DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL (Hansard, 13 December 1949)

HL Deb 13 December 1949 vol 165 cc1460-93 1460

§ 5.59 p.m.

§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly:

§ [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]

§ Clause 1:

§ Collection, realisation and distribution of German enemy property

§ (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, an Order in Council under this section may make provision as to the following matters:

§ (6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Board of Trade may give a direction to the administrator requiring him to transfer to or for the benefit of any person specified in the direction any German enemy property, or the proceeds of any German enemy property, to which that person would have been entitled but for the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or any order made thereunder, and the administrator shall comply with any such direction.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to add to subsection (2): (h) the establishment of an independent tribunal to which appeals may be made in respect of claims disallowed by the administrator or questions as to the amount of claims or objections to claims admitted by the administrator or to the inclusion of property as German enemy property with such limitations as may be thought fit as to the minimum amount involved in the appeal being sufficient to justify the same.

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is not of an epoch-making character, because it only seeks to make clear that the Orders in Council, under which this Bill has effect, shall include provision for the establishment of an independent tribunal to which appeals may be made in respect of claims disallowed or questions as to amount, and other matters of that sort. Your Lordships observe that it is purely permissive, and that the Government are entitled to set about the making of these Orders in Council in such a way as they think fit, subject to the control of Parliament. The reason I attribute great importance to the establishment of a tribunal will appear if your Lordships 1461 will allow me, in the space of perhaps not more than rive minutes, to explain what this Bill is about and the great difficulties that will be experienced in carrying it into effect.

§ The Bill deals with the effect which has been produced by the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1939, Section 7, which came into force two days after the outbreak of war. In that Act provision was made for the collection and custody of enemy property—which was elaborately described in the Act. It will be observed that the footing on which the Government could make such a Bill effective was that it dealt with property which was within British jurisdiction. The Bill does not express in so many words the fact that it is only enemy property in England, but that follows from the fact—as your Lordships can see if you look at Section 14—that the Bill is rigidly confined to the powers which His Majesty's Government have to deal with the matter by Orders in Council. The position, therefore, is that Section 7 of the Trading with the Enemy Act provided for the collection of money and property of all kinds which belonged to the enemy (that is to say, at the time of the coming into force of the Act. Germans) which was therefore property which in the event of war—which had in fact taken place—it was possible for the Government to con-trot with a view to preventing the payment of money to enemies and, in some instances, perhaps, of preserving, in contemplation of a future peace.

