§ 2.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, 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, they will (1) give the names of the seven members of the Mixed Committee to consider applications for an extension of time and the political, business, economic or other associations of each member (2) state the terms of reference to the Committee; and (3) say whether the meetings of the Committee will be held in public.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)My Lards, as regards the first part of the Question, the members of the Mixed Committee so far appointed are: for the United Kingdom, Sir Edward Jackson, who is a distinguished Judge and former colonial civil servant who has served in Germany as Chief Judge of the Allied High Commission Court in the British Zone and afterwards on the Mixed Board on War Criminals; for the United States, Mr. Spencer Phenix, an economist and former investment banker. The names of the French and the three German members have not yet been announced by their respective Governments. The seventh member will be elected by the other six.
The answer to the second part of the Question is that the terms of reference of the Committee are given in Article 10 of Chapter 1 of the Bonn Settlement Convention, published in 1955 as Command Paper 9368. In brief, the Committee can grant an extension of time if the applicant establishes that without it the securities could not with the exercise of reasonable efforts be disposed of on reasonable terms and on a basis compatible with the German public interest and without a disruptive effect on the German capital market. As for the third part of the noble Lord's Question, it is most unlikely that the meetings of the Committee will be 344 held in public. It is laid down in the terms of reference to which I have just referred that the Mixed Committee shall adopt its own rules for the conduct of its business.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKI beg to thank the noble Marquess for his comprehensive reply. With regard to the names of the other members of the Committee, perhaps he will allow me to put down a question after the Whitsuntide Recess. With regard to the answer as to whether the meetings will be in public, will there be any report, of any sort or kind, to Parliament as regards the findings of this Committee?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEYes, my Lords, the findings of the Committee will be reported.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, may I ask whether those who have strong views on this question will be enabled to make representations before the Committee?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThere are always the normal channels for views of this sort to be expressed, and I think that we can say that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has perhaps been very clear in the views that he holds and has been given every opportunity of expressing them.
§ LORD OGMOREIf the noble Viscount wishes to express them in person and thus give them more force can he do so? Could he go to this Committee in person—he or anyone else—and express his views?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNENo, my Lords.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, with reference to their answers in this House on April 27, 1959, that the purpose of the Krupp Mixed Committee is "to work out the best solution in the interests of Europe" and "to consider whether it is reasonable within the time limits … to insist on the remainder of these deconcentration requirements in the general interests of Europe", the findings of the Mixed 345 Committee as to what is, or what is not, in the interests of Europe in this matter will Abe subjected to their review and to the approval of the Legislature of the United Kingdom.]
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, the Answer is, No. The decisions of the Mixed Committee will not be reviewed by any of the national Legislatures concerned. There is no provision for such procedure under the terms of the Bonn Settlement Convention of 1955. The findings of the Mixed Committee will therefore be final.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer, in which he made no reference to the general interests of Europe. May I ask him this question? Is he aware that there was never any question of an extension of time being granted except in the event that the original period was inadequate in which to dispose of the prescribed assets? Is he further aware that April 22 last, in the course of questions and answers to questions raised by me, was the first time that Parliament heard from the Government that the general interests of Europe were to be discussed in considering an application for an extension of time. Will the noble Marquess say when, and on what ground and authority, this new element of the general interest of Europe was introduced into the matter?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI wonder whether the noble Viscount considers that the interests of. Germany are incompatible with the general interests of Europe.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, are we not entitled to use a couple of common quotations to suggest that, from the Answer given by the noble Marquess, "the chips are down" and "the pass is sold"?
§ LORD BIRDWOODWould the noble Marquess agree it would be both improper and quite unpractical to attempt to enforce any unilateral point of view of one Parliament concerned on the other Parliaments concerned? I wonder whether he would also agree that the principle of deconcentration was conceived at a time when there was very little conception of a European Common Market, and that that fact has to be 346 brought into consideration in considering the interests of a great firm such as Krupps?
VISCOUNT ELIBANKIf the noble Marquess does not want to answer that point, may I ask him whether he is aware that following April 22, when there were questions and answers in this House, a paragraph appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt, on April 24 under the heading "Der Westen braucht Krupp"—"the West needs Krupp"? May I ask him whether he is aware that there is very little likelihood of improved Anglo-German relations on the basis that the Krupp organisation is built up again, an organisation which enabled Hitler to go to war and during most of which war Herr Krupp conducted his operations with slave labour, male and female?
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEIf the noble Marquess is not going to attempt to answer that point?—
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I have had a series of speeches addressed at me, and it did not seem to me that some of them really called for reply. I am perfectly willing to answer the questions which the noble Viscount addresses to me so far as is within my power.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATESince the noble Marquess does not consider the questions so far merit a reply, may I ask a question which may merit a reply. Is the intention, when he speaks of the general interest, to increase the arms potential of Germany?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEIt is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and of the other Governments concerned, that the decision which we have reached is for the best.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it a fact, from what the noble Marquess has said, that Parliament has no further power in this matter and that the Government have surrendered their powers and the powers of Parliament to this Committee?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, as I have tried to explain, when this Mixed Committee is set up it will be an autonomous Committee to which we all agree; and it does have 347 complete and absolute powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, understands. That is correct.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKIs the noble Marquess aware that when this Committee was adumbrated under the Bonn Convention it contained no reference at all to the ultimate objective of the Committee as now disclosed, and that therefore Parliament ought surely to be consulted when that objective is discussed?