§ 10.30 p.m.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "shall," to "cease," in line 41.
This is a drafting Amendment. As the Clause stands, it might seem to involve a contradiction in terms. The point of the Clause, as amended, is that United Kingdom enactments shall cease, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, to apply to Palestine as United Kingdom enactments; but it does not follow that they will cease to be current in Palestine as part of the law of Palestine. The presumption is that the law of Palestine will continue as it is today until it is altered or repealed; but to the extent that United Kingdom enactments continue to be applicable in Palestine they will be part of a foreign law recognised in the courts of this country as a matter of fact, and as foreign law, and they will not continue to operate as United Kingdom statutes. The intention of the Amendment is to make that position clear.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 43, after "that," insert:
- "(a) nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preventing the continuance in force of any such enactment after the appointed day as part of the law of Palestine; and
- (b)"
§ The Attorney-GeneralI beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "shall," to insert: 2908
(subject to such modifications, if any, as may be specified in the order).This Clause empowers His Majesty, by Order in Council, to provide that particular Acts of Parliament should be continued in force in relation to Palestine despite the general repeal contained in Subsection (1) of this Clause. It is just possible that in the circumstances of the transition a literal application might be inappropriate, and we therefore seek powers, subject, of course, to Parliamentary control, to make the necessary modifications. We think that we have covered all the probable cases in the Second Schedule to the Bill, but it is impossible to exclude the risk that other problems might arise which we have not been able to anticipate now, and for that reason we want to have this power. There is a number of precedents for it. The Ceylon Independence Act contained a precedent recently, and the Irish Free State Act contained a precedent a considerable time ago; and there are others.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WarbeyI beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "or application," and to insert:
'to the United Nations Organisation or to any body or bodies authorised by the United Nations Organisation to receive it.The purpose of the Amendment is to make it possible to transfer property either to the United Nations organisation or to any body authorised by the United Nations organisation to receive it. This Amendment, of course, raises again in general form the question that arose on the first Clause of the Bill. I do not propose to go over again the whole ground that we covered at that time, but I want to call attention to the fact that we have had some further statements since last Friday on the question of what authority is capable of exercising jurisdiction in Palestine after the appointed day; that is to say, after 15th May. This afternoon we heard the Colonial Secretary quote a statement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He referred to Mr. Trygve Lie's statement that on and after 15th May, authority:n Palestine will be the responsibility of the United Nations organisation. When the Colonial Secretary quoted that statement, I thought he was quoting it in endorsement. If so, then I understand him to mean that, as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, they intend to 2909 recognise the United Nations organisation as being the body responsible for Palestine on 16th May.We on this side of the Committee have put that question to the Government time and time again. I think that now we nave had an implicit answer to the question from the Colonial Secretary, and also from the Foreign Secretary, we shall also have an explicit answer that they do recognise that the United Nations organisation will be responsible on 16th May. If so, I submit that it is right and proper for us to record that recognition not merely in words, but also in action; in other words, that we should assign to the United Nations organisation in this Bill the property that we normally would give to a successor authority when our jurisdiction terminates.
Here we are not dealing with something so tangible as we were on the first Clause. Then we were dealing with a rather intangible thing—jurisdiction—and the Attorney-General rightly made the point that there is nothing very tangible to hand over when one is dealing with jurisdiction. But now we are dealing with property, and property is very tangible, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware. Therefore, there is no difficulty in this case in deciding precisely what is in question, and precisely what should be done with it; namely, that the property should be handed over to the successor authority, and that the successor authority should be clearly designated as being the United Nations organisation.
§ Mr. GallacherI am sorry that my own Amendment was not called, but this Amendment will meet the purpose just as well. At the same time, I regret that it is necessary that an Amendment of this kind should have to be moved. It would be much better if the Government would give up the Mandate as they should give it up, leaving order and orderly government in Palestine. They promised to do so when they assumed the Mandate. The United Nations organisation would be the proper authority to which to leave the property. I made this suggestion some time ago, but it did not seem to be well received. I was told by some of the fellows outside who seem to know a lot about Palestine that the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary would be torn to pieces by both factions if they went there; hut we could send them, and send M.I.5 2910 along as well. It is quite obvious that, if we are to try to get the best of what might be called the absolutely worst situation, something like this should be done.
What a shameful thing it is that, after 30 years of the Mandate, we are going out and leaving a condition of chaos. In view of the chaos which will be left, surely everything should be done so that whatever difficulties can be a voided will be avoided. I am certain that this Amendment to the effect that property should be vested in the United Nations would leave all those affected quite clear as to where responsibility lies. I ask the Minister—and I am not blaming him for the chaos—to try to make good. Even now, there is still a possibility that something could be done to save the situation, but if we cannot provide orderly conditions when we get out and give up the Mandate, we should do everything we can to avoid any trouble. This Amendment is one that would do something to that end.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanI hope that the Government may be able to accept this Amendment, and if they say they cannot, I hope that my hon. Friend will press it to a Division. It raises in principle some of the questions that arose on a previous Amendment, but it raises them in relation to a different subject matter, and the objections advanced on behalf of the Government on the previous occasion do not apply here. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in dealing with the Amendment concerned with transferring jurisdiction to a successor authority in Palestine, said that jurisdiction was not a piece of property, and could not, therefore, be transferred like a sack of potatoes. That appeared to be his reason for being content with the anomalous position which it was sought to remove from Clause 2.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI hope my hon. Friend will not think me guilty of discourtesy because I was rather slow in getting to my feet; but I want to tell him that I will deal with the point he has just raised on the Third Reading.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. SilvermanI thank my right hon. and learned Friend. He is never willingly discourteous, but we did give him ample opportunity before to get to his feet and, without usurping your functions, Mr. Beaumont, perhaps I may say that I thought he would have done so. May 2911 I add that this is the first time I have ever heard him say he could not get up at once when he had anything to say. But whatever might be the difficulty of transferring jurisdiction like a sack of potatoes, there can be no difficulty in transferring the sack of potatoes. Here we are dealing with property, and there is no difficulty if one wants to transfer that. One has property, one exercises control over it, and under this Clause it is proposed to exercise control over property which, admittedly, is not ours. All that this Amendment suggests is that if the Government take powers by Order in Council to possess themselves of someone else's property, it should be subject to the terms of some trust and that trust, we suggest, should be the United Nations, or any body or, authority appointed by the United Nations.
If the Government were to accept this Amendment they would be acting in complete conformity with the intervention made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs earlier this afternoon. He is getting a little fond of what used to be described by Sir Herbert Williams in the last Parliament as "blowing in, blowing off, and blowing out." That is all he did today. I am sorry he is not here to deal with this Amendment. If the Government accept the Amendment, or if the Committee agree to it, that would be in strict conformity with what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that, of course, we are handing over to the United Nations, or to any body appointed by them; but the Attorney-General later explained that in substance what he meant was something quite different and more in conformity with the diametrically opposite view which the Attorney-General expressed last Friday.
But in regard to property there cannot be any doubt. The Attorney-General sought to reconcile his statement with the Foreign Secretary's statement by drawing a distinction between the position in law and the position in fact, but no such distinction is possible here. They either accept the powers under an Order in Council as a trustee, or not. What the Amendment suggests is that if they possess themselves of any property of the Government of Palestine, they shall regard themselves as the trustee of it for the United Nations, or the Trusteeship Council, or the Palestine Commission, or 2912 any state with the authority of the United Nations, or under the general direction of the United Nations; and that they shall be the beneficiaries.
What can be wrong with that? Sometimes speakers on behalf of the Government on these matters, especially when speaking abroad, say curious things. It was said, for example, at the Security Council at Lake Success, that the cost to Britain of maintaining troops in Palestine was greater than the whole of the Palestine budget. I do not doubt that is so, but the representative of His Majesty's Government did not explain that the cost of maintaining the same troops would be just as much if they were stationed anywhere else. At any rate, the difference does not amount to very much. It amounts to very little. The impression was produced that we were spending vast sums on our troops in Palestine which otherwise we would not have to spend. There is not a word of truth in that.