§ The Act provided that such property should be passed on by the Board of Trade to custodians of enemy property for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, and to require the handing over of that enemy property to these custodians. That Act resulted in the appointment of custodians and, though it seems not quite so long to me, it is ten years since the Act was passed. The war has been fought, and the next event—which gave rise to the Bill now before your Lordships—vas that the war was won; and there is now probably a vast amount of property belonging to enemies which has been collected by the various custodians and which now falls for distribution. The Bill before your Lordships, therefore, provides for the appointment of an administrator who is to distribute the property collected by the 1462 custodians and certain other property which, for some special reason, he has not been able to recover. The fund amounts, I understand, to something between £100,000,000 and £120,000,000.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Fifteen million pounds available and 120,000,300 claims.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I am sorry. For a moment the figures slipped my mind—but they have been properly stated by my noble friend. Those sums have to be distributed, either to the Government in case of a Government claim (and it is suggested that the Government will claim between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000) or to resident British subjects or British subjects who are carrying on business in Britain, or companies or corporations (I am stating it very briefly) who are carrying on business in this country. What the Bill seeks to do here, therefore, is to make provision for tae distribution from a large pool of many millions of pounds belonging or which had belonged to Germans and which had been seized by this country. There would be a large number of British subjects or companies who are here for the purpose of carrying on business—and that would be in addition to Government claims. Those being the circumstances, I am concerned only to give your Lordships my view as to the great complexity and difficulty of the task which lies before the Government.
It is proposed that this task should be accomplished—and I think it is not an unreasonable suggestion—by Orders in Council and provision is made for a large number of matters which are set out in Clause 1 (2) of the Bill before your Lordships. Provision is made for the appointment by the Board of Trade of an administrator and for the conferring of powers on him; for the transfer to him of enemy property in this country which is in the hands of custodians; for the manner and time in which claims in respect of the German enemy debts (as they are called) are to be made; and for the furnishing and verification of information in connection with such claims including the production of books, proof of the claims, distribution of the proceeds, charging of fees, and so forth—I need not trouble your Lordships with details of the disposal of the sums.
I remember quite well the method adopted in similar circumstances for the 1463 distribution of enemy property in this country after the 1914–18 war. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon also will remember the method by which that was carried out, as will the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will probably know of people who, not perhaps wholly without remuneration, were employed as counsel in these matters. There were a great number of such cases, and they involved great complexity and difficulty. The same thing was done, for instance, in France, and I remember that great interest was displayed all over Europe in the way in which the Governments which were distributing the pool of enemy property in their country carried out the work—first, claiming the right amounts and not claiming things to which they were not entitled, and secondly, distributing the pool on equal and fair terms in accordance with the legal rights of the parties, among the people who were nationals of the country where the distribution was being, made. With all respect to the noble Lord opposite, although I know, from reading, his speeches, that he has taken a great interest in and much care over this matter, I cannot help thinking that up to the present time he has not fully appreciated the enormous complexity of the work which is occasioned in ascertaining the amount and distributing it. Whether or not the noble Lord accepts the Amendment, he, or some person who may occupy his position in the future, will be bound to make provision for legal determinations of the more important questions that will arise.
I will not detain your Lordships by telling you of the various cases in which the body or the person or the civil servants employed in the matter will be bound according to law to determine the question which will arise. I have jotted down these cases which, as any lawyer knows, are among those which will have to be decided under Clause 1 of this Bill or under the Orders in Council which will be made thereunder. Of course, this question is not limited to debts. This is not a case of distributing the proceeds of sale of goods sold and delivered. It is not that. It is any kind of liability. There will be questions of partnerships which came to an end at the beginning of the war ten years ago, and which have been 1464 awaiting final liquidation by some method which can be adopted in order to ascertain how much is due to the English partners. There will be cases under leases. Anybody who has been a lawyer for any length of time will realise the tremendous questions of difficulty that will there arise. Skilled people will have to be employed to interpret the meaning of the various covenants for the upkeep of properties, repairs, papering and all the rest of it. Somebody will have to do that in practically every case of lease, in order to ascertain how much is due, we will say, to the English landlord who has received nothing for ten years.
Then there are cases of agencies where there has been an Englishman employed as an agent for a German person or firm. Money will be due to him. How are you going to work out that? You will have to look at books of sales and purchases over a number of years. Then there is every possible kind of fraud. Anybody who has been engaged in the law knows very well that cases of fraud take a long time to determine. They depend so much upon the truth of the witnesses and upon what confidence is to be placed in their words. All that has to be done by somebody. There are also cases of executors or administrators in this country where there is something payable to an Englishman under a will. Very often it depends upon the true construction of the will. There is a case, about which I had intended to say something if the hour had not been so late, where three times the construction of a particular will has had to go to the House of Lords. In cases of this kind, where these great difficulties arise, it is absolutely necessary to have the question properly determined. Unless you have some such device as I suggest for your employment, you will not be able to get an answer to your question—"To whom?," "How much is payable to an Englishman?" or "From whom is it due?"—I am stating this shortly.
Finally, there are the many cases of trusts. They are difficult and complex cases. Those things cannot be determined by a layman. A great many of the claims and questions that arise under Clause 1 of the Bill are small and easily determined, as I readily agree. As regards those, it would be perfectly easy by Order in Council to make arrangements to the effect that, unless they involved a sum 1465 exceeding a certain amount, they should be determined, without appeal or question, by any person appointed by the Minister. I agree to that because, if the sum is small, it is never worth appealing on. Much time would be saved by appointing a respectable civil servant who knows something about business to determine what should be paid, how much was due and questions of that sort. But there will be cases where the law is concerned, and where it is absolutely necessary to have somebody with experience of the trying of cases, of how to keep people to the point, of how to ensure that the evidence given is admissible and relevant to the questions involved. They will not only give much more satisfaction, they will do the work much more quickly and I am convinced that sooner or later it will be found necessary to adopt some such method as I suggest. Otherwise, you will find hopeless confusion and the greatest dissatisfaction among the people who have a claim to share in the pool, because it will be said that any civil servants who may be employed are making a guess, instead of deciding the matter rightly. Accordingly, there will be no satisfaction in the country. This is one of those cases where it is absolutely essential that the method adopted by the Government in distributing this large sum should be recognised by the country as being just and fair as between the various parties entitled. If the Government do not adopt such a method they will be making a terrible mistake, and they will practically never, certainly in the lifetime of any of us here, get any finality.
There is one other point which I had intended to mention—namely, the so-called option to claim against specific funds. We are told that it is an option that will be allowed only on giving up any right to share in the general pool. I have not put down an Amendment with regard to that matter, but I think one of my noble friends will deal with it. I should like to say, however, that the Order in Council will have to be drawn with the greatest care, because the option to claim against specific funds is apparently one which is purely arbitrary. It does not relate to people who have a legal claim against those funds. So far as I understand it, I do not think it means people who have a charge: I think it is intended to mean—and this is as far as I 1466 can learn from what has been said—people who prima facie would be paid out of specific funds which would have been available but for the war—out of such things as Austrian and perhaps German loans—and limited to those things, and to nothing else.
With regard to those, I give a warning that, unless the phrase is very clearly defined, nobody will agree as to what it means, and there will be a great deal of heart-burning, because people will think they are entitled to al option, whereas, as I understand it, the option will be available in only a few cases, and the great bulk of the claimants will have a share in the pool. I do not think I need read again the whole of the Amendment proposed. As I have said, it is only in the nature of a suggestion for the Government. I am not wedded to my form of words. It may be that something a great deal better can be produced; and of course, if the Government say they will bear it in mind and use some such device as I have suggested, I shall be content, and at this hour of the evening I would not for a moment suggest pressing the matter to a Division. I beg to trove.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Maugham.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I have listened with very great interest to what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I think I can satisfy him that he is suffering under considerable misapprehension—and not only the noble and learned Viscount but a whole host of other people outside your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Viscount said that this Amendment seeks to set up a tribunal—

