HC Deb 25 November 1949 vol 470 cc695-721

Amendments made: In page 6, line 21. leave out "or."

In line 26, leave out "International."

In line 32, at end, insert: or, (iv) a sum due at the passing of this Act in respect of any bond of the Konversionskasse 4 per cent. Sterling Bonds."—[Mr. GlenvilHall.]

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Assheton

I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, after "Germany," to insert: except, in cases where such body of persons is beneficially owned or controlled by British subjects or corporations, to the extent of such British beneficial ownership or control. This is a fairly simple Amendment designed to protect the position of British interests in German companies. In a number of cases there are assets in this country belonging to German companies which are themselves in turn partly or wholly owned by British companies. It seems wrong that the property of such German companies should, without discrimination, be treated as German enemy property. Our Amendment proposes that this property should be left out of the definition of German property in proportion to the degree of ownership or control exercised by British interests in the German company concerned. It is a reasonable proposition and will at last give the Financial Secretary the opportunity of conceding one of my Amendments.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Although I cannot go all the way with the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that when this Bill reaches another place we may be able partially to satisfy his ambition. It seems to us that there are two types of property envisaged. There are first the ordinary trade debts which normally would fall to be paid by the German company in Germany. We see no reason why we should take over that obligation here. On the other hand, where there are capital assets in this country which belong to a German subsidiary, which, in turn, belongs to a British company, we step into another realm, and we feel that there is a case for consideration. As I say, I undertake now to have that case considered, and I hope to produce something in another place which will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

Colonel Dower

I am not an expert on company law, but I am wondering whether that includes the case where a proportion of the German company's shares are held by British investors, or must it be a subsidiary?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

It must be controlled but not entirely owned, because very often shareholders on a racial basis are spread fairly widely. It must be a company that is controlled and very largely owned by a British company.

Mr. John Foster (Northwich)

When the right hon. Gentleman comes to consider the matter, he might bear in mind the wording of paragraph (e). The principle is already there for the converse case, and what is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander. Paragraph (e) describes a corporation in Germany, and it goes on to say that such a corporation shall be deemed to be a German company if it is controlled by German nationals, another German company, and so on, as defined in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). The right hon. Gentleman may find some assistance on the point of control. In the Amendment, in order to get rid of the difficulty where a company was controlled on a 60–40 basis, we state the extent to which it was controlled by British interests. We think the formula might be that if a German company were controlled on the basis of 60–40, 40 would go to the general pool and 60 to the British company over here.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Bottomley

I beg to move, in page 7, line 19, at the end, to insert: 'German national' does not include any person who acquired German nationality by reason of the inclusion in the German State after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, of any territory not comprised therein on that day. This is a drafting Amendment. Under the Bill it might be held that an Austrian resident in Germany after the Anschluss is, ipso facto, a German, in which case his property would be German enemy property. It is not intended that an Austrian who acquired German nationality merely by reason of the incorporation of Austria into the German Reich should be included in the expression "German national," and the Amendment makes this clear.

Mr. S. Silverman

I am encouraged by the Amendment, and greatly relieved to hear my hon. Friend describe it as merely a drafting Amendment, because it is exactly like the one I have next on the Order Paper, namely, in page 7, line 19, at the end, to insert: 'German national' does not include any person who was deprived of liberty pursuant to any German law, decree, or regulation discriminating against any political or religious or racial group or other organisation who did not enjoy full rights of citizenship at any time between the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the abrogation of such law, who has left Germany or intends to leave Germany within a reasonable time after the passing of this Act who did not act against the cause of the United Kingdom and her Allies during the war and does not include any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law decree or regulation. My Amendment might perhaps be considered as an Amendment to my hon. Friend's Amendment; that might be the most convenient way for the Committee to deal with it.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles)

If the present Amendment is made, obviously it would not be possible to add another definition of "German national," so I think the hon. Gentleman should discuss his Amendment now.

Mr. Silverman

I am much obliged, Mr. Bowles. May I ask whether I shall be in Order later in moving it as an Amendment to the one just moved by my hon. Friend, to make his Amendment, as amended, read: 'German national' does not include any person who acquired German nationality by reason of the inclusion in the German State after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, of any territory not comprised therein on that day or any person who was deprived of liberty pursuant to any German law, decree, or regulation discriminating against any political or religious or racial group or other organisation who did not enjoy full rights of citizenship at any time between the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the abrogation of such law, who has left Germany or intends to leave Germany within a reasonable time after the passing of this Act who did not act against the cause of the United Kingdom and her Allies during the war and does not include any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law decree or regulation.

The Deputy-Chairman

I will consider that. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman could perhaps go on with his speech.

Mr. Silverman

I was saying that my hon. Friend is hardly in a position to resist my Amendment because it does exactly the same thing for another class of persons whose rights to be exempted from the unamended definition of "German national" are not in dispute and never have been in dispute since the agreement of 21st November, 1947.

