HC Deb 13 November 1919 vol 121 cc574-81

(1) During a period of one year from the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for a former enemy alien to acquire property of any of the following descriptions, that is to say:

  1. (a) Any land, or any interest in any land, in the United Kingdom; or
  2. (b) Any interest in a key industry, or any share in a company registered in the United Kingdom which carries on any such industry; or
  3. (c) Any share in a company owning a British ship registered in the United Kingdom.

(2) If any such property as aforesaid is acquired in contravention of this Section the Heard of Trade may, on an application made to them for the purpose, by Order vest the property in the Public Trustee.

Any such Order may contain provisions applying for the purposes of the Order, with such modifications as the Board think necessary, any of the provisions of Section four of the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, or any enactment referred to in that Section.

(3) For the purpose of this section— The expression "key industry" means any industry included in a list declared by the Board of Trade to be a list of key industries for the purposes of this Section; The expression "share" includes any stock forming part of the capital of a company and securities of any description issued by a company; The expression "interest in land" does not include a tenancy for a period not exceeding three years at a rack rent;

(4) Any list of key industries prepared by the Board of Trade under this Section shall be published as soon as it is made in the "London Gazette" and may be varied or amended by the Board from time to time.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. SHORTT

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Surely this very vital Clause is not to be presented to the Committee without some sort of explanation. I do not want to use the word "bargain." to which so much objection has been taken, but I would like to know whether this is a result of the conference at Downing Street after the defeat of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I think we might have the favour of an explanation. I was on the Committee, but my memory does not serve me in this respect. This is a very important Clause. I see it includes the words "a key industry." We have not had a definition of a key industry, except the very vague one in the Prime Minister's speech some time ago on the Motion for the Adjournment. This Clause seems to be one put in to hamper trade and industry. Surely nobody in their senses suggests that this is necessary for military purposes now. Surely we shall not be told the old story about plots of land having been taken by the Germans in order that they may make gun emplacements for siege guns in order to bombard London. Surely we are not to be told that we are afraid of the Germans coming over here, in spite of their having no Navy, in order to attack us, and that, therefore, we must prevent Germans from holding land.

Mr. SHORTT

The hon. and gallant Member has answered his own question. The object is to prevent a German or a former enemy alien holding land or being able to control a key industry or holding shares in shipping which may be vital to our own trade. It is for a limited period. How long the period will be depends upon circumstances. The complaint that we have not had a definition of a key industry is not well founded. The Clause itself says that a key industry means "any industry included in a list declared by the Board of Trade to be a list of key industries for the purposes of this Section."

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY

Is this to be put in for strategical purposes? Is it that we are afraid that shipping will be in German, hands at the outbreak of a war with Germany and, therefore, will not be available for us? Is this question of land dealt with for military reasons to prevent gun emplacements being put on land? It is more possible to prevent other nationals than former enemy aliens from doing this rather than our former enemies who are so utterly down and out that there is no possibility of them coming over here wanting to create gun emplacements or to have secret retreats in the Scottish mountains. Is this Clause to prevent dear old ladies from having nightmare lest the Germans come over here and capture British key industries, such as the aniline dye industry, which may make explosives in war time. Is that the purpose? Is it for naval or military purposes or is it only to hamper trade, because that is what will happen, or is it simply to meet popular clamour?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)

The hon. Member is not observing Standing Order 19, which is against repetition.

Sir H. NIELD

There were six columns of a report in Committee on this question, and although my hon. and gallant Friend was present the whole time he did not think fit to utter one syllable. The Homo Secretary promptly told us that the Committee's suggestion was one as to which there was no question of disagreement. It was before the Cabinet. He went on to say that the whole thing was being considered, and they were prepared to put into the Bill the definite principle that there should be no new acquisition of any of those things for a period of twelve months. Then my hon. Friend takes up the time of the Committee by saying that he never heard of it, and he goes into a rambling statement, which is his idea of Parliamentary institutions.

Sir J. BUTCHER

I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Until Parliament otherwise determines."