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
No. This Amendment does not seek to do anything except give power to the Government.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
It seeks to give power to set up a tribunal to deal with certain specific things. That is all. The Government's case against setting up this tribunal was stated in general terms upon Second Reading. We hope that the Orders in Council will be so specific as to leave little room for some of the apprehensions that have been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount. I will deal seriatim with the Amendment and with what it proposes— 1467 namely, that the following matters shall be subject to appeal to the tribunal: (a) claims disallowed by the administrator; (b) questions as to the amounts of claims; (c) objections to claims admitted by the administrator; and (d) objections to the inclusion of property as German enemy property. Perhaps the point which is worrying the minds of noble Lords opposite is in regard to the function of this administrator. He is to administer the fund or pool under Orders in Council which will, as we all hope, be specific. In that, noble Lords must accept some responsibility, as these Orders in Council may be considered by the House, as they will be subject to negative Resolution. If one does not work, the Government may substitute it by another.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
We cannot amend them. If one could amend an Order in Council by Resolution in Parliament it would be all right; but one cannot.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The Order in Council can be negatived and another put in its place. That is what we hope to do, and we hope that we shall have considerable help from noble Lords in relation to Orders in Council. We are not going to pass one blanket Order in Council telling the administrator to get on with the job. The Orders are going to be in some detail, and the decision as to the ranking of a debt will not be made by the administrator. He will be given a document by which he will be bound. His duty will be to admit claims which comply with the conditions laid down and to reject the others. The noble and learned Viscount has brought in the proceedings after the last war. He rather alluded to them as the "good old days," when he and other noble and learned Lords had very nice remunerations.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I assume you mean the First World War.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I always call the earlier war "the last war," and this war "the recent war." I mean the 1914–1918 war. But the two cases are in no way similar. As I pointed out on Second Reading, under the procedure after the 1914–1918 war the proceedings before the arbitral tribunals were interpartes. The tribunals were set up for the full and final settlement of debts 1468 in the distribution of German enemy assets among nationals of the belligerents. It was only right that there should then be a judicial arbitral tribunal, because, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, that tribunal stood above the courts of law of this country. But here the circumstances are entirely different, as I hope to convince the noble and learned Viscount. Here we are dealing with a specific sum of money which has accrued to His Majesty's Government by the arrangements at Potsdam and the Paris Agreement as the British Government's share of reparations, with which sum the British Government can do just as it pleases.
The Bill does not, by any means, provide for the full and complete settlement of German enemy debts. All that it does is to provide for the distribution of a limited sum of money made available by His Majesty's Government to certain claimants who satisfy the conditions laid down in the Order in Council. The administrator's decision will not be binding on the parties, and any creditor whose claim is rejected will still retain his rights against the debtor, just as the debtor will not be prejudiced by the fact that a claim has been admitted by the administrator. It will not affect any action which they like to take in law.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I really do not understand that. There is a fund which has to be ascertained and collected. It is ultimately like a fund of money; it is in a pool. Hundreds of people have a claim against the pool. Each one who gets more than he is properly entitled to diminishes the amount that other people may get. If many people are given more than they are entitled to, it means that many other people will get less than they are entitled to. So they are vitally interested in being given a right amount.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
They are not entitled to anything at the present moment.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
They will be entitled to something under this Bill.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
They are entitled only to something which is set out by the Orders in Council as to the classes and the amounts. No one has any right whatsoever to this money 1469 at the present moment, except His Majesty's Government. Rights will be conferred by the Orders in Council. I am now dealing only with the point as to determination of rights, and I am saying that this Bill does not pretend in any way to settle debts as between debtor and creditor. Nothing in the Bill alters the position vis-à-vis the one or the other. This is the method which His Majesty's Government have adopted to give some relief to those who they think should have a share of these German reparations. Let me explain further that under the Bill the administrator has the duty of distributing moneys to pre-war creditors of Germany—moneys which are, or will be, in the hands of His Majesty's Government. The administrator has not to discharge liabilities of German debtors. All he is concerned with, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, is bringing some relief to United Kingdom creditors of Germany. That, I should have thought, is plain enough. I, at least, understand it, so I am certain that the noble and learned Viscount does.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
May I ask a question at this point? The administrator has to ascertain the manner and time in which claims in respect of enemy debts are to be put forward and determine whether the claim is established. Is it not his duty to ascertain what is due to each of the claimants? It is true that the pool will not be enough to pay all the creditors. I do not want to be offensive if I can help it, but it is clear in my opinion that, according to this measure, it is the administrator's duty to ascertain the amount of the claims and to have them proved, in order that no one shall get a bigger share than that to which he is entitled.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
That will be largely for the Orders in Council to determine. This is not a judicial court and the principles that will be enforced will be far less exacting than must be the case under a judicial court such as the noble and learned Viscount mentioned.
Perhaps I can now proceed to the next matter which the Amendment proposes should be open to appeal—questions as to the amount of claims. I do not quite see what is meant by this—perhaps the 1470 noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong. It may be that his proposal is designed to deal with cases where a claimant asks for, say, £100, and the administrator is prepared to admit a claim for only, say, £75. If it is the intention to submit questions of this kind to the tribunal it can mean only one of two things. Either the administrator is regarded as standing in the shoes of the debtor or the appeal tribunal will themselves re-investigate the whole case if there is an appeal. Whatever dispute there may be as to the amount of debt lies between debtor and creditor. The administrator is not to be in the position of being or representing the debtor. He will decide on the information and evidence submitted to him. I think the tribunal cannot work over every case afresh.
The third matter, in this part of the Amendment is "objections to claims admitted by the administrator." The question may have arisen in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount: What is the position of His Majesty's Government? Are they going to claim priority for any claim they make against this fund? I would like to assure noble Lords that His Majesty's Government will be treated, when the machinery established by the Bill is in operation, in exactly the same way as everyone else. There is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to claim or to expect to receive preferential treatment, either as to the amount payable or as to the time by which payment is to be made.
On the question of a general appeal, does the noble and learned Viscount argue that Mr. Brown who may or may not be a creditor, who may or may not have had his claim allowed, can appeal against the administrator's award to a Mr. Smith? Is it suggested that if the noble and learned Viscount is a successful applicant for a share in the pool, then I, who am quite outside and have no interest whatsoever, have a right to lodge an appeal against the noble and learned Viscount's getting a share at all? That is what the Amendment says. Surely, that cannot be meant. No one can be given that right.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I do not like to interrupt again. I will say something about that later on.

1471

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
As between classes of claimants there is no person or body of persons who can be given rights in their appeal. The classes of claim will be laid down in the Order and no person would be clothed with powers to represent other classes whom he may imagine are prejudiced.
The last cause for appeal in this Amendment relates to the treatment of some piece of property as German enemy property. This presumably means that the appeal tribunal are expected to decide whether or not property in the administrator's hands comes within the definition of German enemy property contained in Clause 8. It is possible that this is the matter which is worrying the noble and learned Viscount. Money and property which are not within the terms of the definition are completely outside the operation of the Bill. If it is claimed on behalf of an owner that his property is not covered by the definition and his claim for release is refused, the owner has an undoubted right to sue the administrator in the courts and so to have the matter decided. I cannot think that it is preferable to insert a tribunal between a claimant and the courts, because no decision which the tribunal could arrive at would overrule the decision of the courts or his right to go to the courts.
Finally, the noble Viscount's Amendment seeks to say that only those who have a claim above a certain amount shall be allowed to appeal. I appreciate that the intention, as the noble Viscount has said, is to reduce the number of appeals, but I would suggest that it is against the principles of justice and equity that claimants for a large amount, who are likely to be wealthy men or companies, should have a course open to them not allowed to persons with smaller claims, which might presuppose that they are less wealthy.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
It is done every day in the courts.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I think noble Lords in this House would not like to support that.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I do.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount is being courteous to me. As he said originally, I am trying to handle 1472 a matter of some complexity. There is nothing in this Bill which can prevent any kind of body being set up for any of the purposes which the noble Viscount wants. If the worst fears of the noble Viscount are realised, though the Government do not think they will be, and there are cases in which the Government think justice will not be done unless the administrator's decision is confirmed by some tribunal or in some other appropriate way, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a tribunal being set up; and it is the Government's intention, if such a difficulty arises, to see that something is done to meet that case. We resist this Amendment because we think that the setting up of a tribunal should not be obligatory, for the reasons I have outlined.