I would particularly draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the last category of persons affected by my Amendment, namely— any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law decree or regulation. If, for some incomprehensible reason, my hon. Friend feels compelled not to accept the rest of my Amendment, he might still be prevailed upon to accept those last few words because they fall absolutely into line with his Amendment. He is saying that merely formal or technical German nationality shall not be enough. He is saying that in the case of a citizen of Czechoslovakia or Austria or any other country at a later time overrun by force, and by force incorporated in the German Reich—although, during the period of that occupation and enforcement, he would, by international law, be a German citizen—it would be wrong to regard him in any real sense as a German citizen because that would be to recognise what the war was fought to deny, namely, the right of the Government of Hitler to make Germans any people he wanted to make Germans and was powerful enough by his unopposed force to make Germans.

I am saying in the latter words of my Amendment that by an absolutely exact parity of reason it shall not apply to those persons deprived by Hitler of their German nationality. If a man is not really a German national in any of the senses we accept for this purpose, then he ought to be excluded by statutory definition from being so regarded or from suffering any of the effects of being so regarded.

My hon. Friend has thought it right to do that for people who were forcibly and wrongly included in the definition. I say it would be equally right that those who were forcibly and wrongly excluded should not suffer penalties as though they had remained German citizens. In view of what my hon. Friend has said about his own Amendment, I anticipate that he will be willing to accept the latter portion of my Amendment, if not the whole of it.

The rest of my Amendment is designed to give statutory effect tc our international obligations. It is really the same point as was argued on another Amendment, although it appears here in a different form. Whereas the previous Amendment was intended to be a statutory delimitation of the discretion of the Board of Trade, this is intended to be a statutory definition of what is German enemy property, exactly on the lines of the international agreements to which reference has already been made.

I think my hon. Friend, on consideration, may be able to accept the whole of my Amendment but if he feels he cannot do so, for reasons given on a previous Amendment which may satisfy him but do not satisfy me, I hope he will be able to accept at least the latter part.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add: or who was deprived of liberty pursuant to any German law, decree, or regulation discriminating against any political or religious or racial group or other organisation who did not enjoy full rights of citizenship at any time between the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the abrogation of such law, who has left Germany or intends to leave Germany within a reasonable time after the passing of this Act who did not act against the cause of the United Kingdom and her Allies during the war and does not include any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law decree or regulation."—[Mr. S. Silverman.]

Mr. E. Fletcher

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, particularly that part of his Amendment which suggests that the disadvantages of those who fall within the category of the German national should not be imposed upon those who have been deprived of their German nationality by virtue of those German decrees or regulations which discriminated against them because of their political, religious or racial origins.

It would be in line with the Amendment discussed in Committee today, and in particular with the Amendment for limiting the class of German national whose property will be dealt with under this Bill, if we exclude those persons who have been deprived of German nationality because they were victims of the German State and are not the type of persons whose property is intended to be dealt with under this Bill.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley

Some reference has been made to the friendly mood of the Committee. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to meet the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had he made a reasonable appeal instead of one which is friendly but does not quite fit the standard required to enable me to describe it as a reasonable appeal. It is not a reasonable appeal, for this reason. What I tried to do earlier was to define "German national" because that did not appear in the Bill. What my hon. Friend is now trying to do is not to define "German national" but to try to exclude from the definition of "German enemy property" the property formerly belonging to certain classes of individuals.

Mr. S. Silverman

I cannot follow this. The Amendment of my hon. Friend says 'German national' does not include any person who acquired German nationality. in certain ways. My Amendment says that … was deprived of his German nationality … in certain ways. Since we are agreed that the deprivation and the acquisition of it were both wrongful, I cannot understand what distinction my hon. Friend is seeking to draw.

Mr. Bottomley

The distinction is quite clear. It is an intention to exclude not on the basis of nationality but of property.

Mr. Silverman

No. That may be the effect of some parts of my Amendment but the whole of it follows exactly the same form as the Amendment of my hon. Friend and there is no difference between their objectives. Why does my hon. Friend wish to exclude from the definition of German nationality those persons who acquired German nationality by the inclusion of their territories in the German State after a certain date? He wants to do it because if he does not do so, they will lose their property under the Bill, and he does not think it right that they should. Neither do I. The only way in which he can prevent that is by denning "German national" so as to exclude them. That is exactly what I am doing. We are both concerned to preserve to individuals property which we both believe they ought not to lose.

Mr. Bottomley

If we are both in agreement, then what I have said on the Government Amendment should meet the point of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Silverman

No.

Mr. Bottomley

It is when my hon. Friend wants to go further with his intention that I differ with him. In that way he carries further the intention of the Government. I cannot accept on behalf of the Government something which alters what we tried to effect in the form of the Amendment defining "German national".

With regard to the other matters which have been mentioned, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said earlier that he was by no means convinced by what I had said. Even if I were to continue speaking much longer, I do not think I should convince him further, but I repeat that what I have said is in the best interests of those affected by the Bill and that as the result of the discretion given to the Board of Trade rather better service was achieved in meeting these claims than if the matter were dealt with statutorily.

