I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss together the first two Amendments and also, possibly, the Amendment in page 2, line 35 at the end to insert:

"(d) make provision for enabling the proceeds of heirless and unclaimed German enemy property which belonged to victims of Nazi persecution to be distributed for the relief and rehabilitation of surviving victims of Nazi persecution through a trust corporation or trust corporations to be formed for that purpose."

I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "property," to insert:

"except heirless and unclaimed property of victims of Nazi persecution."

The first two Amendments on the Order Paper are put down to meet the case of the Custodian not handing properties over to the administrator, and in the third Amendment provision is made for the event of the property actually being handed over to the administrator. In the circumstances, therefore, with respect, I propose to follow the lines you suggested, Major Milner. I am sure my hon. Friends will agree.

As I said on Second Reading, this appears to be a very mundane kind of Bill dealing in a very short form with technical points, making arrangements to carry into effect something which had been prepared in the past. It is quite possible that some people might regard the Bill as nothing more or less than a continuing Bill, following upon previous legislation, in order to dispose of technical matters. It is, in fact, nothing of the kind. It deals, I submit, with one of the most moving matters which the House or Committee has had to consider. It goes to the very root of one of the most serious attacks ever made upon civilisation. It deals with a situation in which over six million people were put to death, and I respectfully submit that the provisions of the Bill must be regarded in the light of that great tragedy which befell the world.

We cannot debate this Measure as though it were in a vacuum. I believe that we shall see that we are including questions relating to the successors of a large section of the world's community, who were imprisoned within the walls of Nazi Germany and her satellites. It is ridiculous to talk about incarceration within walls in Germany not being "deprivation of liberty," after that brutal and serious limitation which was placed upon these men and women. I say in general terms, because these Amendments deal with this matter specifically, that the whole situation is one in which every individual who was in fear of death, or torture and of imprisonment—and the fear was a very real one, as I have said, because six million men women and children were put to death—is entitled to be regarded as a victim of Nazi persecution. No question should be raised as to what constitutes the removal of liberty from such individuals.

I say this because, later on, the Committee will appreciate that it is essential for the whole wide aspect of this matter to be taken into consideration. The House stood in a solemn spirit, previously unheard of in the annals of our Parliaments, in order to protest against these inhumanities, and all I am asking today is that that should be kept in mind when dealing with this Bill. The Bill purports—

The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the Bill. I should like him, if he will, to confine himself to the Amendments which the Committee are discussing. They may need some little introduction of this nature, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to repeat himself.

No, I shall not repeat it, but, with the greatest respect, I think it is important for the purpose of the Amendment to point out to the Committee that we ought to deal with the situation in the manner I have suggested, because this Measure provides

"for the disposal of German enemy property held or controlled under the Trading with the Enemy, Act, 1939."

When I ask that these particular cases to which the Amendments refer should be excluded, or dealt with in a specific manner, I think it is important to know what was the intention of Parliament when the Trading with the Enemy Act was passed. In order to do that, the Committee may realise that it was intended that this type of case should not be included, and I wish to quote from the Second Reading speech of the then President of the Board of Trade, who said, dealing with Clause 7 of the Trading with the Enemy Bill:

"Under this Clause the definition of enemy property—property which will vest in these Custodians—is ' that for the time being belonging to or held or managed on behalf of an enemy or an enemy subject,' but I would call attention to the fact that I can prescribe by order what steps are to be taken with any class of enemy property"—

and I am dealing now with heirless and unclaimed property—

"and although in terms"—

On a point of Order. I suggest it would be helpful to the Committee if the hon. Gentleman would explain his Amendments. Nothing he has so far said is relative to the Amendments we are discussing.

Further to that point of Order. While I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, I am anxious not to prejudice the discussion of other Amendments on the Order Paper which deal specifically with this point. I thought his Amendment referred only to heirless and unclaimed property.

I am amazed, that when one is dealing with the heirless and unclaimed property of the victims of Nazi persecution, attempts should be made to prevent one explaining why the effects of such victims should be dealt with in a different manner from those of persons who were not enemies. If we are to deal with people who are their successors, and who are still alive, is it not infinitely more important that we should know the reasons which prompt these Amendments in cases where whole families have been wiped out? Did not the Trading with the Enemy Act Debates, when this matter was first mentioned, affect properties of that sort? Of course, it did. I ask you, Major Milner, to say that in those circumstances, I must be allowed to refer to the original Trading with the Enemy Act so that we shall know what was then intended in respect of the specific type of property about which I am speaking. It may be that at a later stage other points will be raised, but there is no reason why attempts should be made to prevent a case from being put in respect of these particular Amendments, about which my hon. Friends and I feel very strongly.

The President of the Board of Trade went on:

"I would call attention to the fact that I can prescribe by order what steps are to be taken with any class of enemy property"—

and I am dealing with one of the classes of enemy property—

"and although in terms this would allow me to make an order which vested in the Custodians the property of, say, those refugees to whom reference has been made earlier during our proceedings"—

and I am dealing with those refugees and their relatives—

"I think it is only right to tell the House that if I get the power under this Clause my intention is to issue a general order which will not vest the property of such people in the Custodians"—

the people whom I am talking about, the victims of Nazi persecution—

"although it will rightly impose upon them the obligation to register with the Custodians the extent of their property."

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence in the same Debate made this significant statement:

"This present emergency differs from the Great War of 1914–18 in two particulars. In the first place, broadly speaking, during the previous war all the subjects of Germany and Austria, and the other Powers allied against us"—

and I am talking about some of these subjects now—

"were potential enemies, whereas of course, as we have heard from the reply of the Home Secretary earlier on, it is evident that there are resident in this country many persons who are technically enemy subjects"—

and I am also talking about some of those who have died and who have left no heirs; those are the very persons T am dealing with—

"and are more enthusiastically with us in the persecution of the war than anyone else. We have to take that entirely new fact into consideration"—

these people were the victims of Nazi persecution and were with us. They are among the people about whom I am talking.

"The other new fact is that we are not carrying out legislation of this kind for the first time, because we have the experience of the late war present in our minds. As far as I can see, the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman makes with regard to those who are enemy subjects in our midst"—

some of whom have died, and some of whom this Amendment deals with. I am sorry to keep on interpolating these explanations. I do so because I am ex-tremely surprised that that other point should have been taken, particularly by those who want to help in this matter.

"As far as L can see, the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman makes with regard to those who are enemy subjects in our midst who are not in any sense our enemies seem to me to be adequate. The only point is that, of course, we shall have to watch how he carries out his undertaking, because it is naturally of a vague character, and we can only hope that our confident expectation that he will carry it out in the spirit of a reasonable attitude towards these people will be justified." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th September, 1939; Vol. 351, c. 404–5–6.]

That is the basis of my appeal to the Minister today. My friends and I say that there is a clear distinction between the enemy alien and the person who was himself the victim of Nazi persecution. That distinction was understood from the beginning, and it is perfectly obvious that if that was so understood in 1939, it must be even more clear today, because from 1939 onwards the murders, the destructions, the tortures and miseries through which all these people went were aggravated, and we now know, now that the book is open, that what was said then was very definitely supplemented by the information we received afterwards.

I am asking the Committee to say that in those circumstances it is important we should draw this distinction between the enemy and his victims, many of whom served with the Forces of Britain and America and were killed in the cause of this country. I am talking about a number of people some of whom were actually killed in the service of the Allied cause, leaving no heirs and leaving no successors. That is the important point of this matter.

I ask, in the light of this, that one of two things should happen. Either the Custodian should not be asked to hand over to the administrator the property which is heirless or unclaimed, in other words, property belonging to the victims of Nazi persecution who have not left a single relative no matter how distant—either the Custodian should retain that property and be instructed by the Board of Trade to deal with it in the way which I am indicating in the third Amendment, or, as an alternative, it should be handed over to the administrator and dealt with in the way I have indicated in that Amendment.

It is not a novel idea to appoint trust corporations. It is something which is recognised in the rules and laws which have been passed in territories within our own competence. The military section of the British zone, under Law 59 of Article VIII, has a provision for this precise kind of machinery to be set up to deal with heirless and unclaimed properties of the victims of Nazi persecution, racial, religious or political. Trust corporations are being set up at this very time, proposals with regard to the machinery of which I am concerned with myself and have been concerned with for some time; and, therefore, I think that hon. Members will appreciate that the machinery is known to me. This machinery is being prepared at present. Trust corporations are being set up in Germany for the purpose of dealing with a similar proposition relating to property there. The very term "victims of Nazi persecution" is used both there and in other legislation, so we are not asking for anything other than what is already defined, and provided for elsewhere in respect of property elsewhere.

It may be said: Why should this property which has come into our hands be relinquished? I suppose that from a material point of view one might not take into regard the happenings that I have mentioned. One might argue that someone or other might get a little less if my points were considered. I do not know the amount of property involved. If it is large that is all the more reason why we should deal with it in the spirit in which we agreed to in the passing of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The other point is this? We ask that these assets should be placed in the hands of trust corporations. That would enable these victims to whom I have referred—and quite properly referred—to participate in a fund derived from property which was left by people who, when alive, were in the same groupings as themselves, in order that the survivors might be rehabilitated. Why not?

Let me take one section of these victims—members of the Jewish community. It is well known that Jewish people throughout the world assist among others those who happen to be of their own religion and who are down and out. It is well known that a tremendous amount of money was raised by Jewish people outside Germany in order to help these poor victims. It is well known that in Germany itself, at the time when the community there was in existence, they assisted their co-religionists in poorer circumstances. In normal times, these persons, if they had not been the victims of Nazi persecution but had been placed in poor circumstances, would have come to that community in order to be assisted and would have been assisted from funds collected to rehabilitate such persons.

Is not this argument even stronger here? Is not this the way of helping these remnants who are looking for some method of being rehabilitated today, and who are faced with a situation in which their fellow-victims who suffered even more than themselves and who were exterminated, would have helped them had they been alive? The funds of these victims should be utilised for the purpose for which the victims themselves would have utilised them had they not suffered death at the hands of their persecutors. It is in that spirit—and I believe with every reason on the side of those supporting this Amendment—that I move the Amendment. I ask my hon. Friends to regard it in the same sympathetic light as the previous legislation was regarded when the issue of enemy property was first raised.

I wish to support the Amendments. As far as I can make out, the date, both in this Bill and in the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, in relation to the definition of "enemy" is 3rd September, 1939. That brings into the scope of this Bill the property we are now discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) has, quite rightly, drawn attention to the fact that the victims of Nazi oppression, had they not been killed, would have come to the help of their co-religionists, as they always do so generously. I have in mind another class—the non-Jewish scholastic, legal and dramatic victims of Nazi persecution who have lost everything as a result of that persecution. They had nothing to help them except professional funds, and these funds were escheated by the Nazis as soon as they realised to what purpose they were being put. There comes to my mind one of the most distinguished opera singers in Germany, who is now ekeing out a precarious living by giving singing lessons because her rehabilitation has been rendered impossible by poverty.

I do not know how much of the property to be taken over falls into the cate- gory of heirless and unclaimed property with which the Amendments seek to deal, but there is a case for remembering that a great many people, regarded for the purposes of the Bill as enemies, were, in fact, detained in Germany against their will and were entirely opposed to Nazi doctrines. I believe I am right in saying that German legislation in 1941 deprived them of their nationality. I am thinking of a wider range of victims, both those who are living and have been persecuted, and the victims who have died as a result of that persecution, when I ask that any property held which derived from the latter class should be devoted to the relief of the former. Those who died would have desired this, and I hope the Committee will see the justice of the Amendments.

It is only right and proper to acknowledge at once that the principles on which this matter ought to be determined, which have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Janner), have already been accepted by the Governments of all the Allied nations, including the Government of this country. I do not think it is in the least necessary to persuade them to accept the principles, because they have bound themselves by international agreement to give effect to them. What we are really concerned with today is the question whether, and, if so, how, these obligations that are already binding on the Government should be embodied in the Bill. Considered from that point of view, I am bound to say that I do not think these Amendments are very practicable.

The first Amendment prevents the Government from collecting any property at all. If accepted, the Clause would read:

"His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the collection and realisation of German enemy property, except heirless and unclaimed property."

If it is not collected, and there is no power to collect it, how is it possible to give effect to the third Amendment, which asks the Government to make provision to enable the proceeds of heirless and unclaimed German property to be available in certain ways? I cannot follow that at all.

My hon. Friend does not understand it.

The proper way to deal with this matter is—

If my hon. Friend had read carefully what is in these Amendments, he would not have made that suggestion. I made it clear that the first two Amendments deal with the position when the Custodian hands over this property to be administered. I pointed out, as an alternative, that the third Amendment is necessary if the properties are handed over to the administrator. If my hon. Friend had listened to what I said, he would understand that the first two Amendments go together and the third is an alternative.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, and I assure him that I heard what he said and understood it. Nevertheless, in my opinion the Amendments are not very practicable and would have the effect I have described. They would begin by preventing the Custodian of Enemy Property—

No.

My hon. Friend is far more likely to be right, but, nevertheless, I should like to express my opinion to the contrary. The effect of the first Amendment seems to me to prevent the Custodian from possessing himself of the property, and he is then to assume an obligation to hand it over to a trustee corporation. Although I have the fullest sympathy with the object of my hon. Friend, I cannot see how that will work. The more practical way of dealing with the matter is by way of definition, that is to say, what is "a German" and what is "Germany enemy property ". If we can get a definition of that embodied in the appropriate place in the Bill, we shall not need to make exceptions about the collection of property, because all the people on whose behalf my hon. Friend has been speaking would be excluded and their property would not come into question at all.