§ 6.43 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I can assure the noble Lord that the few words I will say will be said with perfect courtesy to him. I am acutely conscious of the fact that he has devoted himself to the study of a complex question and has done his utmost to advise us by his explanation. All who hear him or read what he has said will be glad to hear the decision announced that there is to be no claim of Crown priority in this case. I understand that one claim which may arise is from the guarantee given some time ago to the Austrian Loan, amounting, I believe, to £4,000,000. If this were proceeded with on the basis that the Crown helps itself to its own debt before anybody else gets anything, that would seriously interfere with the prospects of private claimants. But I gather that nothing of the sort is to be claimed. In the same way, there may be a problem of German debtors who may be liable to past income tax. There again, if that were granted in priority to private claims, it would seriously interfere with the prospect of private individuals—I think I understand rightly, from the noble Lord's indication of assent, that I am correctly stating what he informed us to be the decision of the Government.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Precisely.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I say it with complete courtesy; I rather doubt whether the noble Lord has appreciated what really is the main point involved 1473 here, however it is decided. I understand, and he has stated most clearly, that the administrator is to distribute the pool among the pre-war creditors of Germany. I understand that in the Order in Council we shall find that different claimants are divided into classes which will be devised. I do not think the noble Lord has followed that there may be a dispute whether a person is or is not a pre-war creditor, and if that dispute arises in a case involving a substantial sum of money, the practical question is whether the administrator should say, "I do not regard you as a pre-war creditor and I will not include you," or should say, "I am going to treat you as a pre-war creditor and that is all there is about it." That is the nature of the difficulty. I understand the noble Lord to say that the Government will take care to divide people into classes and to deal with the matter within those classes. My point, however (I think the noble Lord will follow me, and I speak with complete moderation), is that the question is likely to arise whether a particular case falls within a certain class or not. He will say that the administrator would decide that. The whole question is: is that in the circumstances right?
The reason why I have referred to the First World War is that then it was found difficult to decide in some cases whether it was a case of German property within the meaning of the arrangement, whether it was a case of pre-war creditor or not, or whether the case fell within a class. Therefore, the question is—and the noble Lord will see that it is a proper question to raise—whether that should be decided administratively by the administrator, who no doubt will do his best and will be very skilled, or whether it is a case where there ought to be some opportunity of an appeal to a tribunal which, of course, has no interest at all except to decide the case rightly and where neither the claims of the Government nor those of any other class matter at all. I can understand the argument that because there will be many cases, and the amounts involved will be small, this is unnecessarily elaborate. Speaking for myself, would listen to that argument with attention and I hope without prejudice. But it is not the case that what is proposed by the noble Lord in his speech solves those questions, because it leaves the 1474 administrator to decide. It is to be decided administratively and not by any judicial process.
There are only two other observations I venture to make. The noble Lord started by saying, and it rather shocked me, that after all this was very good of the Government, because all this money really belongs to the Government, and it is nothing except their excessive kindness of heart which makes them propose that people who are pre-war creditors should get some of it. I say it rather shocked me for this reason: for hundreds of years past it has never been any part of international law that because we go to war with a country the victorious Power seizes for itself the private property of citizens of the enemy country. That has not been the practice of civilised nations according to international law for hundreds of years. It is permitted to seize property at sea; and that raises the question about prize money. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will agree at once that you will not find in any international law book that the ancient and barbaric practice of seizing people's private property and putting it into the pockets of victorious Governments on land is a thing which people would foster at the present day. So I do not think it is quite the case that this all belongs to the Government and that they are now being so benevolent in arranging for its distribution.
The other point is this. The noble Lord says—and he may be right—that what my noble and learned friend is pressing is already in the Bill. If it is in the Bill already, is it not rather a pity to make such a song and dance about the proposal? It does not appear to be so very foolish, so wicked, confusing or discourteous, if it is already in the Bill. I do not know whether the right view is that it is in the Bill; I would pay great attention to what the Lord Chancellor said about that if he thought it right to speak.
I would say, finally, that what is here proposed is not, as I think the noble Lord by mistake observed, that something obligatory is being put on the administrator; there is nothing obligatory about it at all. The Amendment is providing merely that those who draw up the Order in Council shall have power to provide for an appeal tribunal in such cases as the 1475 Order in Council thinks it well to leave open to them. That is not putting any obligation on anybody; it is only making plain that we desire, subject to what the Government think is a fair provision to make, that in the more important cases there should be clearly power to make an Order in Council which contains those provisions. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will appreciate that I am pointing out where I felt the argument he has addressed to your Lordships is a little deficient; and I am not without hopes that even now those on the Government Bench might feel it is reasonable to include this as one of the matters which might be provided for in the Order in Council which the Government will draft.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
May I reply to the noble and learned Viscount straightway? I am fully conscious of what he has said. It is because of these difficulties that the proposal was put forward, and is going to be carried out, of forming an advisory committee of all the different classes of creditors. We want them to agree upon a number of things and make a scheme of distribution which we hope will smooth out many of the difficulties. But I must repeat that we are in no way settling German debts. This money which is being distributed will have no effect upon the legal position of the debtors or the creditors. If I may put it in non-legal language, I would say that if someone gets a payment out of this pool, that will not affect his legal right at some future date, if he thinks proper, to sue for the whole amount of his debt. That is the advice I have received.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
He can be paid the sum twice over in full?