Mr. Foster

I should have thought it better to include that provision in the Bill. I do not necessarily go as far as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in thinking that his is the right way to deal with the matter. I rather agree with the Secretary of Overseas Trade, but I disagree with his sentiment that the purpose is better achieved by regulation. It is important that the principles embodied in the Amendment should be inserted in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman has thought fit in his Amendment to achieve his objects by defining nationality. I am inclined to agree that that is straining the conception of nationality, but I entirely agree with the reason behind the Amendment—that these requisites should be inserted in the Bill. They are part of a solemn agreement entered into between the Government and the other Powers at Brussels. Questions were asked on Second Reading whether the rules were not being too strictly and narrowly interpreted by the Government. If, therefore, these rules were inserted in the Bill—they could easily be included, for instance, in Clause 1 (6), where, presumably, it is intended to put them—a direction could be given that the Order in Council should follow these principles.

We compare unfavourably, I think, with other countries who signed the same agreement, and who are trying to carry out the same rules, by having our interpretations held up to comparison. A person with property in the United States, England, Holland and France, for instance, gets a release of his property in the United States and in the other countries but not here. If these rules were inserted in the Bill, a judicial interpretation of them would be possible. In that event we would not have had these interpretations about deprivation of liberty.

For those reasons I support the principle of the Amendment that a definition should be inserted somewhere in the Bill. I commend this matter to the further consideration of the hon. Gentleman, to see whether he can meet the desire of hon. Members that we should do justice to those affected by the Bill and that the rules should be capable of interpretation on equitable lines.

Mr. S. Silverman

I apologise for troubling the Committee again, but my point is an important one. I follow the argument of my hon. Friend about the extension which would be introduced by the bulk of my Amendment to the Amendment, and I sympathise with the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) that this may be another way of putting the matter into the Bill. I have tried other ways which were less forceful and they have failed, so perhaps I may be excused for making another attempt in this way.

All the objections which have been put forward do not apply to the last category mentioned in my Amendment, which does not include any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law, decree or regulation. We all know that by the Nuremberg laws persons who were Jews or the children of Jews, or had one grandparent who was a Jew, were deprived of German nationality altogether. I cannot for the life of me see what distinction is to be drawn between an Amendment which says that those persons are not German nationals for the purpose of penalising them and the Amendment of my hon. Friend which says that Austrians and Czechs and others in a like case should not be penalised by being forcibly included in the definition of German nationality.

Although I quite appreciate that there may be the kind of differentiation to be made between the first category in my Amendment and those covered by my hon. Friend's Amendment, there is no such distinction to be drawn between those covered by my hon. Friend's Amendment and those covered by the last three lines of mine. I feel that if my hon. Friend will reconsider this he will see that the logic of it is quite impeccable. The justice of it we are agreed about already. The Government are already committed to the purpose which would be achieved and have repeatedly committed themselves to it in the discussion today, as well as the Debate on Second Reading.

If my hon. Friend had not thought it necessary to move his Amendment, then my argument for the last three lines of mine would have had less force, but since he has thought it right to do it in the cases covered by his Amendment. I cannot understand why he should wish to discriminate against those covered by mine. In his case also he could have exercised his powers under Clause 1 (6) and dealt with the matter administratively. All his arguments about my case not being up to standard apply as much to his case as to mine, and he has thought it right—I am not quarrelling with him; I agree with him—to define German nationality in the proper way with regard to occupied territories.

All I am asking him to do is to define German nationality for the same purposes in the case of those who were deprived of their rights as citizens, of the right to be protected by their Government, and thereby were just as much allies of this country throughout the war as any Austrian or Czech. What- ever administrative or machinery arguments may have influenced the Government in rejecting all the previous Amendments, they cannot apply to my Amendment to the Amendment, or at any rate not to the last three lines of it, which I should have thought were quite indistinguishable from the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend himself. I beg him to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Janner

I do not know whether reference has yet been made to the provisions of the enactment dealing with similar matters in America. The words of the proviso there are: Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (e) … which dealt with enemy properties— return may be made to an individual who as a consequence of any law, decree or regulation of the nation of which he was then a citizen or subject discriminating against political, racial or religious creeds as at any time between 7th December, 1941… That is a different date from that in our legislation— … and the time when such law or regulation was promulgated, shall enjoy full rights of citizenship under the law of such nation. I wonder whether between now and the next stage of this Bill, the Government would consider inquiring how this exemption has worked in the case of the United States. I wonder if my hon. Friend would see his way afterwards, on being satisfied that that was a reasonable provision there and that it has not in any way acted detrimentally to the proper interests of the United States, to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), or a modified form of it.

