VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether they can state the total value of the personal property, steel, iron and coal-producing assets of Herr Alfried Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach (a) already sold under the 1953 deconcentration plan, and (b) remaining in his possession and due to be sold;(2) whether the obligation to sell under Law 27 of the Bonn Convention (taken over by the West German Government) remains in farce;(3) whether they are aware that at the 150th birthday of the firm in March Herr Krupp announced the biggest turnover,£460 million, in its history; and(4) what is the present position regarding the enforcement of the deconcentralion orders.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)My Lords, the answer 614 to the first part of the noble Viscount's Question is that assets to the value of about £12 million at the times of disposal have been sold or ceded under the Krupp Deconcentration Plan. While there is no firm basis for an estimate, the actual present-day value of the Rheinhausen assets represented by the shares held by disposition trustees on Herr Krupps's behalf, which of course include all the coal and steel assets subject to disposal under the Deconcentration Plan, is thought to be considerably in excess of £100 million.
The answer to the second part of the noble Viscount's question is, "Yes". The answer to the third part of the noble Viscount's question is also, "Yes", but the figures I have give the turnover announced on the firm's 150th birthday in March of this year as £452 million (at the new exchange rate), or £430 million (at the old rate), not £460 million, as the noble Viscount has said.
As to the last part of the noble Viscount's question, the present position is that the Mixed Committee of Experts met again in January this year and extended the time for disposition of the Rheinhausen securities for another year until January 31, 1962.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords. I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware that in the House of Commons on March 4, 1953, the then Minister of State, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 512, col. 389):
Under the provisions of the Bonn Conventions, signed last May, the Federal Government undertook to ensure that all deconcentration plans are carried through. The Federal Government will continue to give effect to Allied High Commission Law No. 27 until the whole deconcentration programme for the West German iron and steel industry has been completed.May I ask whether the noble Marquess can assure the House that the Federal Government are still continuing to pursue their task of bringing to an end the deconcentration plan, as adumbrated in 1953?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, as the noble Viscount is well aware, the Federal Government are still under an obligation, as he was told in 1953 by my right honourable friend. The same obligation still applies.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, in view of the fact that the time has been 615 extended I think at least on two occasions, may I ask the noble Marquess, whether the Mixed Committee has any power to abrogate Law No. 27; and, in any case, if a situation were created where this law could not be fully implemented, that there would be no question of its being abrogated without Parliamentary sanction in advance?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I think I have explained to your Lordships on previous occasions that the only power which the Mixed Committee has is to allow or disallow an extension, and of that I am quite certain the noble Lord is well aware. I have also told your Lordships on previous occasions that, in the event of there being any decision taken, your Lordships' House and Parliament will of course be informed.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, will Parliament be informed in advance? I think that the noble Marquess will appreciate that the Bonn contractual engagement was approved by Parliament, and surely Parliament is entitled to know in advance if there is any intention or any recommendation to vary that undertaking.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I am not in a position to reply to that question, but I will refer the matter to my right honourable friend.
§ LORD LATHAMMy Lords, would the noble Marquess agree that the Mixed Committee could, of course, abrogate by successive extentions?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, in effect, of course, that is correct.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it not a fact that the only complaint Krupp ever made during the war was to the S.S. to the effect that the supply of steel whips was not sufficient for the flogging of the slave prisoners? Are we to believe that the West Germans, who are always telling everybody how clever they are, are quite incapable of running the great industries of West Germany without the assistance and control of this murderous blackguard, Krupp?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I think it is extremely unfor- 616 tunate that these words should have been used. I do not think they have any bearing whatever on the original Question.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, it is true, and it is about time that the American and the British Governments took action with regard to this man whose conduct during the war to these unfortunate people under his control was perfectly appalling, many of them dying and many being ruined for life owing to the treatment that Krupp and his subordinates gave to these poor people.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, may I deplore the use of the words "murderous blackguard"? I call it an absolutely abominable misuse of language.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this? Quite apart from the production of iron and steel, the thing that really matters is that Krupp is using the assets, of which he was ordered to be deprived by the Military Court, to compete from an ill-gotten position of strength with British industrialists in markets all over the world.