§ 73. Major HUNTasked whether it is intended that the millions held for Germans by the Public Trustee till the end of the War are to be considered an asset for Germany in the terms of peace; and, if so, are British businesses in Germany treated in the same way?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe question of the treatment of enemy property at present in the hands of the custodian and of British property in the hands of enemy Governments will necessarily come up for consideration in connection with the terms of peace, but it would not be in the public interest to make any statement at the present time as to the precise manner in 1716 which His Majesty's Government would propose that the matter should be dealt with.
§ Major HUNTCan the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether or not the money which has been collected for Germans is-to be an asset in the terms of peace?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI cannot add anything to my answer.
§ Mr. BOOTHIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the outbreak of war very drastic steps were taken in Germany, on behalf of the German Government, that businesses were broken up or charged with great deductions for salaries for several years ahead in order to deplete their bank balances? Will special inquiry be made? \
§ The PRIME MINISTERI will consider that.
§ Sir E. CARSONWhat is the answer to the last part of the question—whether British businesses in Germany are treated in the same way?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI will inquire into that.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWould it not be possible for the Government to issue a statement as to the treatment of Allied property in enemy countries?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI will consider that.
§ 98. Mr. MacVEAGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue a Parliamentary Paper giving particulars of the enemy alien firms already wound up and now being wound up, with particulars as to how the assets are being realised in each case?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman)Lists of cases in respect of which Orders have been made under Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, are published from time to time in the London Gazette and in the Board of Trade Journal. A return of such cases is also made to Parliament every two months. It would be impracticable without the expenditure of a very great deal of time and labour to furnish particulars as to how the assets are being realised in each of the 344 cases in which Orders have been made.
100. Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether leave has been granted to any firm, corporation or company to trade with the enemy since the outbreak of war; and, if so, under what conditions?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANPermission has been given under general licences for the payment of patent and trade mark fees in enemy countries on behalf of British subjects and of similar fees in this country on behalf of enemies, and also for the payment of freight and other necessary charges in order to enable British owners of cargo on an enemy ship lying in a neutral port to obtain possession of such cargo. Licences to import specified goods of enemy origin have been issued when it was clearly to the advantage of this country to obtain them, and the sale of British-owned goods in enemy countries has been authorised in certain special cases. Payments to enemies have been allowed in certain other cases, in order to preserve a British interest. The main consideration in all those cases is that the transaction should be proved to be so greatly to the advantage of this country as to justify a relaxation of the prohibition against trading with the enemy which in other circumstances is rigidly enforced?
§ Sir E. CARSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any licence has been given to sell the property of a British company here, which property is in Germany, to the Germans, large sums being paid by them to the company here?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am afraid I cannot answer that without notice.
§ Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEWho arranges whether or not these facilities shall be given—in whose hands is the power?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe decision in most cases rests ultimately with the Board of Trade acting with the advice of the Advisory Committee.
§ 104. Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that it apparently takes over two years to wind up a German business, he can say what steps the Government are taking to prevent the unwound-up German businesses from continuing after the War is over in this country?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, under which winding-up Orders are made, came into operation on 27th January last, and the 1718 first Order thereunder was made on 24th February. Many of the businesses have already been practically wound up. If there should be any case in which the winding-up may not be complete at the termination of the War, I may point out to the hon. Member that Sub-section (10) of Section 1 of the Act of 1916 provides that "An Order made under this Section shall continue in force notwithstanding the termination of the present War until determined by order of the Board of Trade."
§ Sir E. CARSONCan the right hon. Gentleman say how many German firms, have been actually and finally wound up?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI do not think I could say how many have been actually and finally wound up; but we have dealt with a very large number of cases. If my right hon. and learned Friend would give me notice of the question I will give him full particulars of the various classes; that probably will be the most satisfactory way of replying.
§ 107. Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the head of the firm of Kasner and Company, 191, Regent Street, and other addresses, is interned, and that it is a German firm, he can say why this firm which manufactures and deals in pianos has not been wound up?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANAn Order for the winding-up of the business of Kastner and Company, Limited, was made on the 26th June last, but the assets are at present under the control of a Receiver for debenture-holders, who was appointed by the Court in a debenture action before the Order was made under the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916.
§ Sir E. CARSONWas the receiving order made the day before the Order bringing in the controller under the Trading With the Enemy Act?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI could not say from memory.
112. Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the; former London manager of A. W. Faber and Company, an enemy firm which is being wound up, is now carrying on a similar business on his own account;. 1719 whether he is, with the consent of the I Board of Trade, importing goods from the firm of A. W. Faber and Company, New Jersey, United States of America, which is or was connected with the London firm of A. W. Faber and Company and is entirely German; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is in the affirmative. The Board of Trade did not raise any objections to this importation, nor had they any power to do so.
Sir H. DALZIELMay I ask whether it is not the case that you can prohibit goods coming from an enemy firm in America if you wish?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANOf course, my right hon. Friend will realise that this question turns on what is an enemy firm and what is not. That does not rest with the Board of Trade to determine. A separate Department has been set up to deal with it.
§ Sir E. CARSONIs not the result of the winding-up of this enemy firm that everything goes on exactly as before?
§ Mr. KEATINGUpon what principle does the right hon. Gentleman act in the selection of firms who shall or shall not send their goods to this country if they are associated with enemy concerns in neutral countries?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI think the hon. Gentleman will have to give notice of that; but I must point out that, under the last Trading With the Enemy Act, there is provision made for the drawing up of a statutory list, and if a firm is on that statutory list it is illegal to trade with that firm.