I think that it is impossible to deny the plea made about the last sentence. It is obvious, in view of the fact that this Bill deals with enemy nationals who were nationals of Germany in 1939, and remembering that from 1939 there was oppression against the victims up to 1941 when the Act was passed taking away the nationality of Germans, that we still have included the group who could not possibly be regarded as enemies. I know that my hon. Friend is sympathetically disposed towards the purpose of the appeal which has been made to him, but I agree with those who have said that once these matters go outside this Committee and the question of intepretation is left to individuals, it should be put in a form which is clear and categorical so that there should be no misunderstanding and so that his own wishes should be carried into effect.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

What my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade said is true, and I think that the Committee would be wise to accept it in view of the surrounding circumstances. We moved this Amendment not because the Bill as drafted does not in the view of most of us cover the people who lived in Czechoslovakia or in Austria; we moved it in order to make it clear beyond per-adventure that that is exactly what we wish to exclude when we define a German national. But that is rather different from the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). It appears to me that what they desire to do is, by these words, to exclude the very people that the I.A.R.A. would wish to protect. We think that that would be an unwise step to take.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman

Would my right hon. Friend show how that argument bears upon the last category—the last few lines of my Amendment? I appreciate how it applies to the other.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I was saying, and apparently I carry my hon. Friend with me, that it would place those to whom I have referred outside the rules which have been laid down for their protection. I think he will agree that neither he nor I nor anyone in this Committee desires to do that. He asked me to direct my attention to the last part of his Amendment. I have looked at the last part and I have taken it in association with the rest, and without meaning to be discourteous to him I must say that in my view it would be completely unworkable. The individual concerned who will be outside the definition has to have left Germany between 1st September, 1939, and so on, or he has to leave it within a reasonable time after the passing of the Act. All those limitations would have to be taken into consideration either by the Custodian of Enemy Property or by the administrator.

These final words only add to the definition and make it even more difficult for the Custodian or the administrator to decide who was or was not a German national. I hope the Committee will accept that view. We have every sympathy with the problem which my hon. Friend has put with such clarity and persistence. We think that his Amendment will not help him or those whom he wishes to help, and that it is much better to leave the matter as it is in the hands of the Board of Trade who have up to now, with one or two exceptions only, operated these rules with great fairness.

Mr. S. Silverman

My right hon. Friend has been kind enough to pay a compliment to my lucidity. Having regard to what he has said, I can only think that that compliment was grossly undeserved, because I do not seem to have made myself at all clear to him. There is no necessary connection at all between the last three lines and the rest of my Amendment to the Amendment. It is put as one Amendment for exactly the same reason as the Chairman directed me to treat my Amendment as an Amendment to the Amendment before the Committee, because one could not have a series of Amendments starting: 'German national' does not include… One should have the words: 'German national' does not include … and then the whole series of categories.

The last three lines are nowhere to be found in any of the international agreements that we have been talking about. All the rest of my Amendment is. The two points are clearly separable. If my right hon. Friend had said that he would accept an Amendment containing the last three lines and reject the rest, I would have been very grateful and glad to accept his proposal. So far from making any increased difficulty, it may well be that my Amendment is unnecessary because I think that it is a matter of law that who are German nationals at any time must be determined by the sovereign authority of the country of which they are or are not deemed to be nationals. If a man can prove that on the relevant date he was by a German decree deprived of his nationality, I think that he is, even with my Amendment, entitled to go to to the courts and to say, "This Act does not apply to me." There may be differences of opinion about that.

It is precisely because there may be differences of opinion that I thought it worth while to put the Amendment down, or at least the last three lines of it.

It is for exactly that reason that the Government put down their own Amendment, because the same kind of argument as I am now advancing is a possible one, in regard to the victims of the Nuremberg laws, which might have been advanced by a citizen of Austria or Czechoslovakia, and it is in order to get rid of the difficulties in which such a person would be placed—an Austrian or Czechoslovakian—that my hon. Friend has put down his Amendment. I think he was perfectly right to do so, and to meet exactly the same kind of difficulty I put down my own Amendment. After listening with great attention, and with the utmost confidence in the goodwill of my right hon. Friend, I am still totally unable to understand on what grounds he discriminates between the two.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. Fletcher

May I raise a rather different question, which concerns the first part of Clause 8 of the Bill, in which it seems to me there is considerable ambiguity? I refer to subsection (1, a, b), which refers to: any British subject or British protected person resident or carrying on business on that day in the United Kingdom. As I understand it, the Bill will enable a sum of approximately £12 million to be divided among various claimants, and the persons who will be entitled to present claims to participate in this sum are persons who establish claims in respect of German enemy debts. German enemy debts are defined in the first part of Clause 8 as meaning sums due on the 3rd September, 1939, by various persons, such as the German State, German individuals or German corporations, to any of the following persons: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; any British subject or British protected person resident or carrying on business on that day in the United Kingdom; any body of persons (whether corporate or unincorporate) which on that day was a body incorporated or constituted under the laws in force in the United Kingdom;". It seems to me that those words may have one of two totally different meanings. They may be intended to refer to persons who were British subjects, or had some other kind of British qualifications, such as a person resident in a British mandated territory on 3rd September, 1939, and, if it has that meaning, then it will limit very considerably the class of claimants. As the words stand, however, they may equally well refer to a much wider category of people, namely, persons who, though not of British nationality on 3rd September, 1939, have, since that date, acquired British nationality and are today British subjects.