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond)I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but I cannot see what application his remarks now have to the Amendment under discussion.
§ Mr. SilvermanI am sorry, Mr. Diamond, but I thought they had. If not, I accept your Ruling. I sought to meet by anticipation the argument that we need to hold the property and were entitled to keep it to reimburse ourselves for any expenses in which we had been involved by the administration of Palestine in any period of time. I was seeking to rebut that argument, because there has not been any such expense. Almost every penny has been borne by the Palestine revenues, raised largely from the Jewish community, and not from the Arabs. Any argument that we are entitled to possess ourselves of it in order to reimburse ourselves in regard to expenditure incurred in the past is a wholly misconceived argument.
I say to the Government that they have an opportunity here to make a gesture of good faith. I expect they will say they do not intend to do anything to which exception can be taken in respect of this power. I am sure they will say so, and I will believe them; but I think it would be very much better to have it put in the Bill that Orders in Council which entitle them to take possession of 2913 property which admittedly is not theirs shall enable them only to take it as trustee of what the Foreign Secretary says is the natural successor whom we recognise—namely, the United Nations, or any body under the authority of the United Nations.
§ Mr. PickthornI wonder if the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State can indicate whether all this property is property in Palestine, or whether some of it is property in Palestine. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) tells us that there can be no doubt on the question; but what I should like to have explained is this—is the nature of property upon territory where there is no longer either sovereignty or jurisdiction beyond doubt; or might it not be held that property is itself a conception which depends upon jurisdiction and sovereignty? Is this Subsection really going to mean anything, and in legal sense is there anything describable as property upon a territory where the legislating authority is preceeding on the assumption that there should be neither jurisdiction nor sovereignty? That is the question I should like to have explained.
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsIt is anticipated that very large commitments will be left after 15th May and they will have to be met by the Government. Some of those commitments will be recouped from the revenues and balances of Palestine, and, therefore, the object of this Clause is to ensure that liquid assets can be transferred from Palestine to this country, can be vested in the appropriate authority here, and can be dispersed by that authority in payment of various amounts to the relatives and dependants and to the widows and orphans of people who have been killed or injured in the service of the Palestine administration.
Then, too, there is the question of the custodianship of enemy property. There is a very large sum which was originally owned by enemy nationals in Palestine. Some of this property is immovable and some movable. Of course, the immovable property raises another question, but certainly it is intended that a portion of the liquid assets which can be moved from Palestine will be vested in the custodian in this country who will disperse certain amounts under the law to those who are due to receive them. Thus the Government are accountable internationally in this respect.
§ Mr. PickthornThe Government is accountable internationally? What is the authority to call the Government to account for property which is, ex hypothesi, now on territory where there is neither jurisdiction nor sovereignty?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsCustodianship of enemy property is an obligation under international law. His Majesty's Government was at that time in charge of Palestine and they have certain obligations for assets of enemy subjects and also in the light of obligations under international law.
§ Mr. PickthornAfter 15th May, for property in Palestine?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsAfter 15th May it is intended that certain assets shall be transferred to this country in order to meet obligations which there are at present in respect of cases of enemy property in Palestine. These will be vested in the United Kingdom Custodian of Enemy Property so that if an account, or a demand, is made to His Majesty's Government, those funds will be there to meet it.
§ Mr. MikardoUnder what right?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsThe third case is immovable property. That, again, will require some legislative instrument in order that we may have power to transfer it to any successor authority as the case may be. That is the object of this particular Clause, which enables the Government to deal with movable or immovable property as the situation develops and as the demands upon the Government arise. We ask the Committee to reject this Amendment, for, of course, if the Amendment were accepted we would be obliged immediately to transfer to the authority specified in the Amendment all the assets of which we can dispose, and it would mean that we, in all probability, would have to meet large commitments—large in respect of the finances of Palestine, I mean—and there would be no funds out of which to meet them. We ask the Committee to reject this Amendment and to accept the principle embodied in this Clause.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerThe hon. Gentleman has raised matters which we have not previously discussed with regard to the custodianship of enemy property, 2915 and I think that the Committee are entitled to receive some more information upon this subject. He has divided, quite properly, enemy property into two categories—movable and immovable. So far as movable property is concerned, can he state what its value is likely to be and can he state—which he did not do, in spite of the questions put to him—who is entitled to these funds from the British Government after 15th May?
If we are still liable in respect of claims upon these funds, whatever sum it may be, of movable property, what is the position of the British Government after 15th May with regard to claims on the immovable property which remains in Palestine? Who will become entitled to it one does not know. What is the position of the British Government in respect of claims on immovable property after 15th May and, in particular, I think that the hon. Gentleman should deal with, and give us information about, the position not only of the British subject who has claims against these funds, but also the Palestinian who has claims against these funds, for no doubt there are claims by Palestinians. Are we really proposing to remove to this country those assets which may deal with these claims if they are transferred?
The Under-Secretary has not given us much information about the financial position. What is the position with regard to the public debt? What obligation remains on the British people in respect of that? I think I am right in saying that considerable assistance was given from the Colonial Development Fund to Palestine. As it is proposed that these advances should be repaid to the British taxpayer out of the assets to be transferred to this country, I think we ought to have information about that point, and I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will explain his statements on these matters, which he has raised for the first time.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. MikardoThe longer the Debates proceed on this Bill, the more difficult it becomes to discover what the Government really do believe are going to be the de jure and de facto positions in Palestine after 15th May. On Friday it appeared that we thought there was no clear-cut successor 2916 to carry on the responsibilities which the Government at present exercise, but this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs nominated the United Nations quite clearly as the successor to carry on the responsibilities; and now it appears from what the Under-Secretary has just said that he considers whoever else carries on the functions, or the remainder of the functions which we are at present exercising in Palestine, His Majesty's Government will need to continue after 15th May to carry out the functions (a) of looking after the dependants of servants of the Palestine Administration and (b) responsibility towards the Custodian of Enemy Property for movable property at present in Palestine, though, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he did not say whether it was wholly in respect of claims by British citizens or also in respect of claims by Palestinian subjects. That makes confusion twice confounded.
In any event, the Subsection is itself not clear. When I first read it, I could not understand what it meant, so I turned to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum printed on the front of the Bill. The purpose of the Memorandum is to explain the Bill to people to whom it is not quite clear. Let us see what the Memorandum says. It reads:
It contains other transitional provisions including power by Order in Council to transfer any funds or other property of the Government of Palestine which may be required to meet the Government's obligations …We must realise, of course, that the Memorandum is not meant to put precisely what is in the Bill. It is much shorter than the Bill and in clearer language, but it is certainly not meant to add any point which is not contained in the Bill. What the Memorandum does is to place upon the Government powers by Order in Council to transfer the funds of the Palestine Government with a definite limited purpose. What it says, in effect, is that they may transfer so much of the property of the Palestine administration as is necessary to discharge the obligations which will remain on the Palestine administration. No such limitation appears in Subsection (4) of this Clause.It seems to me, therefore, that the Memorandum is completely misleading on 2917 this point. The reply may be that it is intended, in any event, that Subsection (4) shall be operated in the spirit of the Memorandum and that, in fact, only as much of the property of the Palestine Government will be transferred as is necessary to honour the commitments of that Government. Why put the responsibility on His Majesty's Government after 15th May to honour the commitments of the Palestine Government? Does not this contention on the part of my hon. Friend, in fact, amount to His Majesty's Government nominating themselves as the successor state in respect of the fulfilment of certain functions? If we are going to give up our jurisdiction on 15th May, we are giving up all the powers which we exercise in Palestine as well as giving up all the responsibilities which arise out of those powers. Amongst those responsibilities are the responsibilities of the Custodian of enemy property, and the responsibility for the servants of the Palestine administration and the dependants of former servants of that administration.
Why are we proposing to retain these responsibilities after 15th May when we have given up other jurisdiction in Palestine? Surely the logic of the thing suggests that what we should say is, "Since the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government is going to be terminated on or before 15th May, after that date His Majesty's Government will accept no responsibility for any of the obligations, etc., of the present administration." just as we are passing on the jurisdiction, so should we pass on the obligations. The Foreign Secretary came into the Committee this afternoon—and I will not describe his performance in the uncomplimentary terms used by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but he made it look like a visitation upon the Committee—and in the course of what he said, beyond any question, he nominated the United Nations organisation as the body to exercise power and responsibility.
