FORMER ENEMY ALIENS (DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL. (Hansard, 8 July 1925)

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)
My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remove certain disabilities on foreign enemy aliens resulting from the legislation passed during the War. The Anglo-German Commercial Treaty, signed on December 2, 1924, was based on the application of the most-favoured-nation principle, and, to secure that British subjects and companies shall enjoy this treatment in Germany, the Germans, naturally, put forward a claim that we should not treat German citizens and German companies differently from the subjects and citizens of other foreign countries. The particular disabilities which are alluded to in the Schedule refer to seamen, traders in non-ferrous metals, and banking companies. Of course, while these special 1153 disabilities are removed by this Bill, these German seamen and others, while falling under the disabilities laid down by The Aliens' Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, will be treated in no ways differently from other aliens. Although this legislation was really directed principally against the Germans, it has been thought right to apply this Bill generally to other enemy aliens, Austrians, Turks and others, and there is nothing in the Bill to limit the right of the Government to introduce general legislation against all aliens, provided that it does not discriminate specially against German aliens.
There is very little I have to say as to the restrictions on traders in nonferrous metals and banking companies, because in both cases the legislation provided that the limitations should only last for some five years, although in one case Parliament will decide whether the limitations should be carried further. The only point on which there might be some criticism is with regard to seamen, and on that question I understand that the Seamen's Union, representing about nine unions, are satisfied with this legislation and, indeed, consider that it would be an advantage in many ways for a British ship to be able to have a certain number of these German seamen on board. In the emigrant trade from Germany to America I understand that Germans are unwilling to go on board these ships unless the stewards can talk their own language.
That is, briefly, the general object of this Bill I should like to add this as regards Austria. Before the Commercial Treaty with Austria was ratified, the Austrian Government raised the question, and the Treaty was only ratified after Austria had been assured that the Bill to be introduced in pursuance of the Anglo-German Treaty would be so framed as to secure the removal of disabilities from Austrians at the same time. I beg to move

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the passage of this Bill nor to make a long speech in its support I propose to do something 1154 which is a great deal less tactful than either. I cannot refrain from saying that the main Act which it is sought to repeal by this Bill was moved in the year 1918, and that on that occasion I moved that it should be read a second time that day six months. It is therefore with no small sense of pleasure that I see the Government are now repealing that Act. The noble Viscount will forgive me if I say that it would have been some satisfaction to me if he had told the House a little more about the way in which that Act of Parliament has operated. I suppose that in private life there is nobody we dislike more than the person who says, "I told you so." It is the same also in public life; yet I cannot avoid saying that the criticisms which were passed in 1918, when the original Bill, called the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, was passed, have been to some extent justified.
At that moment we were frightened by a number of bogies, and I should like to know how far the expectations that harm would be done to the non-ferrous metal industry in this country have or have not been justified. On that occasion a speech was made by a noble Lord whom we all respected, the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in which there was a considerable passage dealing with the way in which the Australian trade would be adversely affected unless that Act was passed. I should like to have heard from the noble Viscount whether the Government has been able to assure itself that Australia will not be affected by the repeal of that Act; and whether Australia is satisfied with the repeal of that Act. I believe it will be found that they are satisfied with its repeal; that the expectations which were held out in 1918 have not been justified; that the Act was never needed in order to carry out the restrictions which noble Lords opposite wished at that time to impose upon the conduct of this industry; and that it is desirable now that this Act of Parliament should be repealed. I content myself with saying that I am heartily glad that this Act is now to be repealed. I am sorry to think it was ever necessary to pass it.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
Just one sentence in reply to the speech of the noble Earl and his question as to the success or non-success of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1918. Five years was laid 1155 down as a period, as the noble Earl knows, with the idea that during that time British trade in these metals would be able to organise itself. The five years have now elapsed, and I understand that the Board of Trade consider that during that time this object has been attained, and that this British industry has been 1156 able to organise itself upon a satisfactory footing.