There are at least 20,000 or 30,000, and I think very many more, former German nationals or other persons who were not British subjects on 3rd September, 1939, but were resident in this country, and had, in that sense, had the benefit of British protection. Whether they should now be included in the phrase "British protected person" or not I do not know, because this is the first time I have come across that particular phrase in a Bill or an Act of Parliament.

Many of these persons were refugees from Nazi oppression who escaped to this country before 1939, have been living here for 10 years or so, and a great many of whom, I imagine, would be claiming against either the German State, German individuals or German corporations, in a great many cases, no doubt, for very considerable sums of money. Before we part with this Clause, we must know whether it is intended that this large body of people, who are now British subjects but were not British subjects on 3rd September, 1939, are or are not included in the benefits of the Bill. It is completely ambiguous, and I am not now arguing the merits of the question whether they should be included or not, because, as I understand it, on any construction of the Bill there will be a very much larger amount of money claimed against this fund than the fund which is limited to about £12 million can possibly hope to satisfy.

There is the further drawback that is open to the Executive, by giving directions, to give priority to one class of claimant against this fund over another, and we do not yet know what directions of that kind will be given by the Government. On principle, it seems to me that it would be unfortunate, in a Bill of this kind or in any Bill, to discriminate as between British subjects, and to any differentiation against British naturalised subjects over British born subjects, and I therefore hope that we may have some clarification of the matter before we pass this Clause.

Mr. Foster

I should have thought that the phrase "British protected person" was a term of art which had a definite meaning applying to the sort of people we used to have in the Indian States, and so on. The words "British protected person," constitute a regular expression in English constitutional law.

On the point of principle, I should have thought that even if it does increase the number of claimants we should, as a matter of principle, alter the Bill to include people resident in England on that date, or who had a domicile here. It seems that it is the effect of the Bill that somebody who has been living here for 40 years, who has been counted as a part of the community, but who has never acquired British nationality, may be penalised. We have always treated the community over here as one entity, comprising foreigners and non-foreigners. For instance, a foreigner who lives here owes allegiance to His Majesty.

It seems a little hard that the British Government should exclude a claimant who happens to be a foreigner, even though he may have lived in this country for a good many years, have conducted a business here, and been of great value to the country. We must not think too hard of a foreigner if he does not acquire British nationality, because there may be very legitimate reasons for his not doing so. For instance, in the United States, there are thousands of British subjects who are members of the American community, but who have never acquired American nationality. During the war we were surprised at the number of British subjects who had been in America for 30 or 40 years. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, as a matter of justice and reality, whether he does not think that claimants who were given the protection of our soil, and who have played a useful part in the British community, should be entitled to benefit from this fund.

2.30 p.m.

The second point I wish the right hon. Gentleman to consider is bound up with the previous Amendment. The Bill says that the benefit of its provisions can only extend to a person who was a German national on 3rd September, 1939. I know that the war started then, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he chose that date whereas in the satellite peace treaties the date of nationality is the date of the treaty itself? That is a much fairer way of dealing with the matter, whereas this Bill precludes people from claiming because of the point I first mentioned and brings their property into the pool because they are regarded as German nationals. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look into that point.

Mr. Janner

I first raised the question of the phrase "British protected person" on Second Reading, but I did not get an answer. I was hoping that a member of the Government or some other hon. Member would be able to define that phrase. It is important at this stage that we should know what is meant by those words. As it was not until 25th November, 1941, that the law depriving German Jews living outside Germany of German nationality was brought into effect, there must consequently be a large number of people affected by the provisions of the definition Clause as it stands at present who were serving, for example, in His Majesty's Forces. As my right hon. Friend knows, thousands were serving in the British Forces, and almost all who came from Germany would find themselves in the position of being considered as German nationals under this Act. The date fixed by the Bill is 3rd September, 1939, whereas, in fact, they were deprived of their German nationality in 1941; consequently, a very peculiar and unfair situation arises.

Perhaps at this stage I may get a reply to a point I raised a little earlier. It is whether the time limit which is fixed for making claims to the Custodians' at some date in December this year is to be extended. I hope my right hon. Friend will say that he is prepared to consider extending the time limit because it is of supreme importance that the date fixed should be such as to enable people who applied for property, not to be prevented from doing so.

Mr. S. Silverman

I have very considerable sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) and which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) concerning the date which is regarded as the relative date for the definition purposes of this Clause. As the hon. Member for Northwich said, in the peace treaties—which had relevant provisions—the date taken is the date of the treaties, and there seems to be no real reason why in this case we cannot take some parallel date. It is quite true that there is a difference between the Nuremberg law and the law of 1941. It is a fine point, but a real point. The Nuremberg law did not deprive people of their nationality though it purported to deprive of them of the rights of citizenship. The distinction was drawn, and we must have regard to it. In the case of those resident outside Germany, that distinction came to an end in 1941 when there was a new decree depriving such persons of their German nationality altogether.