I recognise that this would leave partly uncovered the main point with which the first Amendment deals, namely, the property that is completely heirless and unclaimed because there are no relatives. I think that a suitable form of words should be devised to cover that point. As far as I know—I speak with some diffidence on the point—there is no such heirless and unclaimed property in this country—I have not heard of any. There is such property in other countries, and provision has been made for that, as my hon. Friend knows. He is quite right when he says that trustee corporations have been set up, by international agreement, for the purpose of preventing this unclaimed property being escheated in the countries where it happens to be found, on behalf of those who, everyone will agree, are the proper heirs in the absence of any personal relatives.

I agree with my hon. Friend that if there is any chance whatever of there being any such property in this country, it ought to be covered by the same kind arrangement as has been made in other countries. I thought it right to say that I do not think it is necessary to appeal to the Government as to what the right principles are, and to state what I think the effect of these Amendments will be.

I did not understand the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), perhaps because of my own stupidity. He told us he was in perfect sympathy with the idea underlying the Amendments, but suggested that they would not carry out their object and that by the definition of the words "enemy property" we might overcome that difficulty. ' I see no Amendment on the Order Paper about enemy property which would rectify that difficulty. Speaking as a lawyer, I cannot understand my hon. Friend's objection that the Amendments do not carry out the objects for which they are intended. What he has done is to consider the first and second Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) as if they were joint Amendments with my hon. Friend's third Amendment, whereas it is clear that his third Amendment is an alternative to the first two. If my hon. Friend will appreciate that, I am sure his doubts will be removed.

On Second Reading a number of Members drew attention to the way in which the Custodian of Enemy Property dealt with the release of the assets of victims of Nazi persecution; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne was one of them. It will be remembered that the Secretary for Overseas Trade gave us certain assurances, but as matters stand at present, we are merely left with those assurances. I have not the slightest doubt that those acting for the Government will do everything they can to help, but assurances are not so satisfactory as something put into the Bill, which lays down clearly what the position should be. At the moment, property of the victims of Nazi persecution may be in the hands of the Custodian of Enemy Property. Those victims and their families are dead, and there is no one left to claim the property. It is suggested today that that property will presumably pass into the hands of the administrator under the Bill. If so, and if nothing further is done, the property will be available to meet the claims of persons in respect of German enemy debts. That means that it is left to the good will of the Minister, or the administrator, to act in this matter and it is wrong that that should be the case.

11.45 a.m.

Clause 1 (1) uses the words

"… the collection and realisation of German enemy property."

That term "German enemy property" is defined in Clause 8, and if we leave it in that way it means that the assets of Nazi victims will come within that definition. It is obvious to every member of the Committee that the assets of Nazi victims should not be considered as German enemy property; indeed, quite the reverse. The object of the Amendments is to ensure that that property should not be available as property whrh comes from an enemy, but should be dealt with as property which comes from victims of Nazi oppression. The third Amendment suggests the formation of a trust corporation. Could there be any better idea than that? Property obtained from the victims of Nazi oppression ought to go for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of Nazi aggression. If it is suggested that there is anything impracticable about that, there is a precedent for it in our military rules in Germany, which have recognised that property of this kind should be treated in that way. It is only proper that these Amendments should be accepted by the Government.

As a non-lawyer, may I first of all say that I join in the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner)? This great country of ours played its part in destroying those responsible for the tyranny inflicted on the people to whom he has referred. I find myself in the fortunate position of having some support from my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) who, in part, answered some of the observations which have been made in support of these Amendments. Concerning the question of a trust corporation, I would remind the Committee that such a corporation has been set up in Germany for internal restitution. It is right that the German Government should make some restitution to those who have suffered. The nearest comparison I can make is the Roumanian Peace Treaty, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester referred, although what he suggests goes much further than anything contained in that Treaty.

My hon. Friend will recall that in that Treaty the Roumanian Government were required to restore property which had been confiscated under their racial or religious decrees. Where such property was heirless or unclaimed they had to transfer it to an organisation for the rehabilitation of surviving members of such groups. But the object there was to prevent stolen property remaining in the hands of those who had improperly taken it. Property unclaimed at the end of six months was deemed to be heirless.

I did not suggest that the agreements made with other countries affected the matter. My hon. Friend says that in that case the property was stolen. I ask him to say, in respect of property which we have obtained from non-enemies, that it shall be treated as non-enemy property. It is a terrible thing to connect those who were victims of the enemy with the enemy, and make their property available for purposes for which it should not be made available. We have recognised this in the British zone, and the American Congress is about to face a similar position.

What my hon. Friend is suggesting goes far beyond anything which has been done already. What he is trying to say is that we should exclude for all time from the general scope of distribution, a somewhat ill-defined part of the property which has become public. The Amendments would permit of it being handed over to some corporation, over which it is doubtful whether His Majesty's Government would have any control at all. It would be for the generally expressed purpose of relieving and rehabilitating surviving victims of German persecution wherever they might be.

The Amendments have to be considered in the light of what is now being done. The Government have agreed to accept a reduction in their share of reparations for the benefit of those victims, to whom reference has already been made. We are doing all we can to help. It has been our practice to release bequests to heirs or legatees living outside enemy countries of deceased enemy nationals who satisfy I.A.R.A. rules; that is to say, the Government have already made a contribution to those" who are victims of racial persecution, by enabling heirs of Nazi persecution to inherit the property of the deceased.

This House could not hand over an undefined amount of money to a public corporation, which has no clearly defined duties imposed on it, and which would not be accountable to Parliament. If grants are to be made out of public funds they must be for a clearly defined object, and the amount to be made should be explicit so that the House itself can see what is being done. Certainly, the moneys should be voted by the House of Commons itself. I do not think that what is proposed is in any sense a workable proposition, and I agree entirely with the early observations which have been made about its workability. For those reasons the Government decline to accept the Amendments.

Does this mean that the property from victims of Nazi oppression, which has been obtained because there are no heirs or because it is unclaimed, is to go into the fund of German enemy property, and is to be treated in the same way as other property against which claims may be made?

I fear that we cannot identify any such property.

J beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert:

"(d) the publication and advertisement by the administrator of lists of German enemy property transferred or vested to or in him and the person or bodies of persons to whom such property belonged or on whose behalf it was held or managed."

This is the first of a number of Amendments on the Order Paper in my name and that of my hon. Friends, and for the convenience of hon. Members still within the precincts of Westminster I should like to say that this is a non-party Bill and that we do not propose to divide the Committee on this or any of the other Amendments. However, we think that these points are worthy of careful consideration by the Government, and it may be that they will be prepared to give second thoughts to them before the conclusion of the remaining stages of the Bill or before it goes to another place.

This Amendment provides that an Order in Council under Clause I should make provision for:

"the publication and advertisement by the administrator of lists of German enemy property transferred or vested to or in him and the person or bodies of persons to whom such property belonged or on whose behalf it was held and managed."

I raised this point during the Second Reading Debate, when I suggested that it would be desirable for the administrator, to whom German properties are to be transferred, to publish some information concerning the property which he held. On 2nd November, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told the House that he proposed to give persons who had claims against specific German assets the option of pressing their claim against those specific assets or of claiming under the general Bill. It seems to me to be quite impossible for anybody to exercise an option in the dark without any knowledge of what property is held by the administrator, against which they may have a claim.

In the second place it would not seem to be the insuperable difficulty which the Financial Secretary made out when he interrupted me during my Second Reading speech and said:

"It would be quite unrealistic to ask either the Advisory Committee or the Custodian of Enemy Property to publish lists of assets."

I was not suggesting that the Advisory Committee should publish lists of assets. That would be quite outside their functions, which are to advise; nor was it suggested that the Custodian of Enemy Property should publish lists. My suggestion was that the administrator to be appointed under an Order in Council should publish the lists. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:

"They"—

that is, the assets—

"run into a numerous number of folios and are given item by item. It would be an incredible thing to do."

It has already been done in the United States, and, I believe, in other countries. It is not quite as incredible as the right hon. Gentleman apparently believes it to be. He then observed:

"Information given both to the individual and to the Advisory Committee is another thing, but the long list of German assets in this country are more or less an estimate of what they may or may not be worth…."

I did not suggest that estimates should be published of what the assets are worth. All I was suggesting was that a list of assets should be published. People, of course, can form their own opinion of what a particular item in it was worth. He added:

"… and ought not to be asked for"—

as if we were asking for something wrong in suggesting that there should be publications—

"and certainly not published."

When we turn back to the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech we find that he gave a short description of what the assets were mainly concerned of; he estimated the value of the property in toto at £15 million, and said:

"Much of it—about £10 million sterling—is in liquid form."

That does not present any difficuty.

"The rest, comprising houses, bullion, jewellery, stocks and shares, reversions, policies of insurance and the like, has not yet been realised and the value of it is, of course, what it will fetch when it comes to be sold in the open market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1870–1887.]

We are not asking for lists giving infinite detail. We do not want a list of trinkets or small pieces of jewellery or things of that character, but surely it would be possible to give to the general public what the right hon. Gentleman is willing to give to individual applicants—a short list of the items which have a value in excess of say £100 or something like that. That does not seem to me to be insuperable, and it would be fair to rival claimants that the lists should be published. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the answer which he gave to me during my Second Reading speech.

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said we would not have a battle across the Floor of the Committee because, although I can assure him that I shall not quarrel with him, if any points arise, I shall certainly hold myself free to support other hon. Members who may find it necessary to divide the Committee.

I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said and I do not intend to repeat it, but there are one or two points which I hope the Financial Secretary will bear in mind. We do not want publication in detail or in any final form because I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will say that it would be impossible to publish any final list. I cannot believe that the question of space would rule out periodical publication because of the number of things published in the papers, such as Stock Exchange transactions where, while every transaction is not published, an indication is given of price and value.

During the Second Reading Debate I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague to the fact that in certain cases the Custodian of Enemy Property had not carried out his duties of managing the property efficiently. I gave instances where war damage claims had not been registered, where the War Damage Commission had refused to meet other claims because proper repairs had not been carried out, and where some claims had been reduced to half. If a list were published it would show clearly the estate in the hands of the Custodian and, if the public are so informed and they think it is not being properly managed, someone will start to make a noise about it, which would be a good thing. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is such a valuable adviser to the Public Accounts Committee will agree with me in principle on this point.

I have been trying to consider what possible objections the Financial Secretary might have to acceding to our wishes. I raised the point with him in an interjection to his speech in the Second Reading Debate. The right hon. Gentleman said then:

"That, of course, is a matter of detail.. the Custodian of Enemy Property will be prepared to help individuals to make up their minds whether to proceed against the assets of a given debtor… "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1880.]

If the Custodian has all this information at his fingertips, as presumably he must have because he has had, since 1939, to prepare the most minute list of these assets, it should be possible for some kind of list to be published. If it cannot be published in vast numbers, surely copies could be made available at places where Government records or business papers are available for public scrutiny, such as the Board of Trade or Somerset House. There, on the payment of a small sum, it should be possible for a person with a claim against possible enemy assets to peruse the list for himself, rather than go to the Custodian and ask for his assistance If the items run into many thousands, as we have been given to understand, it might take the person many hours of research. I, therefore, ask the Financial Secretary to make the list available for scrutiny, even if it cannot be published in a large number of copies.

I was gratified to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) say that he and his hon. Friends did not desire to treat this Bill on a party basis. I and my hon. Friends on this side approach the Bill in the same spirit. Within the limits set by the amount available we all want to do justice to those creditors who take priority in this matter. That being so, I approach this Amendment in no captious spirit and, if it were reasonable and feasible to accept it, I should be delighted so to do.

The right hon. Gentleman quoted an interjection I made when he was dealing with this matter in his Second Reading speech. What he said about the Advisory Committee is correct. I do not doubt that I used the words "Advisory Committee," but I meant the administrator, and I realised at the time that it was the administrator of whom he was speak- ing and not the Advisory Committee. I also said that in my view the lists asked for could certainly not be promised, but that is a small point.

If we attempted what the right hon. Gentleman now requests, it would be a formidable task. If we could start afresh, no doubt we. might have made them as we went along, which is what the American Alien Property Custodian did. As property came to him he listed it, and those lists were published or made available at regular intervals. If we attempted to do this now it would mean a great increase in staff, and it is our view that the information, even when prepared and published, would not be of all that use to those who thought it necessary to consult it.

We ask the Committee to be realistic in this matter. The Custodian did not take over physically many of the assets which now come within the orbit of this Bill. Some of them were translated into liquid form, and those are in his possession, but many of them were not transferred in the physical sense, and one of the provisions of the Bill permits that transfer to the administrator to take place.

The only difficulty arises with those who might desire to exercise their option to proceed against a particular debtor. We realise that difficulty exists and, as I indicated on Second Reading, we are willing to do all we can to help those in that situation. To the best of his ability, the administrator will be willing to give all the information he can to creditors once this gets going.

It seems to me not unreasonable to suppose that the creditor himself knows a good deal about the assets of the particular debtor and whether, in his view, he should pursue that individual firm or company. Creditors themselves, therefore, should get busy to ascertain, on their own behalf, the exact situation regarding the assets in this country of their debtors. For those reasons, it would be unrealistic to accept the Amendment. There is another perfectly good reason against it. Even if we attempted to do what is proposed, and if it were physically possible to do it, we should not need an Amendment to enable it to be done. It can be done by regulation if at any time, either partially or wholly, it appeared essential that lists of this kind should be prepared and published for the use of creditors of these assets.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that all claimants of every kind must ask to see a list of this kind, for they may well not know whether the specific assets against which they wish to proceed have not already been taken into the pool.