If my right hon. Friend would prefer the words "during a period of three years," which would be in conformity with Clause 9, I should be prepared to move my Amendment in that form.

Mr. SHORTT

I shall be willing to put in "three years," as was done in the case of Clause 9. This will involve the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: Leave out the words "one year" and insert instead thereof the words "three years."

After the word "alien," insert the words "either in his own name or in the name of a trustee or trustees for him."

Sir J. BUTCHER

I beg to move, after the word "acquire," to insert the words "or hold."

This is an Amendment of some importance. The effect of the Home Secretary's Clause is that those classes of property may be vested in the Public Trustee and may be available for the purpose of paying debts due by Germans to British citizens, because by a Clause in the Treaty of Peace with Germany it is specially provided that there shall be a charge upon all kinds of property held in this country by Germans in order to make payment of the debts due by Germans to British subjects. What has happened already is this: There has been a considerable number of German businesses sold or wound-up in this country, and a considerable amount of property belonging to Germans has been sold. The proceeds of those sales have in every case been handed over to the Public Trustee. Now when it comes to paying the debts due by Germans to British subjects there will be this money in the hands of the Public Trustee for the purpose of liquidating those debts. The Home Secretary by this Clause proposes that in future for three years no German shall acquire land or these other classes of property, and, if they do acquire it, then the property shall be vested in the Public Trustee for the same purpose as the property of Germans which already stands in the name of the Public Trustee—to liquidate debts due to British subjects. I desire to go one step further than the Home Secretary, and to say that, as regards the existing property of Germans in this country, whether land or these other kinds of investments specified they should in the same way be vested in the Public Trustee, and rendered liable for the payment of debts due to British subjects.

This is merely completing the provisions of the Peace Treaty. It is only right and logical to say that so far as there is any distinct property of Germans in this country which has not been already sold and vested in the Public Trustee for this purpose it shall now be vested. There can be no hardship on the Germans, because it is only carrying out the provisions of the Peace Treaty. On the other hand, it will be a very great advantage to British subjects, because instead of having to go hunting about the country and saying, "Here is property belonging to Germans available for the purpose of paying my debt," they can go to the Public Trustee and make application to the Court for payment of their debt out of money in the hands of the Public Trustee. It may be said that a provision of this sort, namely, to vest property belonging to Germans in the Public Trustee for this purpose, would lead to reprisals on the part of Germany, and that they might confiscate or otherwise deal with property belonging to British subjects. They cannot under the Peace Treaty, My hon. Friend (Mr. Bottomley) reminds me of a section of the Treaty which is aimed precisely at preventing that result. No doubt the makers of the Treaty had in mind when they put in that Clause the fact that Germany already during the War had been confiscating property belonging to British subjects, and they very properly introduced this provision to prevent them going on with this course of action. Therefore let us not be afraid of any reprisals. It cannot be done according to the terms of the Treaty. I would ask my right hon. Friend to put in these words which will assist in carrying out the Peace Treaty, and render this German property which is already charged with the payment of British debts more accessible for the payment of these debts.

Mr. SHORTT

There are grave objections to this. There is objection from the point of view of having two sets of regulations or provisions dealing with the same subject. The question of property at present owned in this country by German enemy aliens, at any rate, is dealt with in the Peace Treaty, and already one Order in Council has been made under the Peace Treaty and published in the "London Gazette" on the 24th October, and it says that as regards all property, rights, and interests within His Majesty's Dominions, etc., belonging to Germans when the Treaty comes into force, not being property and interests acquired under any general licence issued by or on behalf of His Majesty, the net proceeds of the sale, etc., are hereby charged, and then it sets out what they are charged with. Manifestly it would be very unfortunate if a question is dealt with by the Peace Treaty and Orders in Council are made under the Peace Treaty dealing with this question that we should then legislate in a way which is useless if it agrees with the Peace Treaty, and would be most improper if it were contrary to it.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Does not the Clause carry us a step further than the Peace Treaty does? The Peace Treaty only creates the charge. This really renders it available for the payment of debts.