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am not saying what view the court will take of it, but this Bill does not alter his legal status. The noble and learned Viscount will appreciate that in these cases I have the best legal advice that is open to me. As the noble and learned Viscount quite rightly said, if after we have done everything possible—having had the advisory committee advise us on the preparation of these Orders in Council, and they having been accepted by Parliament—we then find there are some particularly difficult cases, we shall 1476 see that something is done. It may be that we shall appoint as an arbitrator a judge learned in that particular type of case. But the decision will have to rest with the administrator, subject to whatever appeal we shall adopt. In the circumstances, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not press his Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, particularly at this late hour, but, with great respect, I really begin to think that the noble Lord does not understand the point. The advisory committee is not going to decide whether a big claim is the claim of a pre-war creditor or not; it has absolutely nothing to do with the advisory committee. The advisory committee, I gather, is to give advice—though, of course, you do not promise to follow it—as to how you shall draw up your Order in Council. But that is a wholly different question from that on which I was speaking. Your advisory committee will not in the least help you to decide whether a particular body is or is not a pre-war creditor; it will not in the least help you to decide whether this is, or is not, in the proper sense, German property, because that depends on a particular case. That the advisory committee will tell you how they think the Order in Council should be drawn up has nothing in the world to do with it.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on this matter to see whether I can help at all. I think my noble friend Lord Lucas is quite right in saying that this bears no analogy to what happened after what he called "the last war." Technically he is right in calling it "the last war," because the present war is still on. Therefore, the last war was the 1914–18 war. That is what we mean. Then it was a very different proposition. You had to establish your right against a German debtor, and the obligation imposed by the Peace Treaty upon the German State was to guarantee the amount clue from the debtor—you had a proceeding as between debtor and creditor, and all the rest of it. This is a very different proposition. Here we have a sum of money (we have not seized it; the Potsdam Agreement provided for the award to this Government of German ex-enemy property here) and we are distributing a pool of money. Obviously we are entitled to distribute it 1477 in any way we think right, so long as we do it on fair lines. I agree, of course, that in order to distribute a sum of money you have to ascertain what is the basis upon which you are going to distribute it. In short, you have to pay dividends; and you cannot pay a dividend unless you know the amount on which you are paying the dividend. The dividend is not likely to be very much. I gather that the sum is of the order of £15,000,000 and the estimate of the claims which we have at present is of the order of £120,000,000. Therefore, I suspect the dividend will be something like 10 per cent., or perhaps a little more. When we come to promulgate our Orders in Council, we shall, of course, consider whether we ought to pay that dividend on a flat rate, or whether we should prefer the small man and pay rather less to the big man, or vice versa. All that is for the Orders in Council to provide. I agree that the amount has to be assessed in order that the dividend may be fixed.
It would be possible, of course, to have a tribunal. But the disadvantage of a tribunal is that a good deal of money would probably be eaten up in determining all these questions, and certainly a great deal of time would be taken up by it. We came to the conclusion—and this is the real objection to accepting the Amendment—that, in the circumstances, having this comparatively small sum of money to distribute and it being important that we should distribute it with promptitude, we had better do it administratively, and not have a tribunal. If we had a tribunal, it could be argued that there ought to be an appeal from the tribunal and there might be an appeal up to the highest court, which would expend a great deal of time. On balance, we came to the conclusion that it was better simply to have it done administratively, in order to distribute to these people that which we had.
I may point out that so far as what is German enemy property is concerned, I think people could go to the courts, because the administrator has jurisdiction to deal only with what is ex-enemy property. If he was dealing with something else, he might be brought before the court. He has no jurisdiction in regard to that matter, but only with regard to amount, admission of claims and that sort of thing. I agree that the 1478 problem is: is it better to do this under what is obviously a quicker and cheaper method, or is it better to try to mix that method with a tribunal, at any rate in some of the cases, bearing in mind always that if you have the tribunal hanging over you it does delay to some extent the final payment? Of course, there could be an interim dividend. We came to the conclusion that the better way of doing it was on an administrative basis. Therefore, I feel that, were we to accept this Amendment, it might be thought that we were resigning from the position which we had adopted, and which we stated quite categorically in another place—that we are contemplating doing this by administrative methods. You may say "cheap and nasty." Well, if you get a competent person to do it, I do not know that he will not arrive at substantial justice.
My noble friend Lord Lucas is quite right when he says that what will happen as between debtor and creditor will depend upon the terms of the Peace Treaty. Supposing one of these people did receive, say, 10 per cent. Unless something is written into the Peace Treaty to prevent his recovering his debt in full from the debtor, it would not be a discharge of any part of the debt. In all probability there will be some provision saying that he cannot get the money twice over. If anybody has a claim rejected on these administrative grounds, he is not precluded from all his remedies. He would thereafter be able—perhaps when the Peace Treaty is ultimately signed—to bring his claim against the debtor and get his claim in full, on the hypothesis that he had been paid nothing. That is the short point, and I do not think my noble friend Lord Lucas meant to say anything contrary to that—I did not understand him to say so. But we believe that it is better to do it in this way. Incidentally, I should have thought that there was power to do this under Clause 1 (2) (d), where you will see that the Order in Council may make provision as to the determination, as respects any such claim, of the question whether the claim is established for the purposes of the Order and of the amount of the claim. I should have thought that under that clause we would be entitled to set up the machinery for determination—namely, a 1479 tribunal. Therefore, with the greatest respect to everybody, and with the most complete courtesy to everybody, I think we are arguing about very little in this case. I do not want to accept the Amendment, because I do not want to lead people to suppose that we are going to try to combine any sort of judicial process when, for reasons which I have given, we think it better to do this by administrative means, by an experienced administrator.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I rise first for the purpose of saying that I do not think I said anything in my opening speech which should offend the noble Lord opposite.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Nothing whatsoever.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
He accused me of lack of courtesy, but I must say I thought that after he had begun by telling me that I and others who took this view entirely misunderstood the Bill before us—