I have tried to explain that a creditor in that position has two courses open to him. He can go, first, to the Custodian and, later, to the administrator; or he can go straight to the assets. He surely has some knowledge of where they are. They must be in some physical shape, either liquid or in more permanent form, in this country.

I am glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the course proposed in the Amendment could be taken by regulation without an Amendment to the Bill if in practice it is found necessary. I believe that in practice it will be found essential to enable people to exercise the option which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give them. In view, however, of the assurance by the right hon. Gentleman that powers already exist under which lists can be published if such a course is found essential, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert:

"(h) the establishment of an independent tribunal to which appeals may be made in respect of any claim disallowed by the administrator or any objection to any claim admitted by the administrator or any objection to the inclusion of any property as German enemy property."

This is purely a machinery Bill, and it appears that there is no intention on the part of the Government for there to be any appeal to any tribunal of any sort or kind; that the last word in everything is to lie with the administrator, the functions of the Advisory Committee, as I understand it, being purely advisory and in no sense administrative or judicial. Subsection (2) provides that the Order in Council may make provision as to the following matters:—

"(d) the determination, as respects any such claim, of the question whether the claim is established for the purposes of the Order … "

I understood during the Second Reading Debate, however, from the reply of the Secretary for Overseas Trade, that there was no intention whatever of having any independent tribunal which could possibly be established, at any rate for the purposes of determining whether a claim is established, under subsection (2, d).

12.15 p.m.

We think that there should be an independent tribunal, for three reasons. First, that anybody whose claim is disallowed by the administrator should have the right of appeal to an independent judicial tribunal. We think that with all the greater force because one of the largest claims comprising the total of £120 million is the claim for £4 million or thereabouts put forward by the Government in respect of their guarantees of the Austrian loans. I do not myself think that that is a very good claim. That is a guarantee which His Majesty's Government undertook many years ago. They undertook to stand behind the credit of the then Austrian Government and to meet the interest if the Austrian Government went into default. They have had to find money under those guarantees, but it does not seem to me that that claim ranks anything like as high or has anything like as much merit as the claims of the holders of the Young and Dawes bonds or the claims of persons having commercial or trading debts. My opinion on that point was reinforced in a letter to "The Times" early last week from Sir Otto Niemeyer.

It seems all wrong, therefore, to put an administrator appointed by the Board of Trade in the position of being the sole and only judge upon whether a claim for £4 million put forward by the Government is a good one or a bad one, or indeed, if it is a good claim, what priority, if any, it should have regarding the extent of payment; because the administrator may not only decide whether a claim is admissible or not, but he may go on to decide that certain claims shall be paid in priority to others and that certain claims shall be paid in full or as to 50 per cent. and others only as to 10 or five per cent. All these duties are placed upon the administrator, who is to be the sole judge. It seems to me to put the administrator in a perfectly impossible position where the Government them- selves are one of the principal claimants, and in respect of a claim which on merits I believe to be a bad one.

The second purpose for which we propose that there should be an independent tribunal is in cases where the administrator admits a claim to which other claimants object; that is to say, that a person may not only go to the tribunal when his claim is disallowed but may do so when he thinks the tribunal has improperly admitted the claim of someone else. That is the specific case of the claim put forward by the Government to which I have just referred. Other creditors may well object to the admission of a claim of that character.

In the third place, we want any objection to the inclusion of any property as German enemy property to be the subject of an appeal to the independent tribunal; that to some extent is related closely to the point put forward on an earlier Amendment by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). In other words, there would be an appeal to the independent tribunal where it was stated that property was wrongly included in the category of German enemy property. I commend this Amendment, with all its merits, very strongly. I think that there is an absolutely unanswerable case in its support.

I have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment and I desire to support it. I am in a little difficulty about it, because I see that the right hon. Gentleman has not put down any Amendment so as to define statutorily the principles on which such a tribunal as he has in mind would be expected to work. How far that may affect the first two of the classes of appealable cases which he has in mind. I do not know; but unless the Bill were amended so as to define more exactly what a German enemy is, and what German enemy property is, an appeal to a tribunal, although it would indeed be a very necessary check upon what the administrator would do on his own. would be to that extent limited.

That is why I have put down later on the Paper, Amendments designed to define these points more precisely. If there were a tribunal, the tribunal would have to have regard to any such matters if they were accepted and embodied in the Bill.

But though I say that, even if no Amendments are accepted by the Government, either on the first two classes or the third class, I still think that the Government ought to give very sympathetic consideration indeed to the claim to have some kind of third party judgment in these matters. In my speech on Second Reading I referred to a number of cases which I think the Committee by common consent would say at any rate were appealable. The Secretary for Overseas Trade said that he had on previous occasions asked for cases to be submitted to him, and I think he said that none had been brought forward. I have done my best to rectify that.

I said that a deputation had waited upon me and had promised to give me some cases which had not arrived. In fact, they had arrived a day or two before.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. In case there was any difficulty about that,' I made some endeavours to see that a number of cases were brought to his attention. I wish to repeat that the cases to which I referred on Second Reading, and one or two more cases which I propose to refer to now, are not imaginary cases for the sake of illustrating arguments, but are actually decisions which have been made by the Custodian of Enemy Property. I say, without making any kind of criticism of good faith or anything of that kind, that on the face of them they are cases on which there ought to be an appeal, which certainly would be the subject of an appeal if there were a tribunal to which to appeal, and in which most lawyers would say that the appeal tribunal might think that the decision was wrong.

I should like to quote three or four to show the type of case I have in mind. I have actually on the paper beside the file number of the case, the names of the persons concerned, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not quote them. I only say that to show that they really are actual cases which have been contested and decided.

The first one to which I want to refer to is that of a man who was resident in Budapest. He was the founder of a pharmaceutical works in Budapest with affiliated companies in England and overseas. The assets in England blocked by the Custodian comprise shares in British companies, other shares and some cash. In October, 1944, this gentleman and his wife received an order to leave their house and go to the ghetto, instead of which they went into hiding. The man was eventually arrested some months later and taken to police headquarters, where he was imprisoned. On the evening of the next day—so that I suppose he was in custody something between 24 and 36 hours—he was taken, together with 99 other Jews, to the Danube embankment and publicly shot. His wife was kept in prison until the liberation of Hungary and she is now in Switzerland. The only son escaped to Turkey, thence to Mexico and then came to this country.

The claim for the release of the assets blocked by the Custodian was rejected, as the Custodian was not satisfied that the condition "deprivation of liberty" was fulfilled. I do not know. I find it a little difficult to understand that decision. The facts are not in dispute. The Custodian does not dispute the facts in any way, but that is his decision. He is not satisfied that the condition "deprivation of liberty" was fulfilled. When renewed representations were made, he replied in a very recent letter, on 16th September of this year:

"Settled ex gratia release policy is explicit in requiring it to be shown that not only did death come about through Nazi persecution but that the deceased himself suffered deprivation of liberty in the natural meaning of the term."

I wonder what is the natural meaning of the term "deprivation of liberty" which excludes the imprisonment of a man for between 24 and 36 hours in order to lead to his execution. I think that is the kind of case which one would be justified in saying ought to have gone to some kind of appeal tribunal—except that there is no provision for a tribunal.

Another case is of a man arrested in Bucharest by the Iron Guard. I do not think I need deal with this in any detail, because I referred to it in my Second Reading speech. It was one of those cases where people were put in gaol and told that they would be given eight days in gaol in which they could make up their minds whether they would sign away their property or be executed. Within the period of eight days he signed and on the third day he was released. The Custodian rejected the claim for the release of the assets in this country for two reasons. One was that the period of detention amounted to only three days, which was inadequate.

How long did it have to be?—If it had been seven days 23½ hours and in the last half hour he had signed, would that have been allowed? If he had waited until the eight days were up and had then been shot, he might have been excluded on the same grounds as those given in the first case to which I referred. It is a very difficult decision to understand; but the Custodian also rejected it on a second ground that the action of the Iron Guards in rebellion was not to be viewed as an expression of Governmental authority.

It did not make much difference to the victim. He was taken and put into a prison. He was threatened with death and when he did what was required of him as a condition of release, he was released. If Government authority inspired it or connived at it or acquiesced in it, it does not seem to have made very much difference. However, the Custodian came to a different conclusion, and his conclusion was probably wrong on the facts, because my informants claimed to be able to prove that in fact at the time that these things were done the Iron Guards were not in rebellion against Governmental authority. They were being used as a supplementary police force by the Government. The Custodian came to a decion on the facts without any inquiry and without anybody knowing what the evidence was either way, when a tribunal might have assisted him in coming to a conclusion easier to understand.

12.30 p.m.

Then, there was another case, of which I will give the particulars to my hon. Friend. A lady, who was not mixed up in politics in any way, was sent to prison or to a concentration camp because she was Jewish. When asked for the release of her assets in this country, the Custodian rejected the claim—

"in view of the fact that this lady was interned as a political suspect, rather than because she was sent to prison or a concentration camp in pursuance of any law discriminating against her on religious or racial grounds."

No facts are given on why the lady was considered to be interned as a political suspect. Suspected of what? That would be an appealable case, but it has been decided in the discretion of the Custodian, who does not give his sources of information, and the grounds upon which he came to his decision are not challengeable at all. If there were a tribunal, presumably, he would have to produce what evience he had, and other evidence would also be produced, with the result that some sort of judicial decision would be given.

I thought that actual instances of decisions which may have been appealable, if there were anything to appeal to, might assist the Committee and also assist the Government in making up their mind whether they will give some consideration to the Amendment which has been moved. One of the decisions was on a general principle—the principle that a labour camp in Hungary where only Jews were interned did not constitute deprivation of liberty. To quote again:

"The board does not regard forced labour as meeting the requirements of deprivation of liberty, which words are used to mean imprisonment or incarceration in a concentration camp."

In 1945, as a member of the Parliamentary delegation, I went to the concentration camp of Buchenwald, I remember that, over the gates of that camp, there was an inscription in German in large capitals so that everyone might read, and that inscription, translated into English, would have read "Labour makes free." If this decision to which I have referred were applied generally, it would mean that no internee in Buchenwald would be regarded as a person exempt from the seizure of his property. That is really a very difficult decision to understand. I will give only one more instance.

The case is made out.

If my hon. Friend had said that instead of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, I would have been content to stop. I have only one other short case to quote. It is that of a youth of 18 years of age who was in Hungary during the war and who died 12 or 18 months after the end of the war. The claim in this case was disallowed because the Custodian decided that the application by the legal successor for the release of the assets in this country would not be admitted because the Jew in question was not deprived of his liberty. There are other cases which I could quote to the Committee.

I appreciate that there is a certain amount of difficulty in this matter, and that this is a machinery Bill. I also appreciate the point of view of the Government, as expressed on Second Reading, that it was better to leave all these matters to be dealt with administratively. I can see why they think so, but I did refer then, and I do now, to the fact that there is a precedent in these matters, the precedent of the tribunal established after the end of the First World War. Although it is quite true that the circumstances are different, I do not think they are different in any way relevant to this present case, and I think it would be a protection not merely to the applicant but to the Custodian himself, because he might like the assistance of a tribunal of appeal in the same way as judges often like to have the assistance of juries when matters of this kind have to be determined. I, therefore, hope that the Government will have second thoughts about this, and will accept either this Amendment or put forward a similar one of their own.

I hope the Minister will accept this proposition, because I think all will agree that one of the finest things in our system in this country is the system of appellate jurisdiction. Though I am sure that the Ministers concerned and anyone who has to administer this difficult matter will do their best, the fact remains that we have had quoted to us in the Committee today a number of glaring examples of obvious injustice. There is no doubt whatever that, in the cases which have come before the Custodian, there have been examples of real injustice. What possible objection can there be to this further safeguard in order to prevent the possibility of even one such injustice occurring again, which could be done by means of an independent tribunal?

My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has pointed out that there is nothing in this Amendment which shows on what lines such an independent tribunal would act, but I do not think that is an objection to the Amendment. We know that the Custodian acts on certain principles, and doubtless the administrator will act on similar principles, but the cases quoted by my hon. Friend revealed a series of facts which, if put before an independent tri- bunal, would give that independent tribunal the opportunity of looking at these facts and, on the principles laid down, considering the whole matter and asking whether the decision reached was a proper decision.

Will my hon. Friend allow me? It is quite true that I thought there might be some principles embodied in the Bill, but, in the cases I am quoting, the tribunal would not have been in the difficulty to which I referred, because the Custodian of Enemy Property had, prior to this decision, in a communicated letter laid down the lines on which he would exercise his discretion. Of course, the tribunal would have been able to refer to the cases I have quoted in order to show how the Custodian had failed to observe the rules guiding his own discretion which he himself had laid down.

I am not quarrelling with my hon. Friend: I am merely making criticisms in regard to this matter viewed from any angle. The suggestion in the Amendment is a very good one—that, if these cases were put before an independent tribunal which could examine the facts, a decision could be taken on whether the administrator or the Custodian had given the right decision. What possible exception can there be on the part of Ministers to accepting a provision which would add that very good safeguard? When one considers how important it is in our system that we should have safeguards of this nature, I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

I should like to support the appeal made to the Minister, and also to put a point which has not yet been mentioned but which ought to be taken into consideration. We all know the kind of case which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has brought forward, and which has been brought forward by bodies such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews, of which I am a member.

I could quote dozens of cases to illustrate this peculiar delimitation of terms which was referred to earlier in the Debate today. There can be no question as to what was "deprivation of liberty" in a country like Nazi Germany. It is just nonsense and absurd, for example, to suggest that anyone who has had to hide in a grave for years, only emerging in the middle of the night in order to obtain some food or sustenance with the help of fearless friends in a district, was not "deprived of liberty," or to say that, because persons were not actually incarcerated by the Nazis or some other brutes in power, they are not to be regarded as having been "deprived of their liberty."

