§ 3. Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade how long it is expected to have to continue the Enemy Debts Department; and what staff is at present employed therein?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe Enemy Debts Department, which includes also the Departments for the administration of German, Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian Property, is rapidly completing its work of dealing with claims and with ex-enemy property under the Economic Clauses of the Treaties of Peace, but it is not possible to indicate precisely the date when it will be closed down. The work of the office is kept under constant review, and the staff is being continually reduced. The number employed on 1st June last was 598, as compared with 914 two years ago.
§ Mr. HARRISDoes the right hon. Gentleman not think that 10 years after the War a separate Department on this scale, with a staff of over five hundred people, wants considerable explanation?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERUnfortunately, it does not rest with me, because the Treaty of Peace laid down a great many duties which I have to carry out, whether I like them or not. For instance, there are very detailed accounts which have to be rendered to Germany of all property sequestered. This is one of the most complicated matters. I should be ready to deal with it if I could and clear it out of the way.
§ Mr. JAMES HUDSONDoes that arise out of the policy of making the Germans pay?
§ Mr. KELLYIn view of the work being completed, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries why new people were introduced to the Department during this year.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERAny detailed question with regard to particular members of the staff must obviously be put on the Order Paper.
§ 10. Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any cases in which the legal adviser to the Enemy Debts Department has advised that applicants for the release of 1141 sequestrated property are stateless, and therefore entitled to full release, in which the Enemy Debts Department has refused release or released only in part; and, if so, if particulars can be furnished?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe responsibility for the decision in these eases rests with the Administrator, who consults the Legal Adviser to the Department as necessary, and I am not prepared to divulge the advice rendered to the Administrator by the Legal Adviser. I would, however, explain that in all cases where the Administrator of the various ex-enemy properties is satisfied by the evidence of statelessness which has been furnished to him, the property concerned is released in full forthwith, provided that it has not already been accounted for to the German Government for the credit of the claimant. In cases where the evidence is not considered satisfactory, the claims are either rejected altogether, or, where the matter is doubtful, the claim is compromised, unless the claimant prefers to proceed in the Courts.
§ Mr. KELLYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to furnish particulars to the House in regard to those cases where there has been compromise when statelessness has been proved?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe question is based on a misapprehension. It statelessness was proved the stateless person would be entitled to a release of his property. The only cases that are compromised are disputed cases which, like any other law action, in default of satisfactory settlement would go to the Court.
§ 11. Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the rank of the officer of the enemy debts clearing office who submitted the memorandum making charges against the administration of the office; and whether facilities were afforded for him to be present at the inquiry stated to have been made and to substantiate his charges?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe officer was a temporary official holding the rank of Deputy Chief Clerk. His charges were detailed in writing in a very long memorandum, and no matters arose during the investigation on which further 1142 statements from him were found necessary to enable the charges to be dealt with.
§ Mr. KELLYIn view of a memorandum being presented to the right hon. Gentleman, in which one member of the staff made charges against his chief, was there some reason why he was not called to give evidence, to substantiate or withdraw those charges?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have already answered that question several times. There was no need to call upon this gentleman, because the whole of the charges could be dealt with on the statement made in his memorandum, and for the most part on contemporaneous records.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWhy would it not have been better to call him in his own defence, without dismissing him?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe hon. and gallant Member is stating what is quite inaccurate.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIt was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIt is not a case of appearing in his own defence; it is a case where a number of charges were made by him. As a matter of fact, he was not dismissed; he was given notice terminating the appointment. [Interruption.] There is every difference, as is well known, where an officer is temporarily employed. If I am challenged, I shall certainly justify the action which my Department has taken.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe officer in question tendered his resignation. I would much rather not, unless I am pressed to do so, go into other matters relating to this officer, but, if I am pressed, I must do so.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe have had quite enough of this question.