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Would the noble and learned Viscount forgive my interrupting? In the interests of accuracy, I would point out that I said "suffered under some misapprehension," which is a vastly different thing.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
When the noble Lord looks at his speech he will find that he started by brushing away my opinion as if it was nothing at all. I thought that even if I was not justified in resenting it, it did open to me the ordinary cut and thrust of debate. As he did not think I understood the Bill, I thought I was justified in saying that the boot was really on the other leg. However, there it is, and I am extremely sorry that we have had any heat displayed over this point which, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor says, is a very small one.
In the course of my speech, I said that we certainly did not propose to divide upon this Amendment. I was pressing it simply for the consideration of the Government. As I have indicated already, I have a strong belief, which I still maintain, that something of the sort will be necessary. I thought all along that it could possibly be done under 1480 Clause 1 (4), but I was also anxious to find out the Government's view. It may be right, but they rather surprise me at the view they take of this Bill. I did not think that the Government were proceeding on the footing that the property of German enemies in this country was property in which they had forfeited all their rights, and that the Government could take it over. I am talking of civilian property. The view of international lawyers is that conquest in a war does not entitle you to the property of civilians. In Clause 1 it says that: His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the collection and realisation of German enemy property and for the distribution of the proceeds. Now, to whom?— to persons who establish claims in respect of German enemy debts. Is it to be said that the Government can do what they like with it? The Bill certainly does not authorise that. The Bill suggests the distribution among people who are British subjects or companies resident here, who establish claims on enemy debts which the Government have never declared to be their property. That they have a right to distribute in the circumstances is a very different thing, but as I understand this Bill they are not entitled to a single sixpence. In subsection (2) (c) I find that the administrator is to ascertain the manner and time in which claims in respect of German enemy debts are to be put forward, and the furnishing and verification of information in connection with any such claims, including the production of books and documents; (d) The determination, as respects any such claim of the question whether"— mark these words— the claim is established for the purposes of the Order and of the amount of the claim. Like others, I make mistakes, and I have often made them in my lifetime, but I am a little surprised to find that the true construction of this—notwithstanding the words to which I have referred—is that the administrator has not to ascertain the amounts of the claims. I quite agree with a great deal my noble friend opposite has said with regard to this sort of claim, and it is true that it may be a claim to recover only 10 per cent. But there may be people, as, for example, the beneficiary in the case to which I 1481 referred, who are entitled to a claim against enemy property of £500,000, and those persons may be met by the Ministry saying: "Well, we think your claim is bad, because this Will is illegal or there is a clause in it which deprives you from having a penny." It would appear very singular to me if the Government intended that man to be finally defeated because the administrator, who before had never tried a case in his life or never had to construe a Will, should be entitled to say, "On my reading of the Act, you are not entitled to anything." Does that not seem rather strange?
I can understand that if the advice Given to my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is right, these people are not entitled to anything, and that anything they do get is ex gratia. If that is the position, I fully understand the view he has put before us. Had I known his view I should have been able to understand something which, when he was speaking, I did not understand. Therefore I content myself with saying that I now follow a great deal of what has been said by the noble Lord opposite. I hope this Bill will be a success, and that people who are going to have a claim under it will feel that they are being treated with justice. At the same time, I cannot feel it is right if the settlement of these claims—which may in some cases be a matter of life or death to the claimant—is left to be determined by someone who is not a lawyer at all. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 7.12 p.m.

§ THE MARQUESS OF READING moved to add to subsection (6): and in giving such direction the Board of Trade shall have special regard to cases in which the circumstances are such as to make it unreasonable or unfair to deprive the person above referred to of such property or to treat the property as affected with the consequences otherwise attaching to German enemy property.

§ The noble Marquess said: I can put quite briefly what I have in mind. On the Second Reading I raised the question of the various people who might on any view of fairness of the situation be entitled to special treatment in the way of exgratia payment. What is puzzling me a little—and this is why I put down what is admittedly an exploratory Amendment, in the sense that I want 1482 information—is, what is the position when there will be an Act of Parliament regulating the matter? Does the situation obtain after that Act comes into force? In other words can you, somewhat airily, under various agreements made in Paris, Brussels and other places, over the past years, say you are going to give ex-gratia payments to certain types of people if you have no power in the Bill which entitles you to deal with the matter in that way? I shall be glad to hear something on that point from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said words. —(The Marquess of Reading.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am glad that the noble Marquess said that this is only an exploratory Amendment. I was hoping, when I said I should have to resist it, that he would not take that as an indication that I was in any way unsympathetic. I think we on this side of the House expressed our sympathy with what the noble Marquess seeks to do when this matter was discussed on Second Reading. Therefore I hope the noble Marquess will not charge me with being unsympathetic. If the noble Marquess will look at Clause 1, subsection (6) I think he will see the answer. The subsection runs as follows: Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Board of Trade may give a direction to the administrator requiring him to transfer to or for the benefit of any person specified in the direction any German enemy property, or the proceeds of any German enemy property, to which that person would have been entitled.… That gives the same power under this Bill as exists at the present time. The rules governing the treatment will be the same rules as heretofore. I hope that perhaps the treatment will be even more generous than in the past. There is a further point which I should like to mention. Twenty million dollars, of which our share was over 5,000,000, have already been paid under the Paris agreement—that is, the agreement between the eighteen countries—in respect of the alleviation of distress of victims of Nazi oppression. So I do not think that anybody—least of all, I am sure, the noble Marquess—would charge this country with not having done what it can. I hope that in view of what I have said 1483 as to where the power lies, the noble Marquess will withdraw his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
As I said, my Amendment was an exploratory one. I think the noble Lord has carried it a little further, but I do not propose to take any further action except to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause: () Where any German enemy property, on or at any time after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, belonged to, or was held or managed on behalf of, a German company, and it appears to the Board of Trade that the company was on the said day controlled, directly or indirectly, by a United Kingdom company, the Board may treat that property for the purposes of the last preceding subsection, to such extent as the Board think fit having regard to the extent of the interest of the United Kingdom company in the German company, as property to which the United Kingdom company would have been entitled but for the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or any order made thereunder. In this subsection, the expression 'German company' means a body incorporated in, or under the laws of, Germany, and the expression 'United Kingdom company' means a body incorporated in, or under the laws of, the United Kingdom.