The property that will come to the administrator under this Bill will be that which is handed over by the Custodian. Consequently, the Custodian will, to some considerable extent, already have made a decision. In view of the fact that the Custodian has made certain decisions which appear to me—and, I am sure, must appear to a large number of people—as being decisions not based upon a judicial interpretation of the term "deprive of liberty," it is important that the prejudice in interpretation which might arise from the Custodian's department in respect of a particular matter should not be carried on to the administrator's department, and that consequently there should be an independent consideration of an appeal from a decision. I have found, of course, that in some cases the Custodian has dealt reasonably with problems, but in many others he has dealt with them in the spirit which I mentioned when speaking on my previous Amendment.

There are two other points I wish to raise. The first is that I do not think that a tribunal of that description would throw the onus of proof in a matter of this sort upon the applicant. I think it is important that the onus of proof should not be left on the person who applies for the return of his property when, in the first instance, he was racially or in a religious or political sense, oppressed. I think that in such a case the onus should shift, and I believe that in the case of a judicial tribunal it would shift from the shoulders of the applicant to those who opposed the applicant, or to the administrator himself.

My second point is this. I do not know whether at any stage of these Committee proceedings we shall be told—and for the purpose of this Amendment, as of others, it is important that we should—when it is intended that the administrator should take over, and whether it is intended to extend the time provided for the making of claims, which at present, I believe, terminates in December, 1949—to the Custodian or to the administrator because without that provision—I am now talking of a claim in respect of assets which belong to persecuted persons—it would mean that if the claim were not made by December, 1949, there would be no question of appealing to the tribunal, of receiving payment, or of anything else. If the opportunity of claiming were taken away, then, of course, neither this Amendment nor any other dealing with that aspect of the position would be of much use. I hope we shall be told that the time will be extended for claims to be made to the Custodian, that in cases where the Custodian has any doubts he will still continue to administer the property, and that, when property is handed over to the administrator, an opportunity will be given to the individual to make an appeal to a tribunal.

I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment for reasons which I will give very briefly. First, I should point out that we have considered whether we should put machinery of this sort into the Bill. Although we do not object in principle to a sort of revising authority or tribunal for reviewing decisions, we thought that, on balance—and I hope the Committee will take the same view when they hear the reasons why we came to the decision—it would be wrong to insert a provision for a tribunal in this Bill.

12.45 p.m.

As I understand the Amendment, it asks us to do two things. Firstly, it asks us to set up a tribunal to hear appeals from the administrator's decision, and secondly—and here, I think, we are on firmer ground in asking the Committee to reject the suggestion—to hear appeals where a dispute has arisen whether any particular property is German enemy property. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is a very able debater, cited a number of cases. I may be wrong in this—and he will correct me if I am—but listening to him very carefully, as I did, I thought I detected that the people concerned in most of the cases which he mentioned were not Germans at all; they were Hungarians or Roumanians, and therefore outside the scope of this Bill.

They were not all outside the precise scope of the Bill; some were in Hamburg and some in Berlin. It is quite true that others were Roumanian and Hungarian, but I cited those only illustratively, because if the same kind of decision were to be applied to cases within the Bill as had been applied to these Hungarian and Roumanian cases outside the Bill, that seemed to me to establish the need for a tribunal.

Even if all the cases cited had been those of Germans our objection to setting up a tribunal to deal with them would still remain, because, as we see it, anyone feeling that a property is not German property by definition under this Bill when it becomes an Act would have the right to take the matter to the High Court, and such an individual who took his case to the High Court would, in my view, have a very good case.

rose —

May I add—because this is probably what my hon. Friend is about to put to me—that it would be quite outside the point if we had inserted in the Bill a provision whereby a tribunal might deal with these matters, because the tribunal could do no more than comply with the provisions of the Bill.

I was going to ask my right hon. Friend what I hoped would be a more difficult question to answer than that. Is my right hon. Friend saying that the Government are prepared to define enemy property for these purposes? The definition Clause is Clause 8, but there is no definition there of what is enemy property which would deal with the point we are now discussing, though it is true that I have an Amendment down to secure that result. I intervened to ask my right hon. Friend whether he proposed to accept that Amendment because, if he does, I would agree with his argument as I would sooner go to the High Court than to a tribunal. I do say, however, that if he is not prepared to accept either that Amendment or any other Amendment which would define German enemy property, then he ought to allow an appeal to a tribunal under the Bill for what would then be a purely administrative, discretionary decision.

As my hon. Friend knows very well, I cannot at this moment deal with the point he has just raised because we shall be discussing it when we reach the interpretation Clause, namely, Clause 8. However, I would point out that in that Clause we do define at some length what in the terms of the Bill must be considered as German enemy property.

Let us look at this from a common-sense point of view, because that is what we at the Treasury have to try to do. We should remember before we go any-further that we shall have as assets about 10 per cent. of what people may desire to claim, and therefore it seems to me that we may get quite a number of people who feel aggrieved at the amount which their claim realises. Human nature being what it is, some of them—not all of them, but a fair proportion—may say, "Let us have a second cut at this and take the matter to a tribunal." That would hold up proceedings for a long time, because one cannot begin to distribute even an interim dividend until one has some idea of the total of the claims likely to be accepted.

May I say, in reply to the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) who unfortunately has had to leave for an engagement in his constituency, that he is quite wrong in assuming that the administrator will actually say which classes of claims can be accepted or refused. That will be done by the Order in Council, and that Order in Council will not be promulgated until we have got quite a long way in discussing with the Advisory Committee and others just what claims are reasonable for admission and which are not.

Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene to clarify one point? Would it not be a function of the adminstrator, for example, to take any decision on the question whether or not the Government claim on account of the Austrian guarantee was to be included, or would that be governed by the Order in Council?

Again, it would depend. If it came within the ambit of the Bill, obviously the claim would be admissible, and I have no doubt that we may be again dealing with the point either on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" or on an Amendment. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will not deal with the merits, or the morality, of the case whether the British taxpayer himself should put in a claim with others. That, I think, is not the point at issue now, and it is certainly not a point that would be taken to a tribunal. If under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, the British taxpayer has a right to put in a claim, it will be for decision then whether that claim is put in or not. With all due respect, that has nothing to do with the narrow point whether we should or should not set up a tribunal.

I do not want to talk at length on this Amendment; naturally, we all want to get on. I hope I have made it quite clear that we are not opposing this Amendment simply for the sake of opposing it. In our view, it would clog the machine, and we have no reason to believe for one moment that the administrator will not do his work in a straightforward and proper manner. He will not lay down what claims are to be excepted. That will be done not by him but by a higher authority, and all that he will be concerned with is whether a creditor can substantiate a debt which he is claiming is due to him.

Therefore, for reasons which I have stated—namely, that it would hold up distribution, that it would not help the type of case which I know Members have in mind and with 'which quite frankly we sympathise—I must reject this Amendment. In addition, the President of the Board of Trade is answerable to Parliament, and cases which might otherwise go to a tribunal can be brought to him and raised here at appropriate times. That being the position, I hope the Committee will agree that we should not put this provision into the Bill.

I really am very sorry that the Financial Secretary has not been able in some sort of way to meet us on this point, because I think every hon. Member is in favour of some form of appeal. I fully realise that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that nothing should clog the work of the administrator, that he should get on with his job, and that a large number of people always feel aggrieved, whether they are in fact aggrieved or not.

I know the right hon. Gentleman has thought this out before the Bill was introduced, but I should like to ask him in all earnestness whether, before the Bill goes to another place, he can think of some way in which the case having been decided by the administrator, it might be re-opened with the administrator's department again. I do not look upon the administrator as a bad man, but we all make errors, even if it is only a question of putting a letter in the wrong envelope. I know that these things happen. Although in some cases people may not have cause for appeal, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether, without clogging the machinery, some provision of this nature can be inserted between now and when the Bill goes to another place.

Everything is nice and friendly this morning, and I hesitate to turn down out of hand the appeal which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower), but we have thought this matter out. It must also be remembered that in many of these cases there would be very little in the way of written evidence to take to the tribunal. Records have been blitzed and lost, and very often it would be difficult to collect evidence. Therefore, we want to give the administrator some elasticity.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that only in one of the cases that I cited this morning did any issue of fact arise, and even that did not depend upon documents that could have been destroyed. In all the other cases, what was involved was the interpretation of ordinary language which interpretation the courts might be expected to give. In all those cases the Custodian has laid down for himself, in terms with which nobody has quarrelled, rules for the guidance of his own discretion. All these cases, unless I am mistaken, are cases where he has not interpreted his own rules correctly. There is no difficulty of evidence.

Surely the rules to which my hon. Friend referred were the international rules, were they not?

Yes.

That is another matter.

I very much regret the decision which the Financial Secretary has announced on behalf of the Government. On every side of the Committee there has been an appeal to him to allow this Amendment to be incorporated in the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment was made very clear by my right hon. Friend who introduced it. I listened very carefully to the arguments which the Financial Secretary put forward. His principal argument was that this provision might clog the machine. I suggest that that is a lamentable argument to put forward. Any court of appeal or tribunal causes a certain amount of delay. Of course, it is always more agreeable for anybody who is administering to be freed from the likelihood of an appeal against his decision. I suggest that this is another instance of rough justice, and, as I have said before from this Box, rough justice very often means injustice.

I beg the Financial Secretary to consider this matter again. This Bill has to go through further stages, and it will no doubt have considerable discussion in another place. It is the sort of topic on which detailed discussion in another place is very likely to be most useful, as I am sure all hon. Members agree. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to suggest to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and others concerned that there has been expressed from every quarter of this Committee, just as much from his own supporters as from mine a very strong feeling in favour of such a tribunal. In view of all those facts, I do not think it would be doing justice to this Committee if further consideration were not given by the Government to the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend today.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out from "of," to the end, and to insert:

"sums payable by that person or body whether by way of debt or under a trust or otherwise."

This Amendment deals with a comparatively restricted point, and seeks to change the words "debts due from that person or body" to those mentioned in the Amendment. I do not know whether these words are necessarily acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman, but the Amendment raises a point which, I think, is of some importance to trustees and others whose position does not appear to be absolutely clear under the Bill. For example, if a trust of British property happens to have had a German national as a trustee, then it would very likely fall under the definition of German enemy property. But it seems clear to me that such property should not be regarded as generally available for the satisfaction of the general body of German enemy creditors but should be specifically appropriated for the benefit of whoever may be the beneficiaries under the trust.

I quite believe that that is the intention of the Government and it may be that the right hon. Gentleman can give me some assurance on this point and can assure me that this Amendment is not necessary. I shall be satisfied if he can assure me that the object I seek to achieve is already achieved in the Bill. If not. I shall be very much obliged if he will accept the Amendment.

In so far as I understand what the right hon. Gentleman said—and I am not quarrelling with the way he put it—I am not sure that the cases he has in mind are not covered by the definition of "debts" already in the Bill, and, if so, the cases come within the four corners of the Bill. If the kind of obligation by a German debtor to a United Kingdom creditor, as defined in the Bill, does not cover what he mentioned, I am sorry that at the moment we cannot extend the classes to whom the Bill will apply. It is not now confined to commercial debts; anyone who feels he has a claim will be able to submit it. It seems to me that the type of case which the right hon. Gentleman envisages would be covered by Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, and that that claim could be lodged.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that such Order in Council shall not debar persons from being considered as claimants under this Act for the balance of their claims which have not been satisfied under this subsection."

This Amendment suggests that an Order in Council should not debar people who have already received partial satisfaction of their claims, by exercising the option, from claiming on the pool for the balance of their claims. I know this raises a difficult point, and I feel that the Financial Secretary should inform us clearly what is his view on the matter. I rather gathered from the previous discussion on this subject that the Government did not intend to allow a creditor who has exercised the option against specific assets, and who finds that those specific assets satisfy only part of his claim, to claim for the balance against the general pool.

I should like the Financial Secretary to explain why that decision has been taken. I could not agree with the argument used at one point in the discussion—I think it was by the Economic Secretary, although I am not quite sure—that it is largely a matter of accident whether certain creditors have debtors who possess assets in this country. I am not quite sure whether that is a sound argument because in many cases, and particularly in the case of standstill creditors, I should have thought that the fact that the debtors have assets in this country is the result of deliberate forethought on the part of the creditors and is not a pure accident. At any rate, I should like to have the Financial Secretary's views on the point.

The other argument which was advanced, and which I thought had some weight, was the argument that, in so far as individual creditors are discouraged from exercising the option against specific assets, there will be a loss of foreign exchange to the country as a whole. The suggestion is that there would be a lower total claim on the general pool than would be the case if people were not discouraged from exercising the option. The argument about the loss of foreign exchange is an extremely complicated one into which I do not propose to enter here, although I am more than prepared to discuss it in greater detail with the Financial Secretary at any time, if he would care to do so. I think this Amendment deserves serious consideration, and I should be much obliged if the Financial Secretary would let us have his views on the matter.

I, too, hope that the Financial Secretary will look at this Amendment seriously, and will revise some of the things he said on Second Reading. I am sorry that the Secretary for Overseas Trade is not to reply on this point because I think we are still left in some doubt, following what he told us on Second Reading, as to exactly how we stand in this country under the various percentages set out in Article 1 of the Paris Agreement. The suggestion made by the Secretary for Overseas Trade was that under certain circumstances we might not get the 28 per cent. of category A to which we were entitled. That seems to have some bearing on the question of to what extent creditors were able to claim against specific assets, which were earmarked, in this country.