If we are going to pass the buck to them—I do not dissent from that view, seeing that they have asked for it—why not pass the whole of the buck to them? Why retain a bit of the buck for ourselves —and the most difficult and complicated bit at that? Why not pass it all to them and say, "Now that you have taken over 2918 the jurisdiction from us, which apparently you wanted, judging by the General Assembly Resolution of 29th November, you have taken over with it (a) responsibility towards the servants of the Palestine Government and dependants of former servants; and (b) the responsibility for the custodianship of enemy property in respect both of movable and immovable property in Palestine, and of claims against that property by British and Palestine nationals." His Majesty's Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, as the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, that we nominate U.N.O. as successor, whatever else happens, and that we are packing up the duties and responsibilities, and then seek to sequester some or all of the funds—because there is no limitation in this Clause. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary would answer one or two questions which I want to put to him. What I should like to know is what are the present funds of the Palestine Government? As far as can be reasonably estimated, what is the responsibility of the Palestine Government towards their present employees and the dependants of former employees? What sort of figures are we talking about and what are the amounts which are involved in movable and immovable property?
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)Would the hon. Member tell me how what he is saying is related to the Amendment which is now before the Committee?
§ Mr. MikardoI do that very gladly. The Amendment concerns what shall happen in respect of the disposal or application of any property vested in or belonging to the Government in Palestine. In his speech the Under-Secretary purported to show why that could not be disposed to the United Nations, and said that there were certain obligations we had to watch. If it is in Order for him to say that certain funds are wanted for certain purposes, I submit respectfully that it is in Order for me to ask how much is wanted for these purposes. I want to ask, (a) what are the present funds of the Government in Palestine; (b) what are the sterling amounts involved in the responsibility with regard to dependants; and (c) what are the amounts involved in this matter of the Custodian of Enemy Property? 2919 The Under-Secretary must know what the amounts are on this last point, because he introduced the subject in his speech. I also want to know the amounts involved in movable and immovable property in respect of (a) British subjects, and (b) Palestinian subjects.
If we take a notional figure of £10,000,000 as the total funds, and take the amount required for the purpose he illustrated as only £500,000, what safeguard is there in the Subsection as now drafted that he is not going to take the £10,000,000 in order to honour the £500,000? Might I point out once again that since we are ending our jurisdiction, we have no right to say that we are going to keep some of the funds to carry out the jurisdiction we are ending. If, as the Foreign Secretary said quite clearly and unequivocally this afternoon, we are going to pass the problems of Palestine to the United Nations, we have no right to say that we pass the problems and we keep the moneys. On these grounds the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Ivor ThomasThe answer to my hon. Friend is simple. There are certain obligations now being met by the Government of Palestine, and if my hon. Friend could assure us that there will be successor authorities, and that they will assume the obligations and pay up to the end of their term, then there might be no difficulty in accepting what he proposes; but he would be a bold man indeed if, for example, he would assure us that, if there is a Jewish successor state and an Arab successor state, pensions paid to dependants of the former servants of the Government of Palestine will be paid by these successor states.
§ Mr. MikardoThe hon. Member asks me whether I will give him assurances. I think it would be a waste of time, because I do not think that my hon. Friend will ever accept anything I say, but I hope that he will accept what the Foreign Secretary stated when he nominated the United Nations as the successor state. If he has any doubts about the integrity and probity of the United Nations, they are not shared by the Government.
§ 11.15 p.m.
Mr. ThomasThe hon. Member has enough perspicacity to know that the Foreign Secretary was referring to quite 2920 a different matter. I accept all that the Foreign Secretary said. This Clause relates to persons who may be receiving quite small pensions and who can barely make ends meet. It is right for the Government to assume responsibility for these pensions being paid. As for the question of the custodianship of enemy property, I presume it refers to property held by fairly large numbers of Germans in Palestine. It does appear to me that that property is in a totally different category from property of the Government of Palestine. Therefore, it is quite proper to make a distinction between the passage of that property and the passage of the property now belonging to the administration in Palestine. I feel quite satisfied with what the Under-Secretary has said on that point.
I am not quite so happy about another matter which I did hint at in the earlier stages of the Bill. It appears to me that the end of British rule in Palestine may leave the British taxpayer with two substantial burdens, and I should like to ask the Government if they can give us an assurance that, as far as possible, these burdens shall not fall on the British taxpayer. One is in respect of the camps in Cyprus for Jewish refugees. I can foresee that there may be a quite large liability which will fall to be borne by the British taxpayer because there is no one else to bear it. I would point out to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that if the Jewish population in Palestine, in virtue of its greater resources, pays a higher share of taxation than the Arab, the Arabs are being called upon to pay a share of the cost of the camps in Cyprus, which is inequitable on all moral standards.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanI was not dealing with the whole range of this matter, on which there is no doubt something to be said. I was dealing only with the very narrow point that it would be wrong to say that we would possess ourselves of any property of the Government of Palestine in order to reimburse ourselves for the expense, because in fact the whole of the expense had been borne by the population of Palestine, and of course part of it by the Arabs.
Mr. ThomasI do not wish to see the British taxpayer saddled with the cost if the successor authorities should be unable or unwilling to accept this obligation.
Mr. Seollan (Renfrew, Western)Why should the British taxpayer boggle at having to pay? We are paying £25,000,000,000 for the two previous wars. This is only a flea-bite by comparison.
Mr. ThomasThe fact that we are paying so much for the two previous wars is surely an argument for not taking on any unnecessary burdens now. The second point that arises is the terms of compensation for the Palestine Police. This is another matter that ought properly to be borne by the successor states. The Government have properly given an assurance that, if they do not assume that burden, the Government will foot the bill. I should like to suggest that we should be in a position to sequestrate, if need be, property belonging to the Government of Palestine so that these obligations might be met, and I should like to know if the terms of this Clause make it possible so to do.
§ Mr. Austin (Stretford)Having regard to the fact that we are a member of the United Nations, the Amendment is very reasonable, and we ought to face up to our responsibilities and obligations in so far as we can leave behind in Palestine, under the United Nations organisation for the successor authority, the goods and stores to which reference is made in Subsection (4). But I rise to obtain clarification of a matter raised by the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) on Friday, in regard to the disposal of Army stores and equipment. I hope I am in Order in submitting this. The Subsection says:
for the disposal or application of any property vested in or belonging to the Government of Palestine.…On Friday last, we had a very reasoned argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Blackpool to the effect that there were something like 640,000 tons of Army equipment and stores in Palestine.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe hon. Member cannot go back to Friday. That was on Clause 1.
§ Mr. AustinWith all respect, Mr. Beaumont, may I ask for your interpretation of Subsection (4, a) of this Clause. Am I to understand that that Subsection also refers to Army equipment and stores, of which there are 640,000 tons?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe hon. Member is in Order in talking about Army equipment, but it is not in Order to deal with last Friday's Debate.
§ Mr. LowI am guilty, I am afraid, of misleading the Committee on Friday. The actual figure was given at an earlier stage of the Debate this afternoon by the Government. I do not want to be held guilty by the Committee of misleading the hon. Gentleman, who might waste a good deal of time by arguing about 640,000 tons. That was quite wrong.
§ Mr. AustinI am very grateful for such enlightenment; but it appears to me there will be a substantial amount of stores left in Palestine at the date of our withdrawal. If we owe a responsibility to the United Nations, in my submission we ought to vest in the United Nations the right to use such stores. What will those stores be? They may be medical supplies, and nobody can deny the fact that in the ensuing months in Palestine medical supplies wig be very necessary. They may be arms and equipment, and these might be necessary for any body constituted by the United Nations for the purpose of maintaining order. They may be stores of some other kind, or they might be food, an essential to a country in a devastated state, which we can—
§ The Deputy - ChairmanThe hon. Gentleman's remarks are out of Order. Army stores are not vested in the Government of Palestine, and this Clause deals with property vested in the Government of Palestine.