§ The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment which I foreshadowed on the Second Reading. Noble Lords will remember that I said we were very impressed with some of the contentions put forward then, that to treat as German enemy property the property of German companies wholly or partly owned by British companies was inequitable, contrary to the theory that the burden of reparations ought to fall on German and not on Allied nationals, and likely to jeopardise the recognition of the principle that a British controlling interest of a foreign company should be safeguarded. This Amendment is put down to rectify that position. We agree with the arguments referring to capital assets and the Government view is that this Amendment should be applied only to capital assets. I cannot agree that the same case has been made out for trade debts, but I do not want to argue that to-night. The Amendment itself refers to "any German enemy property." It does not discriminate in terms between the capital assets of a 1484 German company and its trade debts. Under its terms the Board of Trade would have sufficient powers to enable a direction to the administrator to be appropriately confined in any particular case, if necessary, or to direct the release of the lot. I think this is one of the cases on which we should invite and receive the advice of the advisory committee. I hope that this explanation will satisfy your Lordships. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I am sure we shall be glad to add this to the Bill. If your Lordships will turn to page 7, line 32, of the Bill you will find that the word "property" in the Bill means: …any money, any negotiable instrument, debt or other chose in action,… Therefore, as the noble Lord's Amendment stands, "property" does include debts. But I should like to ask whether it is thought proper to have these matters decided by a Department, with a large discretion, and to give them power to act like a character in the Bible who found himself in some doubt as to what the amount should be and said: …sit down quickly, and write fifty. The other point that occurs to me is that the argument which the noble Lord used earlier—that it was not needed because subsection (6) of Clause 1 covered the case—would, I should have thought, equally apply to the present Amendment. That does not mean that I am not pleased to see it in the Bill because anything which is definitely stated in the Bill is an advantage all round.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
I have put down a Manuscript Amendment dealing with a point that I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill—that is, the question of the position of British women who become German by their marriage and subsequently regain their British nationality. I do not want to go into this question at any length. I have given the noble Lord opposite full particulars of the case which came to my notice. Briefly, it was this. A certain Englishwoman had married a German before the First World War. At the conclusion of the Second World War, she 1485 was still German and she had a certain amount of money which was paid to her regularly by trustees in England. That money naturally ceased at the beginning of the Second World War. The income was paid to the Custodian of Enemy Property and she has received nothing since. Since then, this woman has become a British subject by re-naturalisation, and yet has not yet received any sum from the Custodian of Enemy Property, although she has in her possession a certificate of re-naturalisation. That is the general position which seems to me to bear hardly on the woman in question. Therefore, I beg to move this Amendment in the hope of elucidating some information from the noble Lord which will clear up a case which appears to me to need a solution.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 3, line 3, at end insert: ("() Where any German enemy property, on or at any time after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, belonged to an individual born in British territory who became a German national by marriage, but who has become a British subject by renaturalisation, the Board of Trade shall give a direction to the Administrator requiring him to transfer to such individual any of his property which would otherwise be treated as German enemy property."—(Earl of Munster.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for giving me prior notice of this Amendment, which he did with his usual courtesy. I can give him a short and (I hope) a satisfactory answer. Dealing with the particular case which he has cited as an example of what the Amendment is intended to cover, it appears that this woman had been living in Germany from the date he mentioned, from the First World War, and that she recently had acquired British nationality. If she does one thing now, it will conform with the Rules of the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency, which cover this particular point—that is, take up her residence in the country of the nationality she now desires to have. She has to-day a dual nationality—a German nationality by her marriage and a British nationality by her altered status under the Act. These Rules apply to the assets of any individual of German nationality. Rule 6 (g) (3) refers to a person who has left Germany (or if he has not left Germany at the final accounting under the Paris Agreement, it is proved that he intends 1486 to leave Germany within a reasonable time thereafter) to establish his permanent residence in that I.A.R.A. country. So that, if this woman establishes her permanent address in this country, we shall be only too ready to release her property, but we cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment because it contravenes our obligation under the Paris Agreement, which prevents us from returning German enemy property to German ownership and control. The reacquisition of British nationality does not divest people of their German nationality which they acquired by reason of their marriage to German nationals. Under the Act, the master nationality of these particular persons is the nationality of the country where they decide to take up their permanent residence. With that explanation, I trust that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
I am not quite clear as to the condition that the noble Lord is seeking to impose. Taking the particular case raised by the noble Earl is he saying that this lady can receive her money only if she lives in this country for the rest of her life? Because that seems to me imposing rather a strange penalty upon somebody. If the noble Lord had said something about a qualifying period I could understand it, but her receipt of this money must be coterminous with her residence in this country. That seems to be taking the matter very far. Under the exchange control, I can understand his saying that she cannot go to a hard-currency country, but to say that she must stay indefinitely in this country is rather a startling proposition.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The noble Marquess is a learned lawyer. I am not. How to construe "permanent residence" and whether it means having an address or a property in this country, the noble Marquess would know better than I. But the Rule says: establish his permanent residence in that I.A.R.A. country. That is the Rule to which we are adhering. I speak with reserve on the subject, but whatever advice I may receive on this point, I should not think it would be so harshly interpreted as the noble Marquess has suggested—that nobody could ever leave this country, even for a holiday or for a tour round the world for twelve months.

1487

THE MARQUESS OF READING
I am not querying "for a holiday," but the fact that it has to be her place of residence for the rest of her life.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I think that is what it means. That is what it says.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
Or when she is dead.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
I think that is very hard.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
The noble Lord said that his reply to my Amendment would be short. It has been short, but it has not been satisfactory. When is this poor lady going to receive any income at all? Although she has now become a British subject, she is to receive none of the income which was due to her and was paid to her regularly up to the outbreak of this last war until she takes up permanent residence in this country. When is the income going to be paid to her? Will it begin from the day that she sets foot in this country and can prove a permanent residence? Will she get the income for the last two or three years when she was a British subject? I think that we might have a little further explanation of this. The noble Lord said that she had to take up permanent residence. Did I understand him to say in one of the I.A.R.A. countries?

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
No; in the I.A.R.A. country where she desires to have that nationality.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
So she takes up residence in this country as a British subject, but is prohibited from going to live in any other portion of the British Empire or Commonwealth. Is that the proposal? It seems to me to be a most fantastic arrangement. I would like some further explanation before I withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I can give the noble Earl no further information on this point. I have done my best to acquire information during the course of the last four or five hours, but I did not have notice of this Manuscript Amendment until I came into the House this afternoon. Between then and the time of the opening of these proceedings I do not think I have done too badly. 1488 If the noble Earl wants any further information perhaps he would apply to the Board of Trade. They can then say when the payments will be made. It may be that the Custodian has had this income or the proceeds of any investment from which it is derived since the 1914–18 war, I have a note here which I am sorry to say I cannot read. Perhaps my noble and learned friend can assist me. I can only tell the noble Earl that if he or this lady will go to the Board of Trade, the latter will be only too willing to help by giving any information they can. I cannot go any further than that. Those are the I.A.R.A. Rules to which I am bound, and by which we agreed with eighteen other nations at Paris to be bound. The legal and literal interpretation of "permanent residence" I do not know. I think the noble and learned Viscount mentioned the only permanent residence she could possibly have—namely, when she is dead.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
That was a joke.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I took it as being a joke and I am repeating it as such, because I do not know what is the definition. I should have thought that "permanent residence" meant that she had an address here. I hesitate to put the words into the noble and learned Viscount's mind, but it may be satisfactory if she has a permanent residence sufficient to qualify her to pay income tax. I suppose she could then, so long as she had this residence here, be free to roam the world at her leisure and pleasure. I cannot think of anything else.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
The noble Lord is getting into rather deep water if he propounds from the Government Bench the proposition that nobody pays income tax in this country unless he has permanent residence. I think he will find some trouble arising from that, because that is not the case. People who reside here much less permanently find themselves caught with income tax, even if they cone here for only six months. Anyway, we had better not go into all that.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
May I say, that if a British wife who has resumed British nationality comes home, 1489 and acquires permanent residence in any one of the Dominions, she is treated exactly in the same way as if she acquired permanent residence here?