A scheme was put forward, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), that those creditors who were able to make a claim against specific assets, despite having exercised the option—and it is the option which I am criticising—should not be precluded thereafter from participating in any distribution which might take place under Category A of the Paris Agreement. I hope the Government have reconsidered this, and that they will adopt a scheme whereby if a secured creditor is able to claim, say, 6d. or 1s. in the £, that amount will be taken into account when he makes a further claim on the general pool. I cannot see why the Government seek to exclude these secured creditors from further participation in the general pool. That is the purpose of our Amendment today. The important point is that we should have it stated that, whatever the ultimate sum available under Category A or Category B, our percentages remain as stated under the Paris Agreement.

Let me answer the last point first. Strange though it may sound, I can visualise circumstances in which we would not receive 28 per cent. of our share. On the other hand, it has been laid down that, under Category A 28 per cent. of whatever the proceeds may be should come to us—and whatever the size of the amount, 28 per cent. is 28 per cent. That, I think, is the difficulty the hon. Gentleman has not unnaturally come up against, and why he failed to understand a passing reference by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade in his Second Reading speech. These are technical matters and I do not want to go into them too deeply, but under the Agreement there is provision whereby those States who have a surplus of assets under one category are able to transfer it to the other category. The United States happens to be the only nation in that position, and she already has taken or will take advantage of this provision, which will mean that she will get assets which would otherwise, if I understand the matter rightly, have gone into the pool.

As to the suggestion itself, I must make it clear that no creditors have any rights in this matter. Under the Potsdam Agreement and the Paris Agreement which followed these assets belong to the British Government. The British Government—I think very properly, and I imagine the Committee thinks very properly—are proceeding, under this Bill, to distribute those assets in so far as they will go, to certain categories of people. However, I want to make it clear from the very start that although this option is given to a creditor who is able to pursue the assets of his debtor here it is not given as a right but is given ex gratia, because these assets accrue to the British taxpayer. That fact must not be lost sight of.

The Amendment seeks to add to the option given under the Bill a further right to proceed against the pool. As the Committee knows, a creditor in this country against a German debtor can, under this Bill, if he is so minded, go against the assets of his German debtor which he knows are here. The Amendment seeks to allow him, not only to do that but, if he is not satisfied—as in most cases he will not be—to have a claim for the balance of what is due to him against the pool. That would mean there would be so much less for other people who have just as much a claim on these assets as he has. In any case, if the Bill were not passed, and if things were allowed to take their course, it would follow that his only redress would be against the assets of his debtor, and he would then get no more than he is now to get under the terms of the Bill. I therefore fail to see, from the point of view of rough justice—

I do not want rough justice.

that such a person has any grievance. He is to be allowed to choose—which is more than others are allowed to do—and he can take whatever course best suits him and is to his advantage. All things considered, I think that is not unfair, and I hope the Committee will see it in that light and will not press the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, the Board of Trade shall so exercise its powers hereunder as to give full effect to Part III of the Rules of Accounting for German External Assets approved by the Assembly of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency on the twenty-first day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-seven."

Perhaps I might refer, in passing, to a later Amendment, to Clause 8, which seeks to amend the definition of "German national," because the Rules of Accounting for German External Assets referred to in this Amendment are summarised in that later Amendment. I hope I can do that without prejudice to my right to say something on my later Amendment.

Yes, provided the hon. Gentleman is merely making a reference to it.

It seems to me that in this Amendment we have the crux of the principal matter we have been debating today. The argument between those of us who have been criticising the Measure on this point has not been whether the Government propose to apply the right principles, but has been rather whether the right principles should be left to the administrative discretion of the Department, ultimately, no doubt, answerable to the House of Commons for what they do, or whether the principles, which are agreed to be the right principles, should be embodied in the Bill itself so as to be statutory provisions, with all that that involves.

If rights which are agreed to be there, and which the Government agrees to observe, are not made actual statutory rights there ought to be some very good reason for not doing it. It does not seem to me that there can be any insuperable objection to making the rights statutory when one remembers that the United States of America, faced with exactly the same problem and with an acceptance of exactly the same principles, and bound in exactly the same way as the British Government are bound by international agreement to give effect to those rights, have seen fit to embody their obligations in their own American legislation. That seems to establish that there can be no insuperable objection to doing it, and if there is no insuperable objection to doing it I think the Government ought to do it.

I am fortified in that opinion by the attitude of the Government to a previous Amendment which sought to establish an appeal tribunal. If there is to be no kind of appeal, no kind of third party judgment, and no machinery to review decisions administratively—and the Government have turned down all those suggestions—the case for putting the agreed rights into the Bill and giving them the force of a statute is considerably strengthened. Unless some Amendment of this kind is accepted by the Government it is a little doubtful whether they have any right at all under this Bill to discharge the obligations which they have internationally. Those obligations have been defined in Part III of the Rules of Accounting of German External Assets, approved by the Assembly of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency on 21st November, 1947.

The only thing I can find in the whole of the Bill which gives the Government any power at all to exempt any asset of any kind from confiscation in this way is in subsection (6). That subsection is so wide and so undefined as to be ambiguous. It states:

"Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Board of Trade may give a direction to the administrator requiring him to transfer to or for the benefit of any person specified in the direction any German enemy property, or the proceeds of any German enemy property, to which that person would have been entitled but for the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or any order made thereunder, and the administrator shall comply with any such direction."

That gives him power to give away the whole of the property if he wants to; but no one supposes that he is going to do that. The Clause is there in order that he shall have an escapement in suitable cases from seizing the property. All I am suggesting is that he should have it in the Bill. That would not in any way prejudice his powers to give directions in any other class of case in which he might feel it right to give such direction; but I want the Bill to define in part the discretion, and to define it according to the obligations which the Government have already internationally assumed.

I want my right hon. Friend to agree to put into the Bill that these powers. without prejudice to their generality in any way, shall, at any rate, be so exercised as to exempt from seizure, so that he may give directions not to exercise what would otherwise be a statutory right

"… any person who was deprived of liberty pursuant to any German law, decree, or regulation discriminating against any political or religious or racial group or other organisation who did not enjoy full rights of citizenship at any time between the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the abrogation of such law, who has left Germany or intends to leave Germany within a reasonable time after the passing of this Act who did not act against the cause of the United Kingdom and her Allies during the war … "

That language is not mine. It is the language in which the Government itself accepted this obligation in agreement with other Powers faced with the same right and accepting the same obligations. I am only asking that in the powers which the Board of Trade have to give direction to allow persons to retain property which otherwise would be subject to the Trading with the Enemy Act and not giving these directions, he shall exercise his power to give directions so as to give effect to these exceptions to which he already regards himself as bound.

It seems to me that that is not a great deal to ask. We are not asking for any point of principle; we are agreed about the principle. We are not asking on any point of justice; we are agreed about that. We are not asking about any powers to act not in accordance with those proposed, because we are agreed on that, and the Clause itself gives power to the President of the Board of Trade so to act. We are not asking about anything at all, except about a small piece of machinery about which there ought not to be any real dispute and about which there cannot be any fundamental controversy. If this Clause were accepted, the President of the Board of Trade would not be called upon to act in any way in which he does not propose to act now.

Something was said by an hon. Gentleman opposite with reference to the cases I quoted about the Custodian himself. I quite agree with what he said. There is no reasonable criticism on personal grounds that can be made against the Custodian. He is a man, so far as one can judge, with large and generous sympathies in these matters, and yet he has come to a series of conclusions which, I think, are so wrong as to be indefensible. That was not because of ill-will or malice; it was, no doubt, because he regarded himself as the trustee for the whole body of claimants and felt bound to exercise his duties and discretions strictly in defence of what he no doubt regarded as trust property; but the result has been that he has come to a number of very unjust conclusions.

I should have thought that the Custodian and the administrator, when appointed under the Bill would have welcomed such a definition of the wide discretionary powers which subsection (6) contains; not a definition which limits or compels him to exercise his discretionary powers in those cases and those cases only, but a definition which leaves him free to exercise them whenever he has a mind to do so, but which, nevertheless, defines them in such a way as to see that the proper effect is given to all the considerations to which everyone wants effect to be given. I can see no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted, and I hope that I can prevail upon my right hon. Friend to accept it.

May I say that we have every sympathy with the general expressions of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but we think that the Amendment is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because it is well-known that the policy followed by the Government, and of which the House has been informed continually, is one whereby we exercise discretionary powers in acordance with the accounting rules provided by the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency.

I think that it is true to say—and the hon. Member has confirmed it—that we try to observe these undertakings. The Board of Trade under this standard has the exercise of discretionary powers which it often uses, and we have often gone beyond the rules laid down by the International Allied Reparations Agency. We are not allowed to submit to the Agency an accounting adjustment in those cases. We have to accept responsibility. So far as I understand it, the rules as laid down are accepted and can be interpreted either loosely, or strictly according to the letter of the law. We feel that if we accept the Amendment the interpretation must be strictly in accordance with the law, which would be laid down. We feel this would not give us the discretion which we think is desirable. The Amendment, if accepted, would be a part of the law of the land and every word of the rules would be subject to judicial interpretation, and we do not think we should get the best out of it.

Surely that is not so. If the Amendment were accepted no doubt every person who could bring himself strictly and literally in the narrowest sense within the rules would be able to get his claim met, and could, no doubt, get the courts, if necessary, although I do not suppose it would be necessary, to assist him. It would not follow that the Custodian could not do the same thing in cases which were in within the spirit of the thing, but not within its narrow letter, because the Amendment includes the words:

"Without prejudice to the generality of this subsection."

If there were any cases in which the Custodian felt that he was precluded from giving effect to the claim by the narrow construction of the rules he could, nevertheless, fall back on the generality of his powers under the subsection; it seems to me that the difficulty is not a real one.

We do not think that is so. These rules have been drawn up by laymen, not by lawyers, and so long as they are subject to ordinary interpretation we can use discretion in implementing decisions. If we put these rules into the Bill, with whatever qualifications we may try to make, we should feel under an obligation to apply the rules as laid down. We believe it is in the best interests to leave it as it is, so that discretion can be exercised and can be challenged in the way that it has been today. It is the policy of the Government to do all they can to assist, and I hope that in these circumstances my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

I am not convinced by the argument. My hon. Friend says that the reason why he does not want this Amendment is because it would limit the interpretation of the rules too narrowly, whereas he wants to interpret them widely. That is the exact opposite to what has taken place so far; otherwise the whole point of the case I have cited is lost. I cannot see that the difficulties he referred to are real difficulties. I can see no reason why, if we agreed that a man who was deprived of his liberty on certain grounds should be exempt from this, there should be anything wrong in satisfying the administrator, and if not him the court, that declarations of liberty for this purpose mean exactly the same thing as the common law of this country.

What we are discussing at the moment is a few cases Out of the dozens we have dealt with. If we had followed the line here suggested, the hon. Member might have been able to quote many more cases in this Debate.

If the line suggested in the Amendment had been followed, we should not be bothered with the matter at all. Anyone who was discontented could have had a judicial interpretation and would have had to have been satisfied with that. Surely that is very much better than the House of Commons, which is not a very suitable body for the purpose, having to review, as a court of appeal, decisions in intricate and specific cases. I should have thought it obvious, if this Amendment had been the law. that we should have been saved from discussing particular cases.

Probably, like other Members, I 'have received a certain number of letters from holders of Dawes and Young Loans, both of which are referred to in Clause 8, which is the interpretation Clause. The Committee will remember that these Loans were issued in 1924 and 1930, during both years, if I remember rightly, we had a Labour Government. Both of these Loans were isssued with the sympathy and encouragement of the Governments of the day. At present, the holders of these Loans are receiving no interest, and have not been receiving any interest for a long time, and there is a great deal of anxiety on this point.

I had a letter only this morning from a constituent of mine who says she is a poor old widow, partially disabled, living in an attic. She is very anxious to know whether or not she will get anything as a result of this Bill. The Bill is a complicated one, I know, and does not deal with the whole question of German reparations, but only with the distribution of enemy property held or controlled under the Trading with the Enemy Act. If the Financial Secretary can say something which will give encouragement to the holders of these two Loans, I am sure it will be very much welcomed.

I read with interest the letter of Sir Otto Niemeyer in "The Times" last Monday. He clearly took the view that the claims of these bond holders, directly secured as they were, and I have been looking up the security, of the Dawes Loan, which is about as secure a bond as one could possibly have without having the specific cash in the bank to meet it—would appear to be, if anything, more deserving than debts connected with the hazards and profits of trading. I am not sure whether that is so or not, but I should like some guidance on the point.

In reply to a question put to him in another place on 18th January, 1949, Lord Pakenham said that the rules of the inter-Allied Reparations Agency required that claims of this kind must be filed before 24th January, 1949. I should like to know whether that is the position, and whether there has been any modification since.

I hope that for once I shall be able to give the right hon. Gentleman satisfaction in my reply. I think he was only putting the question to me in order to get it on the record, because, as he knows, holders of the Dawes and Young Loans are participaters in this Bill and will be able to lodge their claims, as, of course, will others. It is not for me at this juncture, because the policy is now definitely laid down in the Bill, to say whether they should or should not come before other commercial creditors, or what is known as the "standstill" creditor. That policy has been worked out after long discussions in the past, and it appears to us to be reasonable, in view of the assets available and of the surrounding circumstances of the various creditors in this country. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the holders of the Dawes and Young Loans are in a particular category and worthy, if it is possible, of prior consideration, but almost everyone with a claim can put forward some reason why he should be included. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what we have done is right, and will assure his constituent that her case is covered. The answer to the second point is "Yes."

