HC Deb 30 June 1938 vol 337 cc2126-8
83. Mr. Mander

asked the Prime Minister the present position with regard to the case of Mr. Robert Wiener, a British born subject, concerning his property in Germany; whether he is aware that the property of Mr. Wiener's firm in Dusseldorf, valued at about £2,000, has been expropriated by the State insurance office, and that the so-called compensation awarded in blocked marks is equal to about one-tenth of the value; and whether he will take steps to protect the property of British subjects in Germany from treatment in this manner?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler)

I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full statement on the facts of this case.

Mr. Mander

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that American and French subjects are not treated in this way, because their Governments will not tolerate it?

Mr. Butler

I would rather that the hon. Gentleman read the statement I am circulating.

Following is the statement:

In the autumn of 1936, the Provincial Insurance Institute of the Rhine Province in Dusseldorf felt obliged to acquire a number of sites in order to enlarge its offices. Among these sites was the property owned by Mr. Wiener. While, apparently, it proved possible for the Insurance Institute to reach agreement with other property owners concerned, it proved impossible to do so in the case of the property owned by Mr. Wiener, since the latter required that the purchase price of the site should be transferred to him abroad. The Insurance Institute applied to the authorities for permission to make this transfer, but it was refused. In these circumstances, the Provincial Institute was obliged to have recourse to expropriation, in accordance with the Prussian Law of 1874, which authorises the expropriation of property in the public interest. On 17th February, 1937, the Prussian Ministry of State ruled that the expropriation of Mr. Wiener's property was necessary in the public interest, and the Reich's Ministry of Economics, by a decision of 20th October, upheld this ruling. Under the Prussian Law, compensation is payable to the full value of the property expropriated. Failing agreement between Mr. Wiener and the Provincial Institute, the amount of compensation payable to him was fixed by the Regierungsprasident of Dusseldorf. In accordance with Article 30 of the Law, it was open to Mr. Wiener to appeal within six months against the President's decision. No appeal was lodged by Mr. Wiener.

It is not, I think, suggested that the amount of compensation awarded was unreasonable. Mr. Wiener is, however, anxious that this amount should be transferred to him in this country, and on this point the German authorities have felt unable to make an exception to the general regulations which prohibit the transfer of capital from Germany. It is, however, I understand, open to Mr. Wiener to reinvest in Germany the amount awarded to him in compensation.

88. Mr. Thorne

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin in connection with the treatment of British subjects who are Jews in Berlin; and what steps he is taking to obtain compensation for the confiscation of their property and for their exclusion from the Berlin Stock Exchange?

Mr. Butler

A report has been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin regarding the recent anti-Jewish activities in that city, but no case has been brought to the notice of my Noble Friend of the confiscation of the property of any British subject or of the exclusion, on racial grounds, of any British subject from the Berlin Stock Exchange.

Mr. Thorne

Would the hon. Gentleman like to hear my views and the views of my constituents?