If the date in this definition Clause were amended so as to be some date later than 1941, many, though not all, of the difficulties which we have been discussing would not plague us any further. In arguing the tribunal point a little while ago, my hon. Friend said that anything that tended to clog the machinery and to delay a final settlement was to be deplored, and that anything that assisted it would obviously be a thing to be welcome. If there were an Amendment of the date to cover this point the Custodian would not be troubled at all with a great many personal claims which he will have now to decide; the machinery, far from being clogged, would run more smoothly, and we should reach a winding up stage much earlier.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I am asked to define what is meant in Clause 8 by the phrase "British protected person." It is, as the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) said, what is called a term of art. It means any person who belongs to a British Protectorate or mandated territory or a teritory which is held by this country under the Trusteeship Council. I am advised that until 1948 it had never been properly defined in any Act of Parliament, but the British Nationality Act, 1948, did attempt to define what is meant by "British protected person." There was also an Order in Council under the Act which dealt with the point. It was called—if anyone is interested enough to look it up—the British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order in Council, 1949.

We are dealing here with people who were in the situation envisaged by the Bill as at 3rd September, 1939. As I have said, at that time there was no such definition of this phrase, and that is why we have had to deal with this matter in the way we have. We were asked why we could not put in a date such as the date inserted in the treaties with the satellite States. It was my good fortune, perhaps, or my misfortune—depending on the way one looks at it—to be one of the British delegates to the Peace Conference which elaborated those treaties.

Quite frankly, the two things are not on all fours. Here, we are dealing with dates before Germany and this country were at war. That has to be remembered. After 3rd September, 1939, of course, all contacts, except by way of war, ceased between this country and Germany. Therefore, there is no other date but 3rd September, 1939, that can go into an enabling Measure of this kind, which deals exclusively with certain assets in this country and how they should be apportioned as between the creditors of German debtors on that date. I think that covers the points which were put to me. I do not think there were any other points of any substance.

Mr. Janner

There was one other point, about the extension of the time in which claims were to be made to the Custodian.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I think my hon. Friend was out when I dealt with that point; possibly he was getting his lunch. I did deal with that point a little earlier, in reply to the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). The answer is—and it was mentioned either by myself or by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, in answer to a question—that the date is not a hard and fast one and claims have been put in since. However, the sooner claims are made the better. There must be a time limit of some sort, although we do not intended to stick rigidly to the date.

Mr. Janner

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Foster

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the two things were not on all fours with the peace treaties. In a sense that is true, but they are sufficiently on all fours to justify my argument. In the case of Roumania all contact was broken between that country and Britain in February, 1941, and assets covered by the peace treaty are to include debts owing to Roumanians. That is a sufficient analogy, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman would look at that point again. We are dealing with certain Roumanian assets in this country. Among those assets are debts owed by Roumanians, and the assets are not made subject to the charge under the peace treaty unless they are Roumanians who were resident in Roumania at the date of the peace treaty.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

If I may reply to that point, I should like to say that what I have already said is correct and still stands. There is no close analogy between what we are doing in this Bill and what was put into the treaties made with the satellite States. There the orders did not define the claims which were to rank for a dividend from enemy property. Here, we are doing that, or something analogous to it. There is also this to be said: in the treaties as drawn there was nothing like the definition which we had drawn, and have had to draw, in the Bill when describing and defining a German enemy debt. Although I have a great regard for the views of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), I think he will find, on closer inspection of those treaties and of this Bill, that the analogy that he has tried to draw is not a good one.

Mr. Assheton

I am not quite satisfied with what the Financial Secretary told us about the date. I have already referred to some remarks of a noble Lord in another place. It was there laid down that the rules of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency require that claims must be filed with the Government before 24th January. Can the right hon. Gentleman over-rule the rules laid down by the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency? It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman was giving some expression of opinion that there would be some discretion, but has he the right and the power to give that discretion?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I understand so. I am speaking partly from memory. I have also refreshed my memory by "bush telegraph" with those who are here to advise me. I thought I remembered that some time ago I had gone into this matter, and had given an answer in the House in the sense in which I gave it to the right hon. Gentleman earlier this afternoon. While he was speaking I had occasion to inquire whether my memory had served me well, and I can assure him that it has. In spite of what is there, we are not strictly enforcing that date.

Mr. Assheton

I am much obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If he has any further observations to make on the point he will, of course, have the Third Reading Debate in which to, do it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall]

2.47 p.m.

Mr. Foster

I want to protest about the time-table—

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is there to be no Report stage of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles)

There is no Amendment offered. I have not had one, and I am informed that the Clerks at the Table have not received one.

Mr. Silverman

I am afraid I am not quite clear about this. If there were no Amendments in Committee there could be no Report stage, but there were Amendments in Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Yes, but there were no Amendments moved on the Report stage. I have had no notice of any Amendments. Then the Third Reading was proposed.