I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:

"(2) No Order in Council shall be made under this Act unless, after copies of the draft thereof have been laid before Parliament, each House presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order be made."

I will not trouble the Committee for more than a moment. This is such a simple and necessary Amendment that it will commend itself to the Committee, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree to it at once. We are merely asking for a positive Resolution instead of the negative procedure. In view of the complexities involved and the fact that this Bill is nothing but an enabling Bill, the case for this procedure is very strong indeed.

I should like to give something to the right hon. Gentleman, because we are all in such a friendly mood today, but it would be wrong if we changed the procedure here from the negative to the affirmative, as the Amendment suggests. It is not as though we were refusing—we would not do it—facilities for having these orders annulled. It will be perfectly proper on any Order in Council for a negative Resolution to be moved. That procedure is just as efficacious as, and very much simpler than, the affirmative Resolution procedure proposed in this Amendment.

If we changed over to the affirmative procedure, it would mean that lots of Orders in Council which are purely administrative would have to go through this procedure, as well as Orders in Council of far greater moment. That is the way this Amendment is drafted, and whilst I do not say that that is what is intended, it is nonetheless what would take place if we accepted the Amendment. Both Houses would have to pray His Majesty to make the Order, whereas with the present procedure we reach the same end by a much shorter route. I hope that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there is very little, if anything, wrong with what we propose.

I am very sorry that the Financial Secretary cannot meet this point, which I thought had the support of the whole Committee. It is all very well to say that the negative procedure is as good as the affirmative procedure, but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not so. Laws are made almost by mass production methods at the present time. I deplore and hate it. I dislike Orders in Council and prefer Acts of Parliament when all of us can see what is being done. By making Orders in Council Ministers escape criticism. The only way of ensuring criticism is for the laws to be enacted here, when the Minister would have to pay attention to what was said and to the desires of the public. Half the laws made today are quite unknown to the people concerned. It is about time that this House took a stronger line about this, and the only method by which we can do so at the present time is to insist on positive rather than negative Resolutions on occasions of this sort. I deeply deplore the decision of the Government.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, after "Germany," to insert:

"except, in cases where such body of persons is beneficially owned or controlled by British subjects or corporations, to the extent of such British beneficial ownership or control."

This is a fairly simple Amendment designed to protect the position of British interests in German companies. In a number of cases there are assets in this country belonging to German companies which are themselves in turn partly or wholly owned by British companies. It seems wrong that the property of such German companies should, without discrimination, be treated as German enemy property. Our Amendment proposes that this property should be left out of the definition of German property in proportion to the degree of ownership or control exercised by British interests in the German company concerned. It is a reasonable proposition and will at last give the Financial Secretary the opportunity of conceding one of my Amendments.

Although I cannot go all the way with the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that when this Bill reaches another place we may be able partially to satisfy his ambition. It seems to us that there are two types of property envisaged. There are first the ordinary trade debts which normally would fall to be paid by the German company in Germany. We see no reason why we should take over that obligation here. On the other hand, where there are capital assets in this country which belong to a German subsidiary, which, in turn, belongs to a British company, we step into another realm, and we feel that there is a case for consideration. As I say, I undertake now to have that case considered, and I hope to produce something in another place which will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

I am not an expert on company law, but I am wondering whether that includes the case where a proportion of the German company's shares are held by British investors, or must it be a subsidiary?

It must be controlled but not entirely owned, because very often shareholders on a racial basis are spread fairly widely. It must be a company that is controlled and very largely owned by a British company.

When the right hon. Gentleman comes to consider the matter, he might bear in mind the wording of paragraph (e). The principle is already there for the converse case, and what is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander. Paragraph (e) describes a corporation in Germany, and it goes on to say that such a corporation shall be deemed to be a German company if it is controlled by German nationals, another German company, and so on, as defined in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). The right hon. Gentleman may find some assistance on the point of control. In the Amendment, in order to get rid of the difficulty where a company was controlled on a 60–40 basis, we state the extent to which it was controlled by British interests. We think the formula might be that if a German company were controlled on the basis of 60–40, 40 would go to the general pool and 60 to the British company over here.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 19, at the end, to insert:

"'German national' does not include any person who acquired German nationality by reason of the inclusion in the German State after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, of any territory not comprised therein on that day."

This is a drafting Amendment. Under the Bill it might be held that an Austrian resident in Germany after the Anschluss is, ipso facto, a German, in which case his property would be German enemy property. It is not intended that an Austrian who acquired German nationality merely by reason of the incorporation of Austria into the German Reich should be included in the expression "German national," and the Amendment makes this clear.

I am encouraged by the Amendment, and greatly relieved to hear my hon. Friend describe it as merely a drafting Amendment, because it is exactly like the one I have next on the Order Paper, namely, in page 7, line 19, at the end, to insert:

"'German national' does not include any person who was deprived of liberty pursuant to any German law, decree, or regulation discriminating against any political or religious or racial group or other organisation who did not enjoy full rights of citizenship at any time between the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the abrogation of such law, who has left Germany or intends to leave Germany within a reasonable time after the passing of this Act who did not act against the cause of the United Kingdom and her Allies during the war and does not include any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law decree or regulation."

My Amendment might perhaps be considered as an Amendment to my hon. Friend's Amendment; that might be the most convenient way for the Committee to deal with it.

If the present Amendment is made, obviously it would not be possible to add another definition of "German national," so I think the hon. Gentleman should discuss his Amendment now.

I am much obliged, Mr. Bowles. May I ask whether I shall be in Order later in moving it as an Amendment to the one just moved by my hon. Friend, to make his Amendment, as amended, read:

"'German national' does not include any person who acquired German nationality by reason of the inclusion in the German State after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, of any territory not comprised therein on that day or any person who was deprived of liberty pursuant to any German law, decree, or regulation discriminating against any political or religious or racial group or other organisation who did not enjoy full rights of citizenship at any time between the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the abrogation of such law, who has left Germany or intends to leave Germany within a reasonable time after the passing of this Act who did not act against the cause of the United Kingdom and her Allies during the war and does not include any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law decree or regulation."

I will consider that. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman could perhaps go on with his speech.

I was saying that my hon. Friend is hardly in a position to resist my Amendment because it does exactly the same thing for another class of persons whose rights to be exempted from the unamended definition of "German national" are not in dispute and never have been in dispute since the agreement of 21st November, 1947.

I would particularly draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the last category of persons affected by my Amendment, namely—

"any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law decree or regulation."

If, for some incomprehensible reason, my hon. Friend feels compelled not to accept the rest of my Amendment, he might still be prevailed upon to accept those last few words because they fall absolutely into line with his Amendment. He is saying that merely formal or technical German nationality shall not be enough. He is saying that in the case of a citizen of Czechoslovakia or Austria or any other country at a later time overrun by force, and by force incorporated in the German Reich—although, during the period of that occupation and enforcement, he would, by international law, be a German citizen—it would be wrong to regard him in any real sense as a German citizen because that would be to recognise what the war was fought to deny, namely, the right of the Government of Hitler to make Germans any people he wanted to make Germans and was powerful enough by his unopposed force to make Germans.

I am saying in the latter words of my Amendment that by an absolutely exact parity of reason it shall not apply to those persons deprived by Hitler of their German nationality. If a man is not really a German national in any of the senses we accept for this purpose, then he ought to be excluded by statutory definition from being so regarded or from suffering any of the effects of being so regarded.

My hon. Friend has thought it right to do that for people who were forcibly and wrongly included in the definition. I say it would be equally right that those who were forcibly and wrongly excluded should not suffer penalties as though they had remained German citizens. In view of what my hon. Friend has said about his own Amendment, I anticipate that he will be willing to accept the latter portion of my Amendment, if not the whole of it.

The rest of my Amendment is designed to give statutory effect tc our international obligations. It is really the same point as was argued on another Amendment, although it appears here in a different form. Whereas the previous Amendment was intended to be a statutory delimitation of the discretion of the Board of Trade, this is intended to be a statutory definition of what is German enemy property, exactly on the lines of the international agreements to which reference has already been made.

I think my hon. Friend, on consideration, may be able to accept the whole of my Amendment but if he feels he cannot do so, for reasons given on a previous Amendment which may satisfy him but do not satisfy me, I hope he will be able to accept at least the latter part.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add:

"or who was deprived of liberty pursuant to any German law, decree, or regulation discriminating against any political or religious or racial group or other organisation who did not enjoy full rights of citizenship at any time between the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the abrogation of such law, who has left Germany or intends to leave Germany within a reasonable time after the passing of this Act who did not act against the cause of the United Kingdom and her Allies during the war and does not include any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law decree or regulation."—[Mr. S. Silverman.]

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, particularly that part of his Amendment which suggests that the disadvantages of those who fall within the category of the German national should not be imposed upon those who have been deprived of their German nationality by virtue of those German decrees or regulations which discriminated against them because of their political, religious or racial origins.

It would be in line with the Amendment discussed in Committee today, and in particular with the Amendment for limiting the class of German national whose property will be dealt with under this Bill, if we exclude those persons who have been deprived of German nationality because they were victims of the German State and are not the type of persons whose property is intended to be dealt with under this Bill.

Some reference has been made to the friendly mood of the Committee. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to meet the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had he made a reasonable appeal instead of one which is friendly but does not quite fit the standard required to enable me to describe it as a reasonable appeal. It is not a reasonable appeal, for this reason. What I tried to do earlier was to define "German national" because that did not appear in the Bill. What my hon. Friend is now trying to do is not to define "German national" but to try to exclude from the definition of "German enemy property" the property formerly belonging to certain classes of individuals.

I cannot follow this. The Amendment of my hon. Friend says

"'German national' does not include any person who acquired German nationality."

in certain ways. My Amendment says that

"… was deprived of his German nationality … "

in certain ways. Since we are agreed that the deprivation and the acquisition of it were both wrongful, I cannot understand what distinction my hon. Friend is seeking to draw.

The distinction is quite clear. It is an intention to exclude not on the basis of nationality but of property.

No. That may be the effect of some parts of my Amendment but the whole of it follows exactly the same form as the Amendment of my hon. Friend and there is no difference between their objectives. Why does my hon. Friend wish to exclude from the definition of German nationality those persons who acquired German nationality by the inclusion of their territories in the German State after a certain date? He wants to do it because if he does not do so, they will lose their property under the Bill, and he does not think it right that they should. Neither do I. The only way in which he can prevent that is by denning "German national" so as to exclude them. That is exactly what I am doing. We are both concerned to preserve to individuals property which we both believe they ought not to lose.

If we are both in agreement, then what I have said on the Government Amendment should meet the point of my hon. Friend.

No.

It is when my hon. Friend wants to go further with his intention that I differ with him. In that way he carries further the intention of the Government. I cannot accept on behalf of the Government something which alters what we tried to effect in the form of the Amendment defining "German national".

With regard to the other matters which have been mentioned, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said earlier that he was by no means convinced by what I had said. Even if I were to continue speaking much longer, I do not think I should convince him further, but I repeat that what I have said is in the best interests of those affected by the Bill and that as the result of the discretion given to the Board of Trade rather better service was achieved in meeting these claims than if the matter were dealt with statutorily.

I should have thought it better to include that provision in the Bill. I do not necessarily go as far as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in thinking that his is the right way to deal with the matter. I rather agree with the Secretary of Overseas Trade, but I disagree with his sentiment that the purpose is better achieved by regulation. It is important that the principles embodied in the Amendment should be inserted in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman has thought fit in his Amendment to achieve his objects by defining nationality. I am inclined to agree that that is straining the conception of nationality, but I entirely agree with the reason behind the Amendment—that these requisites should be inserted in the Bill. They are part of a solemn agreement entered into between the Government and the other Powers at Brussels. Questions were asked on Second Reading whether the rules were not being too strictly and narrowly interpreted by the Government. If, therefore, these rules were inserted in the Bill—they could easily be included, for instance, in Clause 1 (6), where, presumably, it is intended to put them—a direction could be given that the Order in Council should follow these principles.

We compare unfavourably, I think, with other countries who signed the same agreement, and who are trying to carry out the same rules, by having our interpretations held up to comparison. A person with property in the United States, England, Holland and France, for instance, gets a release of his property in the United States and in the other countries but not here. If these rules were inserted in the Bill, a judicial interpretation of them would be possible. In that event we would not have had these interpretations about deprivation of liberty.

For those reasons I support the principle of the Amendment that a definition should be inserted somewhere in the Bill. I commend this matter to the further consideration of the hon. Gentleman, to see whether he can meet the desire of hon. Members that we should do justice to those affected by the Bill and that the rules should be capable of interpretation on equitable lines.

I apologise for troubling the Committee again, but my point is an important one. I follow the argument of my hon. Friend about the extension which would be introduced by the bulk of my Amendment to the Amendment, and I sympathise with the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) that this may be another way of putting the matter into the Bill. I have tried other ways which were less forceful and they have failed, so perhaps I may be excused for making another attempt in this way.

All the objections which have been put forward do not apply to the last category mentioned in my Amendment, which

"does not include any person who at any time was deprived of his German nationality pursuant to any such law, decree or regulation."

We all know that by the Nuremberg laws persons who were Jews or the children of Jews, or had one grandparent who was a Jew, were deprived of German nationality altogether. I cannot for the life of me see what distinction is to be drawn between an Amendment which says that those persons are not German nationals for the purpose of penalising them and the Amendment of my hon. Friend which says that Austrians and Czechs and others in a like case should not be penalised by being forcibly included in the definition of German nationality.