§ Mr. AustinSubsection (4, a) goes on to say—
property vested in or belonging to the Government of Palestine or any public authority constituted under any law in force in Palestine before the appointed day.In my submission, Army stores and equipment may come within the purview of that Subsection, and if so, the alternative that faces the Government is either to dispose of them——
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI have already informed the hon. Gentleman that Army equipment and stores are not vested in the Palestine Government, and, therefore, do not come within this Amendment.
§ Mr. AustinAll I want to say is that whatever stores may be available in Palestine, whether purely Government property and not Army stores, I hope the Government will see their way to vesting these in the successor authority rather than disposing of them possibly by blowing them up or destroying them in some other way. They should be put to some use.
§ Mr. JannerI should like to bring the Committee back to the fundamental issues in this matter. I cannot for the life of me understand, when we are paying service to the United Nations organisation, how the Government can possibly expect this Clause to be carried as it is. Captain Bourne—I beg your pardon, Mr. Beaumont.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI wish the hon. Member did not refer to the past quite so often.
§ Mr. JannerI assure you it is an association of ideas going back to some years ago when similar matters were discussed. I should like to point out we are not the owners of the Palestine property. We are trustees, and the beneficiaries are those who were declared by the Mandate to be the beneficiaries; and we have no right, acting as trustees, to insist upon taking to ourselves the privilege of utilising the moneys of the beneficiaries for our own gain, without taking into consideration the proper rights and duties which we owe to the beneficiaries. That is why, at this stage, an Amendment is being moved: so that the appropriate body shall decide what sums of money are to be paid to us in respect of our proper claims, and how the rest of the money, how the rest of the property, and the rest of the assets, shall be distributed afterwards. I am not speaking without the book. We are at present admittedly acting under the Mandate. We have not yet renounced it. We have no right, at this stage, when we are the Mandatory Power—and we can only claim to be the Mandatory Power under the Mandate itself—to transgress against the other regulations and conditions of the Mandate. The other conditions of the Mandate are clearly stated in the Mandate in respect of these matters. The only condition that is put in the clauses of the Mandate in relation to termination is that in the event——
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI must remind the hon. Member that in this Amendment there is nothing about the Mandate. The hon. Member must confine himself closely to the Amendment, which deals with the application of any property vested in the Palestine authority.
§ Mr. JannerMay I say that if we are dealing with the disposal or application of any property vested in, or belonging to the Government of Palestine, we are obviously dealing with the proper way of disposing of property which is vested in that Government as a trustee Government, which cannot escape from the obligations that it has towards the beneficiaries who are named in the Mandate. I will take the matter a step further. I think that we cannot deal with mandatory property without considering the terms of the Mandate itself. We have to take the full Mandate into consideration. We were told today that the United Nations organisation was the body to whom we would hand over jurisdiction if it should be in Palestine. May I ask what is the use of handing over jurisdiction to the United Nations organisation if we have not only filched the cash, but have taken the till as well?
What is the United Nations organisation going to do there? We are taking the property out of its control and are going to ask it to take over jurisdiction, if it is able to do so. We are not going to allow it to have what it asks for, and that is, that the movable assets shall be allocated to the Arab and Jewish peoples, and the City of Jerusalem on an equitable basis; that the allocation should be made by the United Nations Commission; that the immovable assets should become the property of the Government in whose territory they are situated; and that during the period before the termination of the Mandate, the Mandatory Power shall, except in respect of ordinary operations, consult with the Commission on any measure which it may contemplate involving the liquidation, the disposal or encumbrance of asssets of the Palestine Government, such as the accumulated Treasury surplus, bond issues, state lands, or any other assets.
11.30 p.m.
There can be no question about what the United Nations organisation wants. There can be no question about the legal or moral rights. We have no legal right, 2925 and no moral right, to take these assets unless and until the international body to whom we are responsible says, as it will say, what assets or portion of the assets, we are entitled to have. Why cannot we trust the United Nations? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that, in the course of a just distribution, we will not get as much as we shall be able to take if we take it ourselves? Why should we not do what is an honourable obligation upon us, and that is respect the body which is the recognised international body to have the funds of Palestine in their hands as was intended, and make our claim properly so that the distribution may be made in a just and equitable manner?
If we do what we say we are going to do and make ourselves judges in the distribution, as well as the recipients, we are doing something morally wrong. We shall do something we are not entitled to do unless we accept the Amendment on the Order Paper. We are committing a direct breach of our obligations under the United Nations Charter as well as committing a great offence against what was originally intended in the Mandate.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerI must ask the Under-Secretary of State to give an answer to the question which has just been asked. Will he do that?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsI was going to answer. I think there is a misunderstanding; perhaps it is due to my own failure to make myself clear. The position is that under this Clause, the matter is left quite open. The Government, if there is a successor authority, can vest such property as is thought desirable in that body by means of an Order in Council. That can be done by arrangement between the Government and a successor authority. The same thing applies to the United Nations. If, as a matter of arrangement and discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Commission it is thought desirable to invest the property in the United Nations, then under this Clause the vesting can be performed.
But it may be that no successor authority will take over on 15th May. His Majesty's Government are already committed in ways which I have explained; they are committed to the widows and other dependants of those killed or injured in Palestine, and in these circumstances 2926 the Government should reserve the power to take from the funds at their disposal the amounts which are necessary to discharge these obligations. It does not in any way commit this Government to exclude the United Nations from receiving the funds. There is no suggestion of that. It merely leaves the position open, and as a result of negotiations and discussions, the outcome will become apparent.
As to the financial outlay, I have some figures which may interest the Committee. On 31st December last year, Palestine revenue balances were £(Palestine) 5,500,000, but, naturally this year, there has been a decrease in the collection of revenues as can well be imagined. Liabilities up to the 31st March, 1948, are expected to total some £(Palestine)10 million; these include a normal expenditure amounting to £(Palestine)5 million and about £(Palestine)2,250,000 in respect of the camps in Cyprus. It is anticipated that on 31st March of this year there will be a small surplus, but that after that date heavy liabilities will be incurred, and it is expected that the revenue may decline still further and that Palestine will be faced at the end of the Mandate on 15th May with a substantial deficit. This deficit has to be met. The deficit will chiefly be incurred owing to these pensionable emoluments which, as a result of the termination of the Mandate, become payable to civil servants and others and to the police in Palestine. The amount of the pensionable emoluments cannot be at this moment stated with any exactitude. We can only estimate it, because we do not know how many of the various categories of civil servants or police will go on pension, or take gratuities or continue in the service. There can only be a rough estimate of the amount of commitments to which His Majesty's Government will be put.
§ Mr. StanleyWhat about the Palestine loan guaranteed by the Treasury? Is that one of the commitments to be covered?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsI have some details on the position of the loan, but I would rather seek guidance on that point and give the right hon. Gentleman an answer at a later stage.
§ Mr. StanleyWhen?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsThere may be a later stage during the progress of the Bill.
§ Mr. WarbeyThe Under-Secretary said there was some doubt who would be the Government of Palestine on 16th May. Surely what we are dealing with in this Clause is not who will be the Government, but who will be the trustee? The question is—shall the trustee be His Majesty's Government or the United Nations? Has the hon. Gentleman any doubt that the United Nations will exist on 26th May or be capable of acting as trustee?
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerThe Under-Secretary has not sought to answer any of the questions I put to him. He has said nothing with regard to enemy property in Palestine.
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsThe Attorney-General will deal with that.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerI hope someone will deal with it. I want an answer to that question and also with regard to funds spent in Palestine out of the Colonial Development Fund.
§ Mr. GallacherI am very worried about the question of property, and I want to put a point to the Under-Secretary. After 15th May how are the Government going to be responsible particularly for movable property in Palestine unless they have the police and military to look after it?