Mr. Foster

I do not wish to detain the House long, but I think it is important to draw attention to Article 6A of the Agreement. I was about to begin by making a protest about the time-table for this Bill. It will be remembered that a very short time elapsed between the presentation of this Bill and the Second Reading, and that the time between the Second Reading until today was only some nine or 10 days. The Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Overseas Trade have both said that the Bill is very technical and complicated. On the Second Reading, they both evaded, if I may use the word without disrespect, answers to technical points on the ground that it was technical, and then they hurried the thing on.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the reason for all this hurry after so many years. It makes it difficult for those of us who try to understand the points arising from this Bill and the very complicated structure of German debts and assets, when things are rushed on in this way. We now find the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading all dealt with on a Friday. I think it is a little hard, especially when there is plenty of Parliamentary time, and it could easily have been dealt with in a week's time and not on a Friday.

Having made that protest, I want to ask the Government what are their intentions under the Bill as regards Article 6A, and I want to make certain that they have it clear in their own minds.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to ask whether he is referring to Article 6A of the Paris Agreement?

Mr. Foster

Yes, the Agreement on Reparations. On the Second Reading, the Secretary for Overseas Trade gave the House to understand that there would not be anything in the general pool of reparations to be divided up. First of all, I think that is wrong; it is by no means certain that there will not be such assets, because there will be some German assets from neutral countries which will go into the general pool, so there will be something available. He seemed not to appreciate, to my mind, that if we do not match the contracts with the assets of specific debtors. we lose foreign exchange.

As I apprehend it, this is the way the system works. We have a general pool of reparations and we have two categories of reparations—A and B. Category B consists of things like dismantling and ships and inland water transport—physical assets; and the main source of Category B is dismantling. Capital assets taken out of Category B go in a certain proportion to the Paris countries—not the same proportion as category A. Category A consists of all other reparations—other than things like dismantling, ships and inland water transport—and we have the administrator who is sitting in Brussels and who has to divide up the pool. He hears, let us say, that Great Britain has £15 million worth of assets, and if there were no contract debt to take off that £15 million, Great Britain would be bound to notify the administrator that she had collected £15 million worth of German assets and distributed these £15 million to the creditors in England.

If, on the other hand, there are some specific contract debts, then Article 6A of the Paris Agreement allows the deduction of those debts from the £15 million. Let us assume that there are £5 million worth of specific contract claims. Those £5 million worth of claims are taken from the £15 million and Great Britain, therefore, notifies to Paris the £10 million and the administrator immediately has to book that £10 million against Great Britain's 28 per cent. share of the total. As other countries notify their figures, he adds them altogether, gets a total sum and then sends them out in the requisite percentages.

What I fear the Secretary for Overseas Trade did not quite understand was this: if we do not deduct those contract claims we lose, in the first instance, 72 per cent. of every contract claim we did not deduct. That is the arithmetical point I want to make, and it is a very important point about foreign exchange. If we have £5 million worth of contract debts and we pay them out against specific assets, they do not count against our share of reparations, but if we notify them to Paris then, because we did not deduct them, we get only 28 per cent. of them in the first instance.

What we receive ultimately depends on what everyone has put in. I think there are bound to be some assets, if the system does not break down and assuming, as we have every reason to assume, that the signatory Governments will honour their word—and we must make those two assumptions; so that not to deduct the contract debts will mean a direct loss, in the first instance, of 72 per cent. of every £ which is not deducted. In the last resort the proportion of the contract debt not deducted will be something different—it will not be as much as 72 per cent.; but we start off with the position that for every million pounds not deducted, in the first instance we lose £720,000. Later, when we get the total balance sheet drawn up by the administrator, we may find that that proportion—72 per cent.—is reduced to something much less.

What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: first of all, does he agree with the argument I have adduced and, secondly, if he does agree, will he bear it in mind and deduct all contract debts according to Article 6A? That is bound to result in the saving of some foreign exchange, although we cannot tell the exact proportion. I also ask whether the Government have taken any steps with regard to these contract claims in any notification to the central pool. In other words, have the British Government notified the administrator of any contract debts they have deducted, or that are in existence? I imagine not. I imagine the answer is that this Bill is the first step towards doing that. I just wanted to make certain that the contract debts have not already been drawn up in a list and sent to Brussels, or have not been added up in order to be deducted against the £15 million.

Do the Government also agree that, after their notification to Paris of the contract debts deducted by the Government from the total amount of assets here, the obligation is immediately incumbent upon the Government to pay those debts? In other words, if there is a creditor over here who is owed £1,000 on a specific contract debt, and who has assets of £1,000 belonging to his German debtor, if the British Government, in accordance with Article 6A of the Paris Agreement, deduct that £1,000 from the total of £15 million which they are to notify to Paris, does the Secretary for Overseas Trade agree that the moment they have notified it as having been deducted there is an obligation on, the British Government to pay that British creditor? I apprehend that there is, but I want to make certain that the Government are in agreement.