Although I quite appreciate that there may be the kind of differentiation to be made between the first category in my Amendment and those covered by my hon. Friend's Amendment, there is no such distinction to be drawn between those covered by my hon. Friend's Amendment and those covered by the last three lines of mine. I feel that if my hon. Friend will reconsider this he will see that the logic of it is quite impeccable. The justice of it we are agreed about already. The Government are already committed to the purpose which would be achieved and have repeatedly committed themselves to it in the discussion today, as well as the Debate on Second Reading.

If my hon. Friend had not thought it necessary to move his Amendment, then my argument for the last three lines of mine would have had less force, but since he has thought it right to do it in the cases covered by his Amendment. I cannot understand why he should wish to discriminate against those covered by mine. In his case also he could have exercised his powers under Clause 1 (6) and dealt with the matter administratively. All his arguments about my case not being up to standard apply as much to his case as to mine, and he has thought it right—I am not quarrelling with him; I agree with him—to define German nationality in the proper way with regard to occupied territories.

All I am asking him to do is to define German nationality for the same purposes in the case of those who were deprived of their rights as citizens, of the right to be protected by their Government, and thereby were just as much allies of this country throughout the war as any Austrian or Czech. What- ever administrative or machinery arguments may have influenced the Government in rejecting all the previous Amendments, they cannot apply to my Amendment to the Amendment, or at any rate not to the last three lines of it, which I should have thought were quite indistinguishable from the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend himself. I beg him to reconsider the matter.

I do not know whether reference has yet been made to the provisions of the enactment dealing with similar matters in America. The words of the proviso there are:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (e) … "

which dealt with enemy properties—

"return may be made to an individual who as a consequence of any law, decree or regulation of the nation of which he was then a citizen or subject discriminating against political, racial or religious creeds as at any time between 7th December, 1941…

That is a different date from that in our legislation—

"… and the time when such law or regulation was promulgated, shall enjoy full rights of citizenship under the law of such nation."

I wonder whether between now and the next stage of this Bill, the Government would consider inquiring how this exemption has worked in the case of the United States. I wonder if my hon. Friend would see his way afterwards, on being satisfied that that was a reasonable provision there and that it has not in any way acted detrimentally to the proper interests of the United States, to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), or a modified form of it.

I think that it is impossible to deny the plea made about the last sentence. It is obvious, in view of the fact that this Bill deals with enemy nationals who were nationals of Germany in 1939, and remembering that from 1939 there was oppression against the victims up to 1941 when the Act was passed taking away the nationality of Germans, that we still have included the group who could not possibly be regarded as enemies. I know that my hon. Friend is sympathetically disposed towards the purpose of the appeal which has been made to him, but I agree with those who have said that once these matters go outside this Committee and the question of intepretation is left to individuals, it should be put in a form which is clear and categorical so that there should be no misunderstanding and so that his own wishes should be carried into effect.

What my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade said is true, and I think that the Committee would be wise to accept it in view of the surrounding circumstances. We moved this Amendment not because the Bill as drafted does not in the view of most of us cover the people who lived in Czechoslovakia or in Austria; we moved it in order to make it clear beyond per-adventure that that is exactly what we wish to exclude when we define a German national. But that is rather different from the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). It appears to me that what they desire to do is, by these words, to exclude the very people that the I.A.R.A. would wish to protect. We think that that would be an unwise step to take.

Would my right hon. Friend show how that argument bears upon the last category—the last few lines of my Amendment? I appreciate how it applies to the other.

I was saying, and apparently I carry my hon. Friend with me, that it would place those to whom I have referred outside the rules which have been laid down for their protection. I think he will agree that neither he nor I nor anyone in this Committee desires to do that. He asked me to direct my attention to the last part of his Amendment. I have looked at the last part and I have taken it in association with the rest, and without meaning to be discourteous to him I must say that in my view it would be completely unworkable. The individual concerned who will be outside the definition has to have left Germany between 1st September, 1939, and so on, or he has to leave it within a reasonable time after the passing of the Act. All those limitations would have to be taken into consideration either by the Custodian of Enemy Property or by the administrator.

These final words only add to the definition and make it even more difficult for the Custodian or the administrator to decide who was or was not a German national. I hope the Committee will accept that view. We have every sympathy with the problem which my hon. Friend has put with such clarity and persistence. We think that his Amendment will not help him or those whom he wishes to help, and that it is much better to leave the matter as it is in the hands of the Board of Trade who have up to now, with one or two exceptions only, operated these rules with great fairness.

My right hon. Friend has been kind enough to pay a compliment to my lucidity. Having regard to what he has said, I can only think that that compliment was grossly undeserved, because I do not seem to have made myself at all clear to him. There is no necessary connection at all between the last three lines and the rest of my Amendment to the Amendment. It is put as one Amendment for exactly the same reason as the Chairman directed me to treat my Amendment as an Amendment to the Amendment before the Committee, because one could not have a series of Amendments starting:

"'German national' does not include…"

One should have the words:

"'German national' does not include …"

and then the whole series of categories.

The last three lines are nowhere to be found in any of the international agreements that we have been talking about. All the rest of my Amendment is. The two points are clearly separable. If my right hon. Friend had said that he would accept an Amendment containing the last three lines and reject the rest, I would have been very grateful and glad to accept his proposal. So far from making any increased difficulty, it may well be that my Amendment is unnecessary because I think that it is a matter of law that who are German nationals at any time must be determined by the sovereign authority of the country of which they are or are not deemed to be nationals. If a man can prove that on the relevant date he was by a German decree deprived of his nationality, I think that he is, even with my Amendment, entitled to go to to the courts and to say, "This Act does not apply to me." There may be differences of opinion about that.

It is precisely because there may be differences of opinion that I thought it worth while to put the Amendment down, or at least the last three lines of it.

It is for exactly that reason that the Government put down their own Amendment, because the same kind of argument as I am now advancing is a possible one, in regard to the victims of the Nuremberg laws, which might have been advanced by a citizen of Austria or Czechoslovakia, and it is in order to get rid of the difficulties in which such a person would be placed—an Austrian or Czechoslovakian—that my hon. Friend has put down his Amendment. I think he was perfectly right to do so, and to meet exactly the same kind of difficulty I put down my own Amendment. After listening with great attention, and with the utmost confidence in the goodwill of my right hon. Friend, I am still totally unable to understand on what grounds he discriminates between the two.

May I raise a rather different question, which concerns the first part of Clause 8 of the Bill, in which it seems to me there is considerable ambiguity? I refer to subsection (1, a, b), which refers to:

"any British subject or British protected person resident or carrying on business on that day in the United Kingdom."

As I understand it, the Bill will enable a sum of approximately £12 million to be divided among various claimants, and the persons who will be entitled to present claims to participate in this sum are persons who establish claims in respect of German enemy debts. German enemy debts are defined in the first part of Clause 8 as meaning sums due on the 3rd September, 1939, by various persons, such as the German State, German individuals or German corporations, to any of the following persons:

"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom;

any British subject or British protected person resident or carrying on business on that day in the United Kingdom;

any body of persons (whether corporate or unincorporate) which on that day was a body incorporated or constituted under the laws in force in the United Kingdom;".

It seems to me that those words may have one of two totally different meanings. They may be intended to refer to persons who were British subjects, or had some other kind of British qualifications, such as a person resident in a British mandated territory on 3rd September, 1939, and, if it has that meaning, then it will limit very considerably the class of claimants. As the words stand, however, they may equally well refer to a much wider category of people, namely, persons who, though not of British nationality on 3rd September, 1939, have, since that date, acquired British nationality and are today British subjects.

There are at least 20,000 or 30,000, and I think very many more, former German nationals or other persons who were not British subjects on 3rd September, 1939, but were resident in this country, and had, in that sense, had the benefit of British protection. Whether they should now be included in the phrase "British protected person" or not I do not know, because this is the first time I have come across that particular phrase in a Bill or an Act of Parliament.

Many of these persons were refugees from Nazi oppression who escaped to this country before 1939, have been living here for 10 years or so, and a great many of whom, I imagine, would be claiming against either the German State, German individuals or German corporations, in a great many cases, no doubt, for very considerable sums of money. Before we part with this Clause, we must know whether it is intended that this large body of people, who are now British subjects but were not British subjects on 3rd September, 1939, are or are not included in the benefits of the Bill. It is completely ambiguous, and I am not now arguing the merits of the question whether they should be included or not, because, as I understand it, on any construction of the Bill there will be a very much larger amount of money claimed against this fund than the fund which is limited to about £12 million can possibly hope to satisfy.

There is the further drawback that is open to the Executive, by giving directions, to give priority to one class of claimant against this fund over another, and we do not yet know what directions of that kind will be given by the Government. On principle, it seems to me that it would be unfortunate, in a Bill of this kind or in any Bill, to discriminate as between British subjects, and to any differentiation against British naturalised subjects over British born subjects, and I therefore hope that we may have some clarification of the matter before we pass this Clause.

I should have thought that the phrase "British protected person" was a term of art which had a definite meaning applying to the sort of people we used to have in the Indian States, and so on. The words "British protected person," constitute a regular expression in English constitutional law.

On the point of principle, I should have thought that even if it does increase the number of claimants we should, as a matter of principle, alter the Bill to include people resident in England on that date, or who had a domicile here. It seems that it is the effect of the Bill that somebody who has been living here for 40 years, who has been counted as a part of the community, but who has never acquired British nationality, may be penalised. We have always treated the community over here as one entity, comprising foreigners and non-foreigners. For instance, a foreigner who lives here owes allegiance to His Majesty.

It seems a little hard that the British Government should exclude a claimant who happens to be a foreigner, even though he may have lived in this country for a good many years, have conducted a business here, and been of great value to the country. We must not think too hard of a foreigner if he does not acquire British nationality, because there may be very legitimate reasons for his not doing so. For instance, in the United States, there are thousands of British subjects who are members of the American community, but who have never acquired American nationality. During the war we were surprised at the number of British subjects who had been in America for 30 or 40 years. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, as a matter of justice and reality, whether he does not think that claimants who were given the protection of our soil, and who have played a useful part in the British community, should be entitled to benefit from this fund.

2.30 p.m.

The second point I wish the right hon. Gentleman to consider is bound up with the previous Amendment. The Bill says that the benefit of its provisions can only extend to a person who was a German national on 3rd September, 1939. I know that the war started then, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he chose that date whereas in the satellite peace treaties the date of nationality is the date of the treaty itself? That is a much fairer way of dealing with the matter, whereas this Bill precludes people from claiming because of the point I first mentioned and brings their property into the pool because they are regarded as German nationals. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look into that point.

I first raised the question of the phrase "British protected person" on Second Reading, but I did not get an answer. I was hoping that a member of the Government or some other hon. Member would be able to define that phrase. It is important at this stage that we should know what is meant by those words. As it was not until 25th November, 1941, that the law depriving German Jews living outside Germany of German nationality was brought into effect, there must consequently be a large number of people affected by the provisions of the definition Clause as it stands at present who were serving, for example, in His Majesty's Forces. As my right hon. Friend knows, thousands were serving in the British Forces, and almost all who came from Germany would find themselves in the position of being considered as German nationals under this Act. The date fixed by the Bill is 3rd September, 1939, whereas, in fact, they were deprived of their German nationality in 1941; consequently, a very peculiar and unfair situation arises.

Perhaps at this stage I may get a reply to a point I raised a little earlier. It is whether the time limit which is fixed for making claims to the Custodians' at some date in December this year is to be extended. I hope my right hon. Friend will say that he is prepared to consider extending the time limit because it is of supreme importance that the date fixed should be such as to enable people who applied for property, not to be prevented from doing so.

I have very considerable sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) and which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) concerning the date which is regarded as the relative date for the definition purposes of this Clause. As the hon. Member for Northwich said, in the peace treaties—which had relevant provisions—the date taken is the date of the treaties, and there seems to be no real reason why in this case we cannot take some parallel date. It is quite true that there is a difference between the Nuremberg law and the law of 1941. It is a fine point, but a real point. The Nuremberg law did not deprive people of their nationality though it purported to deprive of them of the rights of citizenship. The distinction was drawn, and we must have regard to it. In the case of those resident outside Germany, that distinction came to an end in 1941 when there was a new decree depriving such persons of their German nationality altogether.

If the date in this definition Clause were amended so as to be some date later than 1941, many, though not all, of the difficulties which we have been discussing would not plague us any further. In arguing the tribunal point a little while ago, my hon. Friend said that anything that tended to clog the machinery and to delay a final settlement was to be deplored, and that anything that assisted it would obviously be a thing to be welcome. If there were an Amendment of the date to cover this point the Custodian would not be troubled at all with a great many personal claims which he will have now to decide; the machinery, far from being clogged, would run more smoothly, and we should reach a winding up stage much earlier.

I am asked to define what is meant in Clause 8 by the phrase "British protected person." It is, as the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) said, what is called a term of art. It means any person who belongs to a British Protectorate or mandated territory or a teritory which is held by this country under the Trusteeship Council. I am advised that until 1948 it had never been properly defined in any Act of Parliament, but the British Nationality Act, 1948, did attempt to define what is meant by "British protected person." There was also an Order in Council under the Act which dealt with the point. It was called—if anyone is interested enough to look it up—the British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order in Council, 1949.

We are dealing here with people who were in the situation envisaged by the Bill as at 3rd September, 1939. As I have said, at that time there was no such definition of this phrase, and that is why we have had to deal with this matter in the way we have. We were asked why we could not put in a date such as the date inserted in the treaties with the satellite States. It was my good fortune, perhaps, or my misfortune—depending on the way one looks at it—to be one of the British delegates to the Peace Conference which elaborated those treaties.

