole. The really important thing here is to make sure that the big and important assets are covered and that that should be done rapidly in a practical way. It is conceivable that there may be a case or two that we shall come across that is not covered, but I do not think that without a very great deal more examination we can make provisions of that sort. It is a very technical matter on which we should have to consult many people. I do not think that the proceeds can be anything at all in proportion to the important sums which we are engaged in putting under an embargo.

Mr. Boothby

There was one point which I raised yesterday, and that was in reference to the outstanding Czech sterling loans, of which the Czech Government did repurchase about half. If the Chancellor will bear that in mind I shall be very glad.

I would like also to make one correction in my observations yesterday with regard to British investments in Czecho-Slovakia. When I referred to these investments I was not, of course, referring to British investments in industrial companies, or in real property in Czecho-Slovakia, which have been seized by Germany for the time being, and which obviously come under a completely different category. I was referring to British balances in Czech banks in the form of cash and bonds against which we now hold equivalent assets. A clear distinction must obviously be made between the two. I also threw out a suggestion to set up some form of public trust to administer this fund, but an hon. and learned colleague told me afterwards that if we could deal only with the Treasury, the whole matter would be handled much more expeditiously and satisfactorily, and I entirely agree.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

I want to raise a point which was put previously in the form of a question, and it has been put again by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken). There has been, at any rate as far as Germany is concerned, a considerable amount of life insurance done, either directly with British insurance companies or through German companies and then by way of re-insurance here. German subjects have had to cash policies and transfer the proceeds to Germany. I do not know how far that applies to Czecho-Slovakia, but I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to look into it as it may involve a substantial sum. I would like to know whether Clause I covers the case of branches of foreign banks operating in London, and whether they will be indemnified in the same manner as British banks.

Sir J. Simon

Yes, it covers bank branches in London whether they are foreign banks or not.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Mander

There is the point I put yesterday, the case of business men in Czecho-Slovakia who, in connection with their businesses, hold balances over here. It may be that under the new German administration the whole ownership has now been changed, that these people have been dispossessed and the shares deemed in Czecho-Slovakia to belong to somebody else. If those individuals come over here and satisfy the Treasury that before 14th March, or whatever was the date of the invasion, they did own such property, will it be possible for them to obtain possession of it?

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey

I desire to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the information he gave to the Committee, and for the spirit in which he gave it. If the country realises that this Bill, in spite of the seemingly harsh form it takes, is designed to operate in the interests of the Czechs themselves, it will make all the difference to the way it is received. The Bill seems harsh, but all the difference is made by the fact that we realise that the Government, in introducing this Measure, propose to act as trustees in the interests of the original holders of the money. Where it is the money that once belonged to the Czecho-Slovak State, it will be held blocked for a time, and ultimately used for the benefit of the Czech people, and where it was held by Czech individuals, the Government, in blocking it now, regard themselves as trustees, and there will be no attempt to confiscate the property. I am glad to have the assurance that there will be expedition in deal- ing with the requests of refugees for leave to draw from their accounts. That will relieve the anxiety of these people, many of whom are very poor.

The Chairman

Before the Debate goes further, I ought to say that on Clause 1 of the Bill we ought not to discuss what will be the administration or policy of the Government.

4.19 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I see that, and I will endeavour to put my answer to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in a form that will not transgress. As the Clause provides that certain things may be done with the consent of the Treasury, it is rather difficult not to consider possible cases and the way they are likely to work out. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton put the case, for example, of a Czecho-Slovak subject who came over here, and was able to show the authorities that a balance or an asset, which was standing blocked under this Bill, was his, and that he wanted it. I do not feel any doubt that, assuming that it was a genuine application, the Bill would not operate to prevent him from getting his property.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.