§ 3.5 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) if they can state the total value of the personal property, steel, iron and coal-producing assets of Herr Alfried Krupp von Buhlem und Halbach (a) already sold under the 1953 deconcentration plan, and (b) remaining in his possession and due to be sold; (2) whether Herr Krupp recently reacquired such parts of the Bochumer Verein und Rheinhausen as had been sold under the 1953 agreement, and, if so, under what authority; and (3) what is the present position regarding the enforcement of the deconcentration orders.]
968§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)My Lords, the value of the assets sold or ceded under the Krupp deconcentration plan is approximately £12,000,000. According to information received from the Federal German Government, the nominal capital value, including reserves of those remaining to be sold, is in the region of £14,000,000. The answer to the second part of the Question is that, although the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community has approved a proposal that the HËtten und Bergwerke Rheinhausen Company, which is one of the companies subject to the obligation to sell, should acquire a majority shareholding in the firm Bochumer Verein, this proposal has not been put into effect. As regards the third part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my reply of December 9, 1958.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his answer. Does he remember the statement by Herr Krupp in 1953, namely:
I have signed an undertaking not to produce coal and steel, and I will stick to it"?Is it not the case, therefore, that in these approaches for the re-acquisition of the Bochumer Verein und Rheinhausen Herr Krupp has deliberately broken his word in this respect? Is it not the case that if he re-acquires these assets—which it looks as if he is going to do—he will have become the largest single steel manufacturer in West Germany, as the properties include the great Konstantin coal mine? Is it not clear that he has made these approaches for re-acquisition with the acquiescence of the Bonn Government which, in the words of The Times of January 21, is as much opposed to the 1953 selling order as is Herr Krupp himself?
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, before the noble Marquess replies, and apart from any question of Herr Krupp breaking his word, may I ask whether the acquisition of these two undertakings would not be quite contrary to the intention and spirit of the 1953 deconcentration plan?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, may I say first of all that 969 I am aware of the articles and the quotations to which he has referred. I think I can answer both the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eubank, together. The Treaty of the European Coal and Steel Community contains provisions to guard against further excessive concentrations. Furthermore, remarks made recently by Dr. Adenaeur show that the Federal Government is fully alive to the dangers of excessive industrial concentration. After the deconcentration plan has been completed there will be no legal obligation on the Federal Government to enforce Herr Krupp's undertaking.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether it is not the case that under the Bonn Convention the obligation is upon Herr Krupp, under Law 27, to sell. Is it not the case that the Dr. Adenaeur Government took over the legal obligations under Law 27, and should those not be carried out quite apart from any of the dealings with the High Authority?
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, may I again ask the noble Marquess whether we are to understand that the arrangements made under the Coal and Steel Community override Law 27 to which my noble friend has referred? The intention of Law 27 was to break up this concentration. Are we to understand that under the Coal and Steel Community this concentration can be re-concentrated? It seems to me quite contrary to the intentions of the Allies when they carried through Law 27.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I hope I have not misled your Lordships. The High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community does not affect the obligation to sell in any way.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, if it does not affect the obligation to sell, does it also not affect the obligation to keep the de-concentration that was established or sought to be established under Law 27?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, the High Authority is an international body, as the noble Lord is well aware. We are dealing here with the 970 Bonn Convention to which there are three signatories, France, the United States of America and ourselves, and the High Authority has no overriding power whatsoever.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, may I ask for a final answer? Are we to understand that Law 27 is going to be implemented regardless of the Coal and Steel Community?
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, may I help the noble Marquess by asking this question? Is it not the case that there is no relationship at all between Law 27, which the Bonn Government undertook to enforce, and the High Authority?
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether any further questions had not better be addressed to Mr. Dulles?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNENo, my Lords. As I have repeatedly said in your Lordships' House, this is a matter which concerns three Governments and it is a matter which will be decided by three Governments.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, with great respect, that does not answer my question. May I ask it again? Is it not the case that there is no relationship whatsoever between Law 27, as it ought to be applied, and the High Authority?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe noble Viscount is perfectly correct.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, I understand, of course, that there are three Governments responsible for Law 27. But may I ask for a simple answer to a simple question? Have Her Majesty's Government changed their attitude as regards the implementation of Law 27?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I should very much like to take a swipe and hit the thing for six over the pavilion, but I am obliged to reply in the same cautious vein with which I have replied to these questions all along. This is a tripartite matter, and it would be most improper for me, as the noble Lord probably knows better than anyone else, to try to answer that question unilaterally. It would be very improper to do so.