Quite frankly, the two things are not on all fours. Here, we are dealing with dates before Germany and this country were at war. That has to be remembered. After 3rd September, 1939, of course, all contacts, except by way of war, ceased between this country and Germany. Therefore, there is no other date but 3rd September, 1939, that can go into an enabling Measure of this kind, which deals exclusively with certain assets in this country and how they should be apportioned as between the creditors of German debtors on that date. I think that covers the points which were put to me. I do not think there were any other points of any substance.

There was one other point, about the extension of the time in which claims were to be made to the Custodian.

I think my hon. Friend was out when I dealt with that point; possibly he was getting his lunch. I did deal with that point a little earlier, in reply to the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). The answer is—and it was mentioned either by myself or by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, in answer to a question—that the date is not a hard and fast one and claims have been put in since. However, the sooner claims are made the better. There must be a time limit of some sort, although we do not intended to stick rigidly to the date.

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the two things were not on all fours with the peace treaties. In a sense that is true, but they are sufficiently on all fours to justify my argument. In the case of Roumania all contact was broken between that country and Britain in February, 1941, and assets covered by the peace treaty are to include debts owing to Roumanians. That is a sufficient analogy, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman would look at that point again. We are dealing with certain Roumanian assets in this country. Among those assets are debts owed by Roumanians, and the assets are not made subject to the charge under the peace treaty unless they are Roumanians who were resident in Roumania at the date of the peace treaty.

If I may reply to that point, I should like to say that what I have already said is correct and still stands. There is no close analogy between what we are doing in this Bill and what was put into the treaties made with the satellite States. There the orders did not define the claims which were to rank for a dividend from enemy property. Here, we are doing that, or something analogous to it. There is also this to be said: in the treaties as drawn there was nothing like the definition which we had drawn, and have had to draw, in the Bill when describing and defining a German enemy debt. Although I have a great regard for the views of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), I think he will find, on closer inspection of those treaties and of this Bill, that the analogy that he has tried to draw is not a good one.

I am not quite satisfied with what the Financial Secretary told us about the date. I have already referred to some remarks of a noble Lord in another place. It was there laid down that the rules of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency require that claims must be filed with the Government before 24th January. Can the right hon. Gentleman over-rule the rules laid down by the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency? It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman was giving some expression of opinion that there would be some discretion, but has he the right and the power to give that discretion?

I understand so. I am speaking partly from memory. I have also refreshed my memory by "bush telegraph" with those who are here to advise me. I thought I remembered that some time ago I had gone into this matter, and had given an answer in the House in the sense in which I gave it to the right hon. Gentleman earlier this afternoon. While he was speaking I had occasion to inquire whether my memory had served me well, and I can assure him that it has. In spite of what is there, we are not strictly enforcing that date.

I am much obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If he has any further observations to make on the point he will, of course, have the Third Reading Debate in which to, do it.

I want to protest about the time-table—

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is there to be no Report stage of the Bill?

There is no Amendment offered. I have not had one, and I am informed that the Clerks at the Table have not received one.

I am afraid I am not quite clear about this. If there were no Amendments in Committee there could be no Report stage, but there were Amendments in Committee.

Yes, but there were no Amendments moved on the Report stage. I have had no notice of any Amendments. Then the Third Reading was proposed.

I do not wish to detain the House long, but I think it is important to draw attention to Article 6A of the Agreement. I was about to begin by making a protest about the time-table for this Bill. It will be remembered that a very short time elapsed between the presentation of this Bill and the Second Reading, and that the time between the Second Reading until today was only some nine or 10 days. The Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Overseas Trade have both said that the Bill is very technical and complicated. On the Second Reading, they both evaded, if I may use the word without disrespect, answers to technical points on the ground that it was technical, and then they hurried the thing on.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the reason for all this hurry after so many years. It makes it difficult for those of us who try to understand the points arising from this Bill and the very complicated structure of German debts and assets, when things are rushed on in this way. We now find the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading all dealt with on a Friday. I think it is a little hard, especially when there is plenty of Parliamentary time, and it could easily have been dealt with in a week's time and not on a Friday.

Having made that protest, I want to ask the Government what are their intentions under the Bill as regards Article 6A, and I want to make certain that they have it clear in their own minds.

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to ask whether he is referring to Article 6A of the Paris Agreement?

Yes, the Agreement on Reparations. On the Second Reading, the Secretary for Overseas Trade gave the House to understand that there would not be anything in the general pool of reparations to be divided up. First of all, I think that is wrong; it is by no means certain that there will not be such assets, because there will be some German assets from neutral countries which will go into the general pool, so there will be something available. He seemed not to appreciate, to my mind, that if we do not match the contracts with the assets of specific debtors. we lose foreign exchange.

As I apprehend it, this is the way the system works. We have a general pool of reparations and we have two categories of reparations—A and B. Category B consists of things like dismantling and ships and inland water transport—physical assets; and the main source of Category B is dismantling. Capital assets taken out of Category B go in a certain proportion to the Paris countries—not the same proportion as category A. Category A consists of all other reparations—other than things like dismantling, ships and inland water transport—and we have the administrator who is sitting in Brussels and who has to divide up the pool. He hears, let us say, that Great Britain has £15 million worth of assets, and if there were no contract debt to take off that £15 million, Great Britain would be bound to notify the administrator that she had collected £15 million worth of German assets and distributed these £15 million to the creditors in England.

If, on the other hand, there are some specific contract debts, then Article 6A of the Paris Agreement allows the deduction of those debts from the £15 million. Let us assume that there are £5 million worth of specific contract claims. Those £5 million worth of claims are taken from the £15 million and Great Britain, therefore, notifies to Paris the £10 million and the administrator immediately has to book that £10 million against Great Britain's 28 per cent. share of the total. As other countries notify their figures, he adds them altogether, gets a total sum and then sends them out in the requisite percentages.

What I fear the Secretary for Overseas Trade did not quite understand was this: if we do not deduct those contract claims we lose, in the first instance, 72 per cent. of every contract claim we did not deduct. That is the arithmetical point I want to make, and it is a very important point about foreign exchange. If we have £5 million worth of contract debts and we pay them out against specific assets, they do not count against our share of reparations, but if we notify them to Paris then, because we did not deduct them, we get only 28 per cent. of them in the first instance.

What we receive ultimately depends on what everyone has put in. I think there are bound to be some assets, if the system does not break down and assuming, as we have every reason to assume, that the signatory Governments will honour their word—and we must make those two assumptions; so that not to deduct the contract debts will mean a direct loss, in the first instance, of 72 per cent. of every £ which is not deducted. In the last resort the proportion of the contract debt not deducted will be something different—it will not be as much as 72 per cent.; but we start off with the position that for every million pounds not deducted, in the first instance we lose £720,000. Later, when we get the total balance sheet drawn up by the administrator, we may find that that proportion—72 per cent.—is reduced to something much less.

What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: first of all, does he agree with the argument I have adduced and, secondly, if he does agree, will he bear it in mind and deduct all contract debts according to Article 6A? That is bound to result in the saving of some foreign exchange, although we cannot tell the exact proportion. I also ask whether the Government have taken any steps with regard to these contract claims in any notification to the central pool. In other words, have the British Government notified the administrator of any contract debts they have deducted, or that are in existence? I imagine not. I imagine the answer is that this Bill is the first step towards doing that. I just wanted to make certain that the contract debts have not already been drawn up in a list and sent to Brussels, or have not been added up in order to be deducted against the £15 million.

Do the Government also agree that, after their notification to Paris of the contract debts deducted by the Government from the total amount of assets here, the obligation is immediately incumbent upon the Government to pay those debts? In other words, if there is a creditor over here who is owed £1,000 on a specific contract debt, and who has assets of £1,000 belonging to his German debtor, if the British Government, in accordance with Article 6A of the Paris Agreement, deduct that £1,000 from the total of £15 million which they are to notify to Paris, does the Secretary for Overseas Trade agree that the moment they have notified it as having been deducted there is an obligation on, the British Government to pay that British creditor? I apprehend that there is, but I want to make certain that the Government are in agreement.

I apologise to the House for delaying proceedings on this point, but it is important, because I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be anxious to save every possible bit of foreign exchange. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the views about percentages and the existence of a "kitty" which he expressed on Second Reading. In my view, there will without doubt be some sort of pool with something in it, and if there is something in it, non-deduction of contractual payments will result in a loss of foreign exchange.

I do not want to repeat anything I said on Second Reading or in Committee, because I think that covers everything I want to say about the Bill. If I interveen in this Debate now it is only to record a similar grumble to that just expressed by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). I do not think that this is the kind of Bill of which the Committee stage, Report stage and the Third Reading ought to be taken on the same day. I should have thought it was sufficiently complicated and intricate, and that sufficient points have been made in Committee from all sides of the House, to justify some delay between the Committee and Report stages, so that further consideration could have been given to some of the arguments which have been abused. I think there was no necessity for the Government to deprive themselves of that opportunity of second thoughts which our Rules provide by a Report stage intervening between the Committee stage and the Third Reading.

We are all handicapped by that. We have no opportunity on our side to reconsider the points. I suppose a manuscript Amendment might have been in Order on the Report stage if anybody had been dexterous enough to give notice of one in the 35 seconds that intervened between the making of the Report and the Motion for the Third Reading. I at any rate was not dexterous enough to manage that, and I see no reason why the House should have been submitted to such an impossibility. There may be some little hurry; but it has not worried the Government so far, and if they waited another week to allow for some kind of second thoughts and had remained of the same opinion at the end of it, they would still have lost nothing but the few days. On the other hand, if after second thoughts they wished to change their minds, there is no reason why they should have deprived themselves of the opportunity of doing so. I only intervene in order to say that, and I hope it will be thought a friendly and legitimate complaint.

The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) have both complained, I think not unreasonably, that we have had to deal with the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading of this Bill on the same day. I cannot understand why there has been this hurry. This is a matter which has taken the Government four years to settle, and therefore it cannot have been a very easy matter to settle. We have been given since 8th November, when this Bill was ordered to be printed, to consider it. Very few Members in this House can be acquainted with all the details involved in a Bill of this sort; and it means consultations between Members, their constituents and others before they can apprise themselves of the difficulties likely to arise in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman representing the Government on the Front Bench today will apologise to the House for the way in which it has been treated, and will undertake to see that it is not again treated in this way.

The only reason that I can see for the speed with which this Bill has been rushed through the House is that the Government are anxious to have this machinery in order to make some immediate payments out of the money which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us this afternoon and on Second Reading is already available in a liquid form. That is a sum of £10 million. I hope that the Secretary for Overseas Trade can tell us, before we finally part with this Bill, when he expects that payments will be made to creditors who have established a valid claim under the Reparations Agreement, and what sum he imagines will be involved within, shall we say, the next six months. Can he also tell us how long he anticipates it will be before all these matters are finally dealt with? The Government have had ten years in which to get these matters in order, and apart from a few disputes which might arise—

Is it not a little unfair to say that this Government has had ten years in which to get these matters in order?

Shall I say that the Custodian of Enemy Property has had ten years in which to get these matters in order, and apart from the few cases, or the many, which may be in dispute, I wonder whether the Secretary for Overseas Trade can tell us what progress he hopes to make immediately this Bill has been passed.

On the question of time allowed to the Bill, I think that I ought to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) and others who have complained that there has been too much delay, that we introduced it because we thought this thing should be settled. I think it was the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) who asked if we could have a period of about ten days between the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee stage, and the Government, through the asual channels, acquiesced in that very reasonable request. What has been decided has been the unanimous expression of the whole House, so I do not think there is anything for which the Government need apologise. We have rather met their wishes—[Interruption.] Certainly. If a Motion is put and is not challenged and we have the Third Reading, that surely is not the Government's responsibility. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is a great authority on these matters, said that it could not be challenged, and in that sense I cannot pursue the matter, but I do say that in the period available, we met the request of the right hon. Member for the City of London.

I think the Debate has shown that there is not a single line of approach on which one could get unanimous agreement. The Bill tries to ensure that creditors get fair and equitable treatment. Some have tried to get more generous treatment than the Government thought was warranted. We have heard pleas for the victims of Nazi persecution, with whom we all have sympathy, and we have heard the claims of various other interests, and we have even heard the taxpayer occasionally mentioned. We have tried to get a reasonable and equitable distribution of these enemy assets under the Bill. The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), like myself, must have been at lunch when the Financial Secretary was speaking, otherwise he would have heard the reply to his point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is most anxious not to lose foreign exchange, and the hon. Member can be assured, in that sense, that the matter is being looked after.

Does it not show the disadvantage of having the two stages of the Bill on the same day? I was speaking on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I am now referred to something said during the Committee stage.

Questions of procedure do not arise on the Third Reading.

I am much obliged to the Minister of Labour for coming to the House to take part in this Debate, which concerns unemployed ex-Service men, particularly those who are over 40 years of age. This matter has been discussed, from time to time, in the life of this Parliament and the previous Parliament. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in winding up a Debate opened by the present Foreign Secretary:

"In addition—this is an important point, which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be pleased to learn—our exchanges will be particularly instructed that in selecting applicants for jobs, they must see that ex-Service men are not placed at a disadvantage through lack of recent experience of civilian employment. I believe that these arrangements will give the ex-Service man a really fair chance of any employment that is going."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1945; Vol. 410, c. 2586.]

The right hon. Gentleman has been sympathetic in dealing with this problem. He has gone out of his way to see that these men get reasonably good treatment commensurate with their war service, but I notice that recently not quite the same sympathy has been shown. The "over 40's," as they are called, are not a small body of men, and many of them are out of work and suffering severe poverty. Many are perhaps 52 