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerOn Clause 1 I asked for a Ruling whether we should put points dealing with the financial position on that Clause or on Clause 3. I had not anticipated that we should get into details about the custodianship of enemy property, finance, or the Palestine loan. Discussion of all these has been encouraged on this Amendment, and I therefore consider that we cannot allow them to go by now, because the Chair ruled that they could not be discussed on Clause 1. They have been permitted to be discussed on this Amendment. I therefore maintain that we ought to have an answer on these points. The Minister says he is unable to answer the question about the Palestine loan put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). I must ask the Government either to give an answer to that question on this Amendment, on which discussion has been per- 2928 mitted, or on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am intervening only to say a word about the position of the Custodian of Enemy Property. The position in regard to enemy property is settled by an international agreement known as the Act of Paris, which lays down responsibility to an inter-allied organisation called the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency. The Government have accepted responsibility, and our departure from Palestine will not relieve us of it. What we propose to do is to remove the liquid assets, which, of course, form only part of the enemy assets in Palestine—and I cannot give exact figures —into the hands of the Custodian. We shall inform the United Nations that we are no longer able to discharge our international obligations in regard to immovable property which remains in Palestine and will no longer be under our control. But so far as liquid assets are concerned, we shall transfer them and shall continue to deal with them in accordance with the international obligations into which we have entered. So far as the total figures are concerned, they do not exceed £27,000,000, but I cannot give the breakdown.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerI had put the question of the claims of residents in Palestine after 15th May and about British subjects' claims there, but I understand from what has been said that claims against immovable property will have to be referred to the United Nations and claims in regard to movable property will have to be dealt with by the British Government.
§ The Attorney-GeneralIn accordance with the provisions of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency and the general terms in regard to these matters laid down by the Act of Paris, enemy assets are in the main to be used for reparations purposes. In regard to individual claims, we hope the United Nations will accept liability for those which relate to immovable property and the Custodian will continue to deal with those that relate to movable property transferred to this country.
§ Mr. LowI would like to have more clarification on the figures given to us rather quickly by the Under-Secretary of State. He seemed to me to confuse, in the short time that he dealt with those 2929 financial matters, the assets and liabilities on the one hand and the deficit on current account on the other. I should like to know what is to be the balance sheet position, so far as can be estimated, on 15th May. Obviously one item which will have to be taken into account is what is to be the approximate deficit on current revenue and expenditure. Unless we have these figures I do not think we can really see what the position will be.
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsI gave the figures in regard to revenue accounts as at 31st March. I stated that there could be no real estimate of the deficit on 15th May, in view of the fact that we do not know how many people are going to go on pension. That is a heavy liability.
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsIt comes within what I am talking about. There will be on 15th May a small credit balance, and thereafter there will be heavy liabilities arising. The intention is that the liquid assets shall be payable so that we shall have something to recoup ourselves from if there is no successor government in Palestine which can take over this liability, or if the United Nations cannot take over. I think it is quite clear.
§ 11.45 P.m.
§ Mr. LowIt is getting a little clearer, from my point of view. It is apparent that this large liability which will arise because of pensions is a continuing liability which will go on. What is the total lump of assets from which that liability is to be satisfied? As the hon. Gentleman knows, pensions are not the only liability which either the Government of Palestine or His Majesty's Government have to face after 15th May. There are liabilities on the loan both for payment of interest and for payment of capital. What is the total of the assets from which we are going to be recouped in order that we or the Government of Palestine may satisfy those liabilities?
With reference to something which the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) said earlier, surely any guarantor is always entitled, if he is called upon to satisfy his guarantee, to lock to the property of the person he has guaranteed? So we have a right in law to look to many 2930 of those assets which belong, as he says, to the Government of Palestine. He cannot possibly argue against that proposition. I do not want to pursue it further than that, but I do want to know much more about the assets of the Government of Palestine from which these liabilities are to be satisfied.
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerWhile the Under-Secretary is thinking out the answer to that, may I ask him what will be the position of the currency on 16th May? Under this Clause, as far as I can see, the assets will have been removed by His Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. Mott-RadclyffeThe Parliamentary Secretary said that he was going to seek guidance on these financial matters. I do not know whether he has sought guidance, but we would like to know what is the position of the Government in respect of the public debt. I believe it is something in the neighbourhood of £4½ million. I think that the Treasury guaranteed the interest. What arrangement is to be made for the payment of the interest and repayment of the capital? These are matters of some substance and to which we are entitled to have a reply.
§ Mr. StanleyI think that we are entitled, in view of the fact that the whole of this subject was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary himself, and that at a later stage he read out a set of figures, to have a definite and clear answer on what these figures mean. I must confess that at the end of hearing them, I was completely confused. We started, hon. Members will recollect, with accountable balances of, I think, £5 million, but that was last year. We then shifted once or twice to rather uncomfortable liabilities. We then got, for a brief moment, to running down in the revenue, and we were left, at the end, I think, with a deficit which, as far as I can see, is about the only thing which the Government will have left to dispose of under this Clause.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a categorical question. He has talked about liquid assets. We want to know—as he must know—what, within a few weeks of the transfer or the abandonment of jurisdiction, the total amount of these liquid assets is going to be. I defy anyone listening to the list of figures which he read out to have made any computation at all. We want to know what will be 2931 the total of the assets which may be available for disposal under this Clause in payment of the guarantees. We want, secondly, to have some idea of what the guarantees may amount to; and in that connection it seems that the Government ought to know whether one of the many purposes for which these liquid assets can be used is the payment of the service of that debt which, through the Treasury, is guaranteed. It is not a very abstruse question, and I hope that, in view of the fact that the pigeon post has been working overtime, we may now have an answer.
The third question—and I think we must very definitely have an answer on this—is, when the hon. Gentleman talks about liquid assets, does he include the assets of the Palestine Currency Board? I could not say offhand what they amount to, or in what form they are held, although I suppose it is in some form of Treasury bill. I want to know whether the Government consider they are entitled under this Clause to divert those assets from the purposes of being a backing to the Palestine currency—whatever the Palestine currency becomes —to the payment of these deficits. Those are three quite simple questions: what is the total amount of the liquid assets on which we can count; what are the liabilities we may have to meet, and whether they include the service of the debt; and do we include among the liquid assets covered by this Clause the balances of the Palestine Currency Board?
§ Mr. WarbeyI do not desire to claim the attention of the Committee for long. The purpose of this Amendment is not simply to extract from the Government a series of figures. During the last half an hour or so it might have appeared, from the speeches made opposite, that that was its only purpose. It really is about something much more serious—about a principle, and the principle is, in fact, whether we trust the United Nations organisation. I intervened to put a question to my hon. Friend, which he did not answer, and I put it again. It is not a question, in this Amendment, of what will be the Government of Palestine on 16th May. He has said there is some doubt about what the Government of Palestine will be. We are not concerned in this Clause with what the Government of Palestine will be. What 2932 we are concerned about is who will be the trustee for the funds. The only question is whether that trustee shall be His Majesty's Government or the United Nations organisation.
Mr. Creech JonesI was under the impression that the answers would be given on the Question "that the Clause stand part," and I understood that that had been suggested on the other side of the Committee. The Committee will appreciate that we are in very considerable difficulty in regard to the assets and liabilities of the Palestine Government. There are few reliable figures available as to what the position is likely to be either on 31st March or at the time when our civilian administration comes to an end. What we have set ourselves to do is to gather up all the information we possibly can as to what the assets and liabilities are likely to be, and to present them for discussion to the United Nations Commission with the hope of reaching some agreement with that organisation as to how these assets shall be disposed of and the liabilities met.
That information is at the present time with the United Nations Commission and discussions are going on. Should it happen that the Palestine Commission passes out of operation, then the United Nations organisation will resume these discussions in anticipation of the situation, which will exist on 15th Nay. We have, therefore, acted in the spirit of the Amendment. It is not that we are anxious to take hold of the assets for the benefit of the British taxpayer. It is that we have been trying to reach an agreement as to how the assets may be realised and the liabilities met. There are some very heavy liabilities, including those in respect of the police, dependants' and pension allowances, and there are quite a number of important funds which are held in trust by the Palestine Government for particular purposes. We feel, quite rightly, that there should be a clear understanding in regard to the disposal of all those funds so that their objectives are achieved, and, further, that the British taxpayer should not be at a disadvantage as a result of our administration in Palestine.