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I apologise for pressing this question so hard, but it seemed to be a question requiring some explanation. I apologise to the Committee for delaying them and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

§ 7.34 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause: ("The Treaty of Peace Act, 1919 is hereby repealed and any Order-in-Council made under it is cancelled and no charge imposed or purported or sought to be imposed by the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919 or by any Order made thereunder upon any property rights or interests belonging to German nationals within the meaning of such an Act or Order and not already enforced shall, after the commencement of this Act, be enforced or have any effect.")

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: I will not detain the Committee for more than a couple of minutes. My attention was called to a recent decision by a Chancery Judge in the construction and application of a will which certainly seemed to have a very serious result, though I am not saying he was not right. If I understood it rightly, he determined that a will could not be construed in accordance with what undoubtedly was intended by the testator, so that an interest which had now sprung up could be satisfied, because that interest was not free to be disposed of as long as the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, and Orders in Council made under it, remained the law. The year 1919 is now a long way off and I had rather supposed, perhaps wrongly, that the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, had worked itself out by this time. If it has not, it would be interesting to know how much longer it is expected to go on, because the people who were disappointed in their application felt that it was rather hard that they should be caught at present by the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, and any Order in Council made thereunder. I merely mention this point, and formally move the Amend- 1490 ment. I will not press it. I merely ask for information, and I am sure that the explanation which the noble Lord furnishes will be as satisfactory as all the others that he has given us to-day.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
So far as the noble and learned Viscount is concerned, my reply is going to be even more satisfactory than he could ever hope for. We are going to express to the noble and learned Viscount our grateful thanks for having drawn attention to something that does need rectifying. We think he has performed a public service in putting this Amendment down. That, I feel, is an opening which he at least will appreciate. But if the noble and learned Viscount looks at his Amendment, he will see that it sweeps in a lot of things which I feel sure he would not wish to be swept in. Therefore, I am going to give him an undertaking, that in view of what he has said, the Law Officers of the Crown and other interested parties will look into this matter. It will be thoroughly studied with a view to proceeding somewhat upon the lines which the noble and learned Viscount wishes. Similar Acts and orders are in existence with regard to Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, and any general review of the situation will deal with those cases at the same time. Again, I express gratitude on behalf of the Government to the noble and learned Viscount, and I feel sure he will be satisfied with that assurance and will withdraw his Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I cannot do more than express my extreme gratification. I tentatively dangled this fly on the water without much expectation, but I seem to have caught something. I hope that something will be done in addition to the pleasant observations just made by the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

§ Clause 8 [interpretation]:

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in the definition of "German enemy property" immediately before the words "belonged 1491 to" to insert "beneficially." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is only a drafting Amendment. I think by construction the sentence probably means "beneficially." As a matter of fact, at page 6, line 28, the draftsman has put in the words "beneficial ownership." In both cases the more accurate term should be put in when it is meant. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 6, line 43, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("beneficially").—(Viscount Maugham.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not press this Amendment. I have studied this matter carefully, and I can give the reasons for not accepting the Amendment lengthily or shortly. I know the Committee would like them shortly. May I put them in three very short sentences? The Amendment would have the effect of preventing such property being treated as German enemy property for the purposes of the Bill but it would do nothing to free it from the restrictions of trading with the enemy legislation. That is our first objection. Our second objection is that, as drafted, the Amendment could not be made to work. It would place on the administrator the onus of deciding whether or not property was beneficially owned by Germans or by other people. The initiative must come from persons interested in the property. Finally, the problem of the disposal of property which is nominally German, beneficially non-German, is, in any event, one which can be satisfactorily settled only by administrative action on a case by case basis. In view of those considerations, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not press this Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I will not press it. I beg leave it withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ 7.41 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
I am sorry to detain the House at this late hour, but there are certain points which I wish to raise upon Clause 8. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas will, I hope, forgive me when I say that, when all is said and done, this Bill has been rushed through your Lordships' House. There are a large number 1492 of highly technical and difficult questions on which we should like further explanation. I need not enumerate them all. I will mention only two which come up on Clause 8. The first concerns external loans—the Young loan, the Dawes loan and the Austrian loan. Are they included? Then what is the position with regard to bearer bonds of German and industrial commercial concerns, which are not covered in this clause? Another point on which I ask for information is the question of proving the ownership of bearer bonds. It seems to me that with these going back, as they do, over a period of ten years, it may be an immensely difficult and complicated task. I regret that it was not possible in the very short time available to put other Amendments down to deal with these two specific matters. If it is not worrying the noble Lord too much, I shall be very grateful if he can explain these matters quite briefly, or say something which will enlighten me on those particular points.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
If the noble Earl will look at Clause 8 (1) (a) he will see that these matters are covered there. It says that the obligation must be an obligation to any of the following persons: ….

(iv) His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom;

(v) any British subject or British protected person resident or carrying on business on that day in the United Kingdom;

(vi) 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."

Debts in such cases are included there. It also covers the bonds which the noble Earl mentioned—there are the non-Reich bonds such as for example, the City of Hamburg Bonds. They are included there. If the bonds were held upon September 3, 1939, by (1) His Majesty's Government or, (2) British subjects or British-protected persons resident or carrying on business in the United Kingdom or (3) United Kingdom companies or concerns, again they are included. The noble Earl asked me how we were going to recognise them. That is a matter which presents some difficulty. We are going to ask the advice of the advisory committee. There are various channels through which in- 1493 quiries may be made. We may ask whether the bonds satisfied the exchange control procedure, for example. If we cannot get the information from bank records, there may be one or two other sources of information that will help us to give reasonable assurance that they can all be identified and the matter put on a proper basis. I hope that that satisfies the noble Earl.

§ Clause 8 agreed to.

§ Remaining clauses agreed to.

§ House resumed.

§ Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 8), the Amendment reported; Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.