§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesy's Government, with reference to the 1953 agreement for the disposal of an estimated 74 per cent. of the steel, iron and coal producing assets of Herr Alfried Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach, whether (1) the Mixed Committee to consider applications for an extension of time has been set up and commenced its deliberations; and (2) how is the Committee composed.]
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)My Lords, the Committee has not yet been set up, but I hope it will be shortly. It will be composed of one British, one French, one American and three German members, and a seventh member to be chosen by the other six.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I thank Her Majesty's Government for that reply. In view of the fact that there are to be three Germans on this Committee, will the seventh member be a neutral, and will he be chairman of the Committee?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEENo, my Lords. He will be chosen by the other six, and not by me. I do not know who he will be.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKWill the noble Earl kindly convey to the responsible authorities that there is a strong feeling, about which I happen to know, that the seventh member should be a neutral and chairman of the Committee?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, I do not think it is our intention to give 840 any instructions to the Committee or to the British member of it.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, if we assume the chairman is neutral, can the noble Earl say whether he will have a vote? It seems very strange that on a matter of this sort, which is designed to give effect to Allied legislation in respect of Krupps, there should be three and three. How do they expect to get agreement? If there is disagreement they will make no progress. Surely, there must be somebody to give a casting vote to ensure a decision.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, it must not be assumed that the Mixed Committee will be divided into separate parties. The purpose of this Committee, which is provided for under the Bonn Convention to meet circumstances such as have arisen, is to work out the best solution in the interests of Europe, and there is no reason to suppose that it will be divided nation against nation.
§ LORD HENDERSONBut is it not the case that the experience is that the Germans do not want to give effect to the legislation dealing with the Krupps combine, and that in the ordinary course of events the three Germans will stand pat against implementing what was intended to be carried through?
§ LORD BIRDWOODMy Lords, would the noble Earl agree that what matters to-day is not so much whether Herr Krupp should be held to the decision which was taken when there was a different international situation, as the fact that perhaps a strong Krupps organisation is in the interests, economically, politically and strategically of Western Europe?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, that is of course one of the possible questions which the Mixed Committee will have to consider. It was always contemplated that the deconcentration law might not be able to be reasonably and fairly carried out within a specified time, and it was therefore provided for in the Bonn Convention of 1953 that if it seemed reasonable to give further delay before the law was carried out, a Mixed Committee, which was provided for in the Convention, should be set up; and that procedure is about to be followed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, is it now suggested that Herr Krupp should 841 hurl defiance at the 1953 Agreement, and that he should be allowed, with the approval of Her Majesty's Government, to "get away with it"?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEIt is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government, but for the four Governments, German, British, American and French, who are to be. advised under the terms of the Bonn Convention by this Mixed Committee.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the sole purpose of the deconcentration law was not to prevent a repetition of the Krupp's complex from growing up into the position of strength and danger which it occupied in Hitler's time, and whether we are to wash all that out in the so-called interests of Western defence? I think we ought to be told that that is not the Government's consideration.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, the noble Lord has asked about the purpose of the deconcentration law which was first imposed by the Allied High Commission in 1950, before self-government was given back to Germany. I think the reasons were that it was considered politically desirable that the ownership of industry should be in the hands of more people and be more widely distributed. The responsibility for applying the law was taken over by the Federal Government in 1953 under the Bonn Convention, subject to the reasonable provisions such as are now being applied, if there was any reason to think that the law could not be carried out within a specified time. I think that in fact all the deconcentration laws have been carried out with two exceptions, one that of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke, in regard to which I think about 80 or 90 per cent. of the deconcentration has been carried out, and the other is Krupp, of which rather less than half, about 46 per cent., of the deconcentration has been carried out. What this Mixed Committee now has to consider is whether it is reasonable within the time limits, which have already, I think, expired, to insist on the remainder of these deconcentration requirements, in the general interests of Europe.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, I fully understand the noble Earl's reply. What I was really asking for was a repudiation of the proposal made by the noble 842 Lord, Lord Birdwood, that it might be desirable in the interests of Western defence to allow a reconcentration of the Krupp complex, and I think that that would be a very dangerous thing in the interests of Europe. We have had one experience of it and we ought not to have another.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI certainly could not give a unilateral repudiation of that, because we have to act in this matter in concert with our Allies, the Americans and the French.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that people in this country are very concerned at the present state of relationships between ourselves and Germany? They seem to have deteriorated in the last few months. Would it not be as well for the Government to take a bold stand on this matter, to let them know that we want the relationship improved? But it cannot be improved on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, it might perhaps equally be said that they could not be improved by the unilateral affirmation on the part of one Government that certain steps should be implemented which might not be considered by the other Governments to be in the interests of Germany or France or Western Europe in general. We cannot make any unilateral statement on questions of that kind. The whole point of this Mixed Committee, which was provided for under the Convention as long ago as 1953, is to consider, reasonably and properly, changes in the economic situation which might necessitate modification, at least in the time-table, of the deconcentration law.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, might I ask the noble Earl this question, with the permission of the House—and I must apologise to the House. There has been no suggestion from anywhere of any unilateral statement of the nature now suggested by the noble Earl. May I wind up the subject by asking whether we can have a definite assurance that Law 27 of the Bonn Convention is still in force?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEAt the present time Law 27 of the Allied High Commission, which was later taken over 843 by the Federal Government under the Bonn Convention, remains still in force.
§ LORD BIRDWOODMy Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it seems a rather curious way to improve Anglo-German relations by further crippling this organisation?