2933 There are some very heavy liabilities, which conceivably might fall on the British Treasury unless this action which is laid down in the Bill is actually taken. It has been suggested that the exact figures should be furnished to the Committee. I have some figures in front of me, which if they are given I am rather afraid are likely to confuse the Committee. I should like to give the general picture that by 31st March it may be that there will be on balance very little in hand. There are increasing difficulties in collecting revenues in Palestine at the present time. Those difficulties will undoubtedly become all the greater before the Mandate comes to an end, and it is just possible that on the balance sheet of the Palestine Government by 15th May a deficit may have occurred.
12 m.
A question was asked with regard to the 3 per cent. Guaranteed Loan. There is no doubt that when this loan was purchased, the Government did give guarantees to the purchasers that the loan would be redeemed, that the interest would be met, and for all practical purposes it was a very sound security. At the moment that loan is guaranteed by the British Treasury and that position will continue. I hope there will be no apprehension in the minds of people that we will not do our best to honour those obligations, but we shall certainly try to transfer this responsibility over to the successor govern-
§ ments when they are set up in Palestine. But failing that, the British Government do recognise the guarantee which was given at the time this loan was issued. I doubt whether I can add very much more that is useful to the Committee, except that I can, of course, flood the Committee with a great number of figures which certainly would tend to confuse its appreciation of the position.
§ I come to the final point that is urged in the Amendment, that we should right away transfer all these funds to the United Nations. I submit that that is a counsel of perfection in so far as, long before these assets are realised, heavy liabilities will have been incurred by the Palestine Government, and it is fit and proper that the Mandatory Power should be in a position to meet the liabilities incurred and thereby prevent these charges from falling on the British taxpayer. It is for these reasons that we ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, and accept the position as stated in the Bill.
§ Major Tufton Beamish (Lewes) rose——
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 178: Noes, 37.
2935| Division No. 105.] | AYES. | 12.4 a.m. |
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Crawley, A. | Guy, W. H. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. | Crossman, R. H. S. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil |
| Alpass, J. H. | Daggar, G. | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R. |
| Attewell, H. C. | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) |
| Austin, H. Lewis | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Hardy, E. A. |
| Baird, J. | Delargy, H. J. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Balfour, A. | Dobbie, W. | Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Dodds, N. N. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Donovan, T. | Herbison, Miss M. |
| Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. | Driberg, T. E. N. | Hcwitson, Capt. M. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Hobson, C. R. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Durbin, E. F. M. | Holman, P. |
| Boardman, H. | Dye, S. | House, G. |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Edo, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Hoy, J. |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Evans, John (Ogmore) | Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) |
| Buchanan, Rt Hon. G. | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Janner, B. |
| Burke, W A | Fairhurst, F. | Jegar, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) |
| Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.) | Farthing, W. J. | Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) |
| Callaghan, James | Fernyhough, E. | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Foot, M. M. | Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) |
| Chamberlain, R. A. | Forman, J. C. | Keenan, W. |
| Champion, A. J. | Fraser, T. (Hamilton) | Kendall, W. D. |
| Cobb, F. A. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. |
| Coldrick, W. | Gallacher, W. | Kinley, J. |
| Collindridge, F. | Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) |
| Collins, V. J. | Gilzean, A. | Lindgren, G. S. |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. |
| Corlett, Dr. J. | Gunter, R. J. | Longden, F. |
| Lyne, A. W. | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Mack, J. D. | Randall, H. E. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) | Ranger, J. | Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) |
| McLeavy, F. | Rees-Williams, D. R. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Reid, T. (Swindon) | Tiffany, S. |
| Mann, Mrs J. | Richards, R. | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. |
| Marquand, H. A. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Ungoed-Thomas, L. |
| Mathers, Rt. Hon. George | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) | Vernon, Maj. W. F. |
| Mellish, R. J. | Rogers, G H. R. | Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) |
| Middleton, Mrs. L. | Ross, William (Kilmarnock) | Warbey, W. N. |
| Mikardo, Ian | Royle, C. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. | Sargood, R. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Scollan, T. | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) |
| Monslow, W. | Shackleton, E. A. A. | Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Sharp, Granville | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Moyle, A. | Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) | Wigg, George |
| Nally, W. | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. |
| Neal, H. (Claycross) | Simmons, C. J. | Wilkes, L. |
| Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Orbach, M. | Sorensen, R. W. | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Palmer, A. M. F. | Steele, T. | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | Williams, R. W. (Wigan) |
| Paton, J. (Norwich) | Stross, Dr. B. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Peart, T. F. | Stubbs, A. E. | Willis, E. |
| Piratin, P. | Swingler, S. | Wills, Mrs. E. A. |
| Platts-Mills, J. F. F. | Symonds, A. L. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Price, M. Philips | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | Yates, V. F. |
| Pritt, D. N. | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Proctor, W. T. | Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) | |
| Pryde, D. J. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Pearson and Mr. Snow. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Barlow, Sir J. | Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. | Low, A. R. W. | Strauss, H. G. (English Universities) |
| Birch, Nigel | Mackeson, Brig, H. R. | Studholme, H. G. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. | Manningham-Buller, R. E. | Wadsworth, G. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Moll-Radclyffe, C. E. | Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.) |
| Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) | Neven-Spence, Sir B. | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Pickthorn, K. | |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Ramsay, Maj. S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Drewe, C. | Renton, D. | Major Conant and |
| Gage, C. | Ropner, Col. L. | Brigadier Thorp. |
| Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) | Scott, Lord W. |
§ Question put, "That the words 'or application' stand part of the Clause."
2936§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes.12.
2937| Division No. 106.] | AYES. | [12.12 a.m. |
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. | Debbie, W. | Herbison, Miss M. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Dodds, N. N. | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Attewell, H. C. | Donovan, T. | Hobson, C. R. |
| Balfour, A. | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Holman, P. |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Durbin, E. F. M. | House, G. |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Dye, S. | Hoy, J. |
| Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) | Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) |
| Boardman, H. | Evans, John (Ogmore) | Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Fairhurst, F. | Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Farthing, W. J. | Keenan, W. |
| Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. | Fernyhough, E. | Kendall, W. D. |
| Burke, W. A. | Forman, J. C. | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Fraser, T. (Hamilton) | Kinley, J. |
| Callaghan, James | Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | Lindgren, G. S |
| Chamberlain, R. A. | Gilzean, A, | Longden, F. |
| Champion, A. J. | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) | Low, A. R. W. |
| Cobb, F. A. | Gunter, R. J. | Mack, J. D. |
| Coldrick, W. | Guy, W. H, | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) |
| Collindridge, F. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil | McLeavy, F. |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. | Mallalieu, J. P. W. |
| Corlett, Dr. J. | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) | Mann, Mrs. J. |
| Crawley, A. | Hardy, E. A. | Marquand, H. A. |
| Crossman, R. H. S. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mathers, Rt. Hon. George |
| Daggar, G. | Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford) | Mellish, R. J. |
| Middleton, Mrs. L. | Ropner, Col. L. | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Ross, William (Kilmarnock) | Wadsworth, G, |
| Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Royle, C. | Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) |
| Moyle, A. | Sargood, R. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Nally, W. | Shackleton, E. A. A. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Neal, H. (Claycross) | Sharp, Granville | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) |
| Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) | Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Palmer, A. M. F. | Simmons, C. J. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Paton, J, (Norwich) | Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) | Wigg, George |
| Peart, T. F. | Sorensen, R W. | Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. |
| Platts-Mills, J. F. F. | Steele, T. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Price, M, Philips | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Pritt, D. N. | Stubbs, A. E. | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Proctor, W. T. | Swingler, S. | Williams, R. W. (Wigan) |
| Pryde, D. J. | Symonds, A. L. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | Willis, E. |
| Randall, H. E. | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) | Wills, Mrs. E. A. |
| Ranger, J. | Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Rees-Williams, D. R. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) | Yates, V. F. |
| Reid, T (Swindon) | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) | |
| Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) | Thurtle, Ernest | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Pearson and Mr. Snow. |
| NOES | ||
| Austin, H, Lewis | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. | Vernon, Maj. W. F. |
| Delargy, H. J. | Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. | Wilkes, L. |
| Foot, M. M. | Orbach, M. | |
| Gallacher, W. | Piratin, P. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Janner, B. | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Mr. Warbey and Mr. Mikardo. |
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond)The next Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) and other hon. Members is not being called.
