Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold (Hansard, 13 July 1987)

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I offer my generous thanks to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the previous Conservative speakers for allowing me a little more than the five minutes I would have had had the previous debate run its full length. If my debate had taken place in a genuine sense, it would not have been related simply to the title that I have had to use, but would have referred to what is to happen to the remaining 7 tonnes of gold looted by the Nazis in the last war from the treasure chests of Europe and currently held in the Bank of England and the United States Federal Reserve, and when.

I understand that there are some 7,136 kg—approximately 7 tonnes—of gold, valued at Friday's gold price at about $100 million. I have never been able to understand why part of the gold is across the Atlantic. There is only one claim on that gold, that of the Albanian Government for about 2,400 kg. That leaves some 4,600 kg, almost 4.5 tonnes, of gold unclaimed and unused.

It was not my intention to develop the argument about the Albanian gold as a central issue. I intended to refer to it only in passing. I make it clear that I have no interest to declare other than curiosity, which arose after I talked to Ian Sayer, the author of "Nazi Gold", published in 1984. His book is essentially about the theft of gold from the German National Reserve in 1945. But some of that gold would have been destined for the body to be set up by the victorious allied powers—the tripartite commission referred to in the title of the debate. The commission's task was to distribute the gold stolen by the Nazis as restitution to countries in proportion to their respective losses through looting or wrongful removal to Germany. The tripartite commission did not make up the pool of gold, and it cannot be held responsible for any gold that it did not receive. That is another story altogether.

The commission, as records show, was set up under the 1946 Paris agreement on reparations. I do not believe that the authors of the eight short paragraphs, A to G, that make up part III of the agreement, relating to monetary gold, could have conceived in their wildest dreams that 41 years later the tripartite commission would still be in operation, and there would still be a pool of gold. The commission's function relates solely to the gold. It reminds me of the telling phrase used by Sir James Callaghan in 1979, during an exchange in the House about the Blunt affair, when he said that it was like the rustle of dead leaves.

Over the years much of the gold has been restored to its rightful owners, the last large shipment being of about 18 tonnes to the Czechs in 1982. I do not know what the total pool ever was. The tripartite commission works in secret, and I doubt that it will welcome today's parliamentary searchlight—or tiny spotlight—on its workings. I should like the Minister to tell me at some time, perhaps in correspondence, why it works in such secrecy. I do not know whether annual reports are made to anyone, but I know that the commission corresponds only with Governments, because from time to time inquiries are made to it about checking its records on the delivery of specific consignments of gold.

946 In short, the tripartite commission is an instrument of Government, the three commissioners answering to their respective Governments. We have had several commissioners over the years. At one time I expressed an interest in the expenses of the commission, which it obtains as a first charge on the pool of gold. That was a by-product of my inquiries. Late last year the Minister's predecessor, who is now at the Home Office, promised to check on the matter for me, but in March this year he finally wrote to me saying: We cannot get the permission of our fellow Commissioners to release the information you requested". The Minister kindly offered me another chat at the Foreign Office, following the one in March 1985 which the Prime Minister had arranged for me. However, I took the view then that after I had waited so long and had had protracted correspondence with the Prime Minister on the matter, it should have an airing in the House of Commons. It is all taking too long, in too much secrecy. It is about time that we put as much as possible of the second world war behind us.

I asked my first parliamentary question on the matter in May 1984. Between then and last Friday, the value of the gold pool increased by $40 million. I assume, therefore, that the commission's expenses have been met from that increase.

I am aware, from several exchanges with the Prime Minister and from meetings with Foreign Office officials, that the Government would like to settle the Albanian question, because that would release the rest of the gold for distribution. The Albanian question is tied up with matters which I would not dream of going into now, but which relate to the Corfu channel incident in 1946, when 44 British seamen and officers lost their lives after the mining of two ships. The Albanians will not pay the International Court of Justice claim until they get their gold, and the International Court of Justice has said that they should get the gold. It is a question of the chicken and the egg that is holding up the distribution of the other 4.5 tonnes of gold. That is why I felt that the issue should be raised.

I made a suggestion, which the Government have considered. Our claim against the Albanians is for less than £1 million in 1946 figures, which is very little compared with the value of the gold that the Albanians will receive from the tripartite commission. It would be quite easy to suggest taking it out before it had passed across. That suggestion has been considered, but it is not possible. One of the main reasons is that the French will not allow it. The French have good diplomatic relations and, as I have reminded Ministers, damned good trading relations, with Albania, which serves to keep out the British competition. That is partly what concerns me—that the stalemate of our present position could affect our trade.

It is a simplistic view, and I put it very briefly to the Minister. I shall send to him the speech that I would have made, so that we can discuss some of the questions that I ask in it.

The Prime Minister told me that the relatives of those who were killed in the Corfu channel incident would probably not understand the action, which seemed to be cutting corners in an effort to reach a settlement. The dependants will not gain from a settlement of the dispute, even though the Foreign Office has changed its language over the years—from a flat refusal, to the line that the 947 dependants are unlikely to benefit. I believe that they ought to benefit, because at that time the compensation was unfair. Wartime allowances were made for a peacetime incident, for which the allowances are different.

The Italians have placed a veto on a tripartite commission consisting of the French, the British and the Americans, simply because of the relationship between the Albanians and the Italian banks, where the gold was deposited, before the war. It is almost a quadripartite commission.

I want to place just a few of my questions to the Minister on the record. I do not intend to speak until 9 o'clock; that would be grossly discourteous to him. Discounting the Albanian gold, I want to know why the balance of the gold has to be held by the tripartite commission until the Albanian issue is settled and there are no more claims. Also, what is the precise weight of the remaining gold, excluding the Albanian gold, and it current value? Are my figures correct? Is the gold physically separated and labelled in the Bank of England, or is it just an accountancy matter, to keep it out of the reserves?

Does the Minister know, or do the Government know, how much of that gold has been used over the years for expenses, or is it a fact that the tripartite commission will tell nobody about this—even the allied Governments who form the commission? Is there any problem over interest claims on the United Kingdom award by the International Court of Justice against Albania, or is there a dispute about the value of the gold, which has vastly increased over the years? It was $35 an ounce in the 1940s; it is now between $440 and $446 an ounce.

Are the claimant countries all aware that the tripartite commission is holding gold that ultimately will be distributed to the claimant countries? Six Common Market countries, and also Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Jugoslavia will share the remaining gold after the disbursement to Albania. What, if any, steps are being taken to inform the recipients of the procedure that will be used for the final distribution? If there are none, are there any plans to do so?

I have two final questions, one of which relates to a parliamentary answer in April 1987. Why is it not possible to state now what procedures will be used for the final distribution? Are the procedures yet to be decided by the tripartite commission'? I referred in my parliamentary question to the fact that they had not been fixed. Does this mean that the procedures that were adopted for the earlier distributions of gold—which probably amounted, 948 according to one private estimate, to 250 million tonnes—are to be varied? If that is so, why? Why is it not to be simply a pro rata percentage of the claim that was met by the commission in the first place?

Finally, will the 30-year rule on the official papers run from the date of the Albanian settlement and the final distribution by the tripartite commission, or will they be disclosed immediately, given that the whole issue has now lasted for more than 40 years? Indeed, will such papers ever be released?