I apologise to the House for delaying proceedings on this point, but it is important, because I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be anxious to save every possible bit of foreign exchange. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the views about percentages and the existence of a "kitty" which he expressed on Second Reading. In my view, there will without doubt be some sort of pool with something in it, and if there is something in it, non-deduction of contractual payments will result in a loss of foreign exchange.

2.57 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not want to repeat anything I said on Second Reading or in Committee, because I think that covers everything I want to say about the Bill. If I interveen in this Debate now it is only to record a similar grumble to that just expressed by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). I do not think that this is the kind of Bill of which the Committee stage, Report stage and the Third Reading ought to be taken on the same day. I should have thought it was sufficiently complicated and intricate, and that sufficient points have been made in Committee from all sides of the House, to justify some delay between the Committee and Report stages, so that further consideration could have been given to some of the arguments which have been abused. I think there was no necessity for the Government to deprive themselves of that opportunity of second thoughts which our Rules provide by a Report stage intervening between the Committee stage and the Third Reading.

We are all handicapped by that. We have no opportunity on our side to reconsider the points. I suppose a manuscript Amendment might have been in Order on the Report stage if anybody had been dexterous enough to give notice of one in the 35 seconds that intervened between the making of the Report and the Motion for the Third Reading. I at any rate was not dexterous enough to manage that, and I see no reason why the House should have been submitted to such an impossibility. There may be some little hurry; but it has not worried the Government so far, and if they waited another week to allow for some kind of second thoughts and had remained of the same opinion at the end of it, they would still have lost nothing but the few days. On the other hand, if after second thoughts they wished to change their minds, there is no reason why they should have deprived themselves of the opportunity of doing so. I only intervene in order to say that, and I hope it will be thought a friendly and legitimate complaint.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. Assheton

The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) have both complained, I think not unreasonably, that we have had to deal with the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading of this Bill on the same day. I cannot understand why there has been this hurry. This is a matter which has taken the Government four years to settle, and therefore it cannot have been a very easy matter to settle. We have been given since 8th November, when this Bill was ordered to be printed, to consider it. Very few Members in this House can be acquainted with all the details involved in a Bill of this sort; and it means consultations between Members, their constituents and others before they can apprise themselves of the difficulties likely to arise in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman representing the Government on the Front Bench today will apologise to the House for the way in which it has been treated, and will undertake to see that it is not again treated in this way.

3.1 p.m.

Mr. Drayson

The only reason that I can see for the speed with which this Bill has been rushed through the House is that the Government are anxious to have this machinery in order to make some immediate payments out of the money which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us this afternoon and on Second Reading is already available in a liquid form. That is a sum of £10 million. I hope that the Secretary for Overseas Trade can tell us, before we finally part with this Bill, when he expects that payments will be made to creditors who have established a valid claim under the Reparations Agreement, and what sum he imagines will be involved within, shall we say, the next six months. Can he also tell us how long he anticipates it will be before all these matters are finally dealt with? The Government have had ten years in which to get these matters in order, and apart from a few disputes which might arise—

Mr. S. Silverman

Is it not a little unfair to say that this Government has had ten years in which to get these matters in order?

Mr. Drayson

Shall I say that the Custodian of Enemy Property has had ten years in which to get these matters in order, and apart from the few cases, or the many, which may be in dispute, I wonder whether the Secretary for Overseas Trade can tell us what progress he hopes to make immediately this Bill has been passed.

3.3 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley

On the question of time allowed to the Bill, I think that I ought to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) and others who have complained that there has been too much delay, that we introduced it because we thought this thing should be settled. I think it was the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) who asked if we could have a period of about ten days between the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee stage, and the Government, through the asual channels, acquiesced in that very reasonable request. What has been decided has been the unanimous expression of the whole House, so I do not think there is anything for which the Government need apologise. We have rather met their wishes—[Interruption.] Certainly. If a Motion is put and is not challenged and we have the Third Reading, that surely is not the Government's responsibility. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is a great authority on these matters, said that it could not be challenged, and in that sense I cannot pursue the matter, but I do say that in the period available, we met the request of the right hon. Member for the City of London.

I think the Debate has shown that there is not a single line of approach on which one could get unanimous agreement. The Bill tries to ensure that creditors get fair and equitable treatment. Some have tried to get more generous treatment than the Government thought was warranted. We have heard pleas for the victims of Nazi persecution, with whom we all have sympathy, and we have heard the claims of various other interests, and we have even heard the taxpayer occasionally mentioned. We have tried to get a reasonable and equitable distribution of these enemy assets under the Bill. The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), like myself, must have been at lunch when the Financial Secretary was speaking, otherwise he would have heard the reply to his point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is most anxious not to lose foreign exchange, and the hon. Member can be assured, in that sense, that the matter is being looked after.

Mr. Foster

Does it not show the disadvantage of having the two stages of the Bill on the same day? I was speaking on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I am now referred to something said during the Committee stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Questions of procedure do not arise on the Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.