§ Mr. MikardoI wonder, Mr. Diamond, whether I might ask, with the greatest respect, the reason why the Amendment is not being called. I would point out that it raises a completely fresh point.
§ The Temporary ChairmanIn reply to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), may I say that I do not think it would be in the best interests of the Committee that reasons should be given why an Amendment is not selected by the Chair.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanI beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out paragraph (c).
If the Government had really wanted to get this Bill through quickly, they could, I think, have dispensed with all the matters we have so far discussed, and been content with this one Subsection, because this is the most all-inclusive piece of legislation ever presented. I hope I may be forgiven if, even at this late hour, I read two and a half lines. They should be permanently enshrined upon the records. The Subsection concerned begins by giving His Majesty power to make provisions by Order in Council, and paragraph (c) tells us for what purpose. It says:
for any other purpose which appears to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient in con- 2938 sequence of the termination of his jurisdiction in Palestine.Why, I would ask the Government, have we spent two days discussing Clauses and Amendments in detail when, in fact, there was this completely unlimited power to make any Order in Council the Government likes in order to deal with anything in the wide world? I am wondering what the rest of the Bill has been about. There is just no limitation of any kind here. There is no control. There is no question that any Order in Council that might be made could be held to be ultra vires; all that will be required, no matter how extravagant or unreasonable might be the demand, is the production of an affidavit by some Secretary of State to say that in his opinion—and not necessarily in his opinion—it apears to be necessary to do something. The Order in Council would be valid.Under this Subsection the Government can do anything. I suppose its action would have to have some relation to Palestine, but I do not think it need even be limited to that extent, because if any Minister thinks it expedient, in consequence of the termination of His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine, to do something, it might be done anywhere; it might be in Cyprus, Kenya, Malta, this country, or anywhere.
The Opposition benches are thinly populated at the moment, and yet, during the two and a half years this Government has been in power since the General Election of 1945, I seem to remember that hon. 2939 Members opposite have had a good deal to say about delegated legislation. They do not like it. I do not think anyone likes it, but all of us have thought that, in the complicated society in which we live, some delegation of law-making is necessary. The Government have said it is a necessary evil, and that they will use it only in moderation and only where it is necessary, and subject to any reasonable checks or controls.
I wonder what the Opposition is going to say about this paragraph? Are the Conservative Party going to stand for that? If we divide the Committee on this, are they going to remain in splendid isolation, silent, and not voting? If they do, they are unwise, because some day or other the Government may introduce some other Bill on a more popular subject—perhaps more popular to hon. Gentlemen opposite, or to hon. Gentleman on this side of the Committee. They may take powers by Order in Council to do anything which it appears to His Majesty is "necessary or expedient" in consequence of the main purpose of that Bill, whatever it may be. This paragraph gives complete legislative authority to the King in Council, without any limitation of any kind. I think that the Government, if they really mean to retain this provision, might have limited the Bill to these three lines alone.
§ The Attorney-GeneralIf this had been done in an ordinary Bill dealing with the ordinary day-to-day problems with which the hon. Members generally have to deal in the legislation they pass, I must say I would have had some sympathy with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). This is certainly an extraordinary Bill, as he says, dealing with quite extraordinary circumstances. We have tried, in the face 6f the great difficulties with which our administration has to contend, to deal with every matter we thought was likely to arise and to require legislative provision, but we cannot be sure we have dealt with them all.
The circumstances are so extraordinary and so unprecedented, and the emergency so acute, that we cannot be sure we have envisaged or made express provision for every matter for which legislative authority may foe required. There may be quite unforeseen problems and emergencies, matters of a temporary or transitional 2940 nature which will have to be dealt with under legislative authority at once, and without any possibility of the delay occasioned by coming to Parliament and asking for fresh statutory powers.
That is why we have had to ask for these admittedly far-reaching and exceptional powers. I can assure the Committee that the powers, far-reaching as they are, and exceptional as they are, will be used with great jealousy, and I would remind the Committee that their use will be subject to control by the House. When we get to the next Clause, we shall find provision for Parliamentary control over Orders in Council, and if hon. Members think that His Majesty in Council has gone beyond what is proper for the purpose and to effect our orderly withdrawal from Palestine, it will be open to them to challenge the Order in the House.
§ 12.30 a.m.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerWe definitely take the view that these powers are far too wide. No doubt it is most undesirable to put in a Bill, even dealing with this subject, powers of this character. I think, to cut the discussion short, that the only consolation we were able to hear from the Attorney-General was that these matters must come before Parliament. The fact that these powers are so wide is explicable by the fact that this Bill deals with a most extraordinary situation, and what it has impressed on our minds is that it will be necessary for us to attempt to ensure, when we get to the next Clause, that Orders in Council are proceeded with under the affirmative Resolution procedure, because unless we do that we can have no certainty that the House will have proper control over any general action that the Government may take.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who has occupied a good deal of our time during these last two days, attempted to take a little-more of the Committee's time in repeating the point of view of the Opposition. In answer to him, I will say that I think in general he was right—that is to say, the powers are too broad. I think that if we are to deal with this matter satisfactorily, we should accept the statement of the Government that the powers are inevitable, but ensure that Orders in Council are considered on affirmative Resolution so that the House can deal with them properly.
§ Mr. LowThis Amendment gives me an opportunity of trying to get an answer on the question of compensation to the servants of the Municipal Corporation of Jerusalem. Is it the intention of the Government to use the powers under Subsection (4, a) of this Clause to make provision for their pensions or compensation?
§ The Temporary ChairmanMay I direct the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that we are discussing an Amendment to Subsection (4, c).
§ Mr. LowIt seems to me that if there can be an Order in Council under Subsection (4, a), it would also be permitted under Subsection (4, c).
Mr. Creech JonesI think there is some difficulty in giving a precise reply to the hon. Member. He will appreciate that we have been trying to arrange for satisfactory compensation in respect of British and Palestinian personnel employed by the Palestine Government, but there are special difficulties in regard to British personnel employed by the municipalities in Palestine. Obviously we are most anxious that these municipalities shall accept liability in respect of compensation for their personnel in the light of the changes which are now taking place in Palestine. That is a matter which is being discussed with the United Nations, and I can assure the hon. Member that the point he has mentioned has our very close sympathy and understanding, and I sincerely hope that the upshot of these negotiations will be that justice will be done.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. MikardoThere appears to me to be a very serious feature in Subsection (4, a), and one which it was impossible for me to discuss on the Amendment that stood in my name. The Committee took a decision as to what ought to be done about the property vested in, or belonging to, the Government of Palestine. Whatever decision was taken, the Committee must now consider it to be right, as it was a result of the vote of the Committee. The Committee was impressed by the argument of the Under-Secretary that the 2942 Government would have responsibility with regard to pensions, and so on, and with regard to the custodianship of enemy property, and the contention that it ought to have a right to sequester some part or all of the property of the Government of Palestine in order to have money to meet those responsibilities. But why did the Under-Secretary seek to go beyond the funds of the Palestine administration? I was first disposed to look into this matter—and into the significance of the words
any public authority constituted under any law in force in Palestine before the appointed day,—by the remark of the Colonial Secretary on Friday that he was anxious to build up the prestige of the authority of the municipal councils, the local councils, and the district councils. He is relying upon a number of governmental agencies, such as the municipal councils, to provide the nucleus of a stable government when the Mandate comes to an end on r5th May. I found it not very easy to discover the laws, or the regulations made under the laws, in force in Palestine which set up all these different authorities, and I spent a good deal of the weekend on it, but I did find, for example, a Municipal Councils Ordinance under which there are set up some 38 municipal councils. There is, too, a quite different Village Councils Order, under which there are set up 24 village councils. There is a District Councils Ordinance. It follows, therefore, that the village councils and the district councils, and the municipal councils—in fact, all the various sorts and features of local authorities—come within the definition of the wordsany public authority constituted under any law in force in Palestine before the appointed day.It follows equally, therefore, that it is upon the municipal, local, and village councils that my right hon. Friend is setting, quite rightly, his hopes of law and order in Palestine after 15th May. Those hopes are set upon them, yet they can have the whole of their funds sequestrated by His Majesty's Government in order to fulfil obligations which do not arise from the work of these local authorities at all.The Under-Secretary said that the purpose of Subsection (4, a) was to cover emoluments, pensions, and the custodianship of enemy property. All that has 2943 got nothing to do with the village councils; and why should a village council be in a position in which it can have its funds sequestrated for these purposes?