Mr. SHORTT

It is available now. So for as seeing that German property is taken to make good claims which we have against Germans, it is all provided for in the Peace Treaty, but this is a prohibition against the people who now own property, property which is dealt with under the Treaty, and it goes further than that.

Mr. McNEILL

Has not the Peace Treaty the force of a Statute in this country? Suppose that a German owner of property were to bring an action or had an action brought against him in our Courts, could he plead the Peace Treaty as a good title?

Mr. SHORTT

Certainly I think he could plead the Act confirming the Peace Treaty. I do not want to give offhand an opinion on that, especially as I am not charging for it. What I would say is that if we pass an Act confirming the Peace Treaty we ought not within a week to pass another Act which does not conform to the terms of the Peace Treaty.

7.0 P.M.

Sir J. BUTCHER

This is a matter of the very greatest importance to people to whom money may be due from Germans. My only object in moving the Amendment is to ensure the speediest and easiest payment to British creditors out of German property, in accordance with the terms of the Peace Treaty. I should like to ask, if the words I suggest are not accepted, what steps will have to be taken by the British creditor in such cases to enforce his charge? I believe there are still in this country some magnificent houses, large parks, and so on, belonging to Germans. The Peace Treaty says that commercial men and others in this country who are owed money by Germans shall have a charge upon those magnificent parks and other properties belonging to Germans here. I want respectfully to ask the Home Secretary, How is a commercial man to whom such debts are due to ensure that these great properties which are owned by Germans are made available for paying him? Is he to bring an action individually against a German, and ask the Court of Chancery or some other Court to declare that the property is subject to the charge, or what other provision is there? If it has all been thought out and provided for, I shall be perfectly content. I thought that the simplest way would be to vest such property in the Public Trustee, as there would then be no difficulty in paying the British creditor out of the money in the hands of the Public Trustee.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes)

We have established a clearing house which is responsible for taking over all German property—not only of the limited type dealt with in this particular Clause, but all types. The property will then be disposed of and the money placed in the hands of the Public Trustee. The procedure is quite simple, and has been published. If anyone has a debt against a German he simply applies to that clearing house and will be paid.

Sir J. BUTCHER

May I ask to whom the application should be made, as I sometimes get letters from these creditors?

Sir A. GEDDES

The clearing house will be under the joint control of the Board of Trade and the Treasury.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), to insert the words "except where necessary for the re-establishment of trade and commerce between the United Kingdom and former enemy territories."

I think it is desirable that the provisions of this Clause should not apply in cases in which the holding of such property by a business man who may be technically a former enemy alien may be necessary for the formation of a company for the reopening of legitimate trade with former enemy aliens. I am thinking particularly of our very valuable Smyrna trade, which, although technically enemy, is nevertheless carried out by people who were and are very friendly to us. I think it is not the intention of the President of the Board of Trade, if he can help it, in any way to hamper the re-establishment of British trade and commerce with those great portions of Europe and Asia Minor which are technically former enemy alien territory, and I hope the Home Secretary will accept these words, so that those who are trying to reopen trade will be, able to go ahead without any fear of being hampered. With regard to ship- ping, although that is only one factor, we have, after all, sold great numbers of British ships to France, and there is no reason why those ships should not ultimately pass into the hands of Germans. I think the number up to date is well over 100—there were 112 before the Recess—and the value of them amounts to £12,500,000 already. I think the insertion of these words will be useful in clearing business men's minds of the fear that there will be hampering restrictions on the restarting of the very valuable British trade between this country and former enemy alien territories in the Centre and East and South-East of Europe.

Mr. SHORTT

If this were accepted it would go very far to nullify the whole Clause. The object is to protect our industry from the incursion of Germans, at any rate, for a period of three years, and if these words were inserted it would be very difficult to say what is necessary for the re-establishment of trade and commerce and what is not necessary, and, indeed, what "re-establishment of trade and commerce" means. They are very wide words, the interpretation of which would not be at all easy, and if they were interpreted in the wide sense in which they might very well be interpreted they would, as I say, go very far to nullify the Clause altogether.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, on recommittal, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.