HL Deb 13 February 1969 vol 299 cc575-8

3.15 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My 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 what was the total value of assets taken over and lodged with the Custodian of Enemy Property during the Second World War; from which countries it was taken over; what part of the total was handed back to those countries or their nationals after the War, and what part still remains in the hands of the Custodian.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN)

My Lords, the Custodian of Enemy Property was concerned with the assets of both belligerent and technical enemies. After the war the assets of the former were passed over to Administrators of Enemy Property established under the Treaty of Peace Orders or similar British legislation. The amount involved for all these Administrators was about £34 million. Assets of technical enemies were returned to them either directly or through Money and Property Agreements with the countries concerned. The assets of technical enemies still held amount to about £7½ million.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that answer. Unless I missed what he said, I think that he left out one point on which I required an answer, as to the total taken from the technical enemies. He helpfully subdivided it, but I should like to know what in fact was the total taken from the technical enemies.

LORD BROWN

My Lords, these may seem the sort of figures which should be easily produced, but I am sure noble Lords will realise in relation to these accounts that there has been a constant flow through of funds right from the beginning. Although it would be possible to produce a figure for a single large country, if that were desired, to produce figures for all the countries concerned would be an extremely arduous job. It would also probably require some further definition of phrases like "taken over", "lodged" or "handed back". This subject is a good deal more complex than perhaps the noble Lord realises.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, in the case of the assets of so-called technical enemies, can my noble friend say whether it is intended to offset them against claims by British nationals for property in the possession of these particular Powers?

LORD BROWN

My Lords, this is the normal procedure in respect of some groups of countries where large counterclaims have not been easily realised. The noble Lord will realise that this has taken place with regard to certain Baltic countries in the last year or so.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, the noble Lord said that the assets of some technical enemies were returned to them. Could the noble Lord indicate on what principles that was done, and also could he indicate who were the technical enemies who had their property returned to them?

LORD BROWN

My Lords, the technical enemies were, for example, the Channel Islands, France, Belgium and countries which were not directly in conflict with us at all. The procedure of returning funds to them varied considerably, but many of these funds were returned simply on the basis of application and proof that the persons applying had legal entitlement to the funds which were held by us.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, leaving on one side for the moment the Baltic States and the ceded territories, can the noble Lord give any case where the assets of a technical enemy have been devoted to meeting other people's claims?

LORD BROWN

My Lords, I should need notice of that question. The question whether they have been used in compensation against claims by others is, I should think, likely to arise, but I should need notice in regard to a list of any specific cases.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said that the property still retained amounted to about £7½million. Could he say whether that relates to the technical enemies, or to the real enemies whose funds were dealt with through administrators, or both? Could he break down the figure?

LORD BROWN

My Lords, the £7½ million is made up largely of Baltic assets. The figure for these Baltic assets has already been given in a Written Answer in Hansard. It amounts to £6½million. The remainder, therefore, is £1million, and this applies to a fairly substantial range of countries and, of course, embodies fairly small amounts.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I do not want to be over-persistent in this matter, since I appreciate that the noble Lord is trying to help, but I cannot understand—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Question!

LORD ST. OSWALD

Perhaps the noble Lord will explain to me whether or not what he calls the through-flow of these assets was not cut off at 1945. Therefore I am asking whether since 1945 the through-flow could possibly have continued. Is the noble Lord not able to deduct the £34 million from the total assets held by, or vested in, the Custodian and thereby arrive at the assets once taken over from technical enemies?

LORD BROWN

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that this is a much more complicated issue than he imagines, as I myself discovered this morning when I had a discussion with the Comptroller. If it will help the noble Lord, I can certainly arrange for him to meet the official concerned, so that he nay go deeply into the matter.