Nor are the municipal councils the only public authorities constituted under the terms of the definition. The Tel Aviv Municipal Hospital was set up under a separate ordinance and the funds of that hospital are at the mercy of His Majesty's Government under the terms of this Subsection. There are many others, for example, the Moslem Waqf Fund. These funds are of public authorities set up under an 1921 Ordinance and the funds are administered in accordance with another Ordinance of 1927. This Supreme Moslem Council's Fund amounts to about 120,000 a year. These are public authorities constituted before the appointed day. It seems very strange, since the Government reserve these powers under Subsection 4 of the Clause, as my hon. Friend says, only for the purpose of covering certain specific obligations of the Government, that they should not be satisfied with the funds of the Palestine administration, and that they should have gone beyond those powers with the funds in the hands of the municipal and village councils and other public authorities. I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary if he can tell us in his reply what are the public authorities constituted under the law in force in Palestine before the appointed day whose funds he proposes to attach and impeach under the powers which he gets under this clause.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI think I can assure the hon. Member that 'there is no intention of dealing, under this Clause, with the various municipal or charitable authorities to which he has referred. If any attempt were made to deal with any authority of that kind in the way he appears to fear, he would at once be able to deal with the situation by putting down a Prayer under Clause 4 and challenging the Order. But there are other public authorities, one the Custodian of Enemy Property and the other a body of trustees constituted to administer funds for the dependants of persons killed in Palestine. These are the two cases we have particularly in mind and it is in connection with them that we desire this power. I can give a specific assurance that muni- 2944 cipal and charitable authorities will not be affected.
§ Mr. MikardoI am very grateful for that assurance. Would the Attorney-General extend that assurance for municipal and charitable authorities also to the religious organisations, both Jewish and Moslem?
§ The Attorney-GeneralCertainly; the hon. Member can take it that my assurance is given in the widest possible terms. We do not contemplate touching authorities of that kind.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerWhen we were considering the Amendment to Clause 3, we had it in mind to try to give statutory effect to the undertaking given by the Government on the subject of guaranteed funds for British civil servants who have served in Palestine. We have attempted to look into the possibility of this, and we have found that it is not possible within the Order to put it in. The actual Amendment would have secured that very desirable effect. I would be most grateful if the Government could repeat the assurance they gave on that occasion, because of the satisfaction it would give to civil servants concerned. We had a similar problem in the case of India and Burma. I mention this matter on this Motion in view of what we heard from the Secretary of State on the subject of supposed assets and liabilities, but I give notice that we shall pursue these matters by way of Questions in the House as the date of 15th May draws nearer, because the assets may prove to be a deficit when the time comes.
§ Mr. RentonMay I ask the Government what their proposals are in regard to what is perhaps a unique agricultural institution in the Middle East, namely, the Palestine Government Farm near Acre? It has been built up with very great efficiency and success over the past 20 years, and covers a whole range of agriculture in Palestine. It has already been of immense value to both the Jewish and Arab communities. It covers a whole range of farming and helps the Palestinian by improving the stock of horses, the produce of his dairy cattle, and deals with his poultry and plant breeding, and so on. It is also the best example of racial co-operation under the guidance of the British, for I have not heard of any friction marring the work of that farm. It would be a tragedy for the people of 2945 Palestine and a great loss to agriculture in the Middle East if, during the interregnum which we have envisaged, this farm were to be broken up or disbanded. Should the tide of civil strife by any chance sweep across that particular region near Acre, where the farm lies, we want to bear in mind and give some thought to the animals which are on that farm. I feel we ought to have some indication as to whether or not this particular matter is receiving the attention of the Government, and, if so, what their intentions are.
§ 12.45 a.m.
§ Major Legge-BourkeI should like to ask the Government whether the disposal of property vested in or belonging to the Government in Palestine includes concessions which have not been validated. In the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the United Nations, it was laid down on page 12 that:
Commercial concessions granted in respect of any part of Palestine prior to the adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly shall continue to be valid according to their terms, unless modified by agreement between the concession holder and the State.Under the original Mandate, the Mandatory Power was given certain rights to dispose of property and allow various interests to take over and use the natural resources of the country. In the only list of concessions granted that I can find, which is in the Report of the Palestine Partition Commission of 1938, Command 5854, there are listed 11 concessions of which only four have been validated. The four which have been validated are the Dead Sea Concession, the Palestine Electric Corporation, the Jerusalem Electric and Public. Service Corporation, and the Auja Concession, which is also electric.The concessions which have not been invalidated are the Lake Nuleh Palestine Land Development Company, the Tiberias Hot Baths, the Lighthouses, the El Hamma Mineral Springs, and the Bonded Warehouses, owned by the Levant Bonded Warehouse Company, while six and seven deal with the transit of mineral oils through Palestine, the first being given to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the other to the Iraq Petroleum Company. What I should like the Government to tell us is whether these concessions, which were non-validated in 1938, and have since been validated, are still part of the property of the Palestine Government. If 2946 so, do they come under this part of this Clause which gives His Majesty's Government power by Order in Council to make provision for them, or are they covered by the ruling of the United Nations about concessions in general?
Lastly, I would like to ask what is the situation regarding applicants for concessions who applied before the war and who, owing to the war, were not allowed to go ahead with their projects. Will the assurances given to them before the war still be binding on whoever takes over, or will the whole thing be null and void? There have been considerable assurances given to certain people about these concessions and I think it would be only fair to them that they should be told where they stand now. I know some have been in touch with the Foreign Secretary and have not been able to get much response from him up to the moment.
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsOn the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), it is true that many of the European and British staff concerned will be offered employment by the Colonial Office in other parts of the Colonial Empire. It is hoped also that a large proportion of the local Palestinian staff will be taken on by the successor authority. On this basis certain terms have been offered to both classes of public servant. The main question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman was as to the guarantees. In the case of British staff, the benefits which we have announced have been guaranteed outright by the Government without prejudice to the right to reclaim such amounts as may be paid out from the successor authority. With regard to the local Palestinian staff, the Government have guaranteed payment of benefits until such time as the successor authorities have emerged and are capable of taking over the liability. There is just that difference between the two. I can give a very rough estimate of the cost of this. The recurrent amount will be £822,000 and the non-recurrent £2,880,000.
As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), arrangements have been made to enable the municipality of Acre to take over the Government farm, and continue to run it. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of 2947 Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), I am not quite sure what the position is with regard to all the undertakings he mentioned. With regard to some of them, such as the agreement between the Palestine Government and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the Consolidated Oil Refinery Company, Limited, and other oil companies in Palestine, we have tried to establish with the United Nations some agreement as to their continuation, but that is a subject of negotiation, and I cannot say at the moment what is going to happen to the concessions. The Government will naturally do their best to ensure, when the successor government takes over, that they are safeguarded by the successor government.
§ Major Legge-BourkeCould the hon. Gentleman say whether the non-validated ones are to be considered as concessions in the same light as those which have been validated, and whether there is any difference between them?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsI am not aware of the exact position in that matter, but will go into it and write to the hon. and gallant Member.
§ Mr. RentonOn a point of Order. Could the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) be invited to purge the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) for lying in that exceedingly prone and impolite position?
§ Mr. GallacherThe hon. Member is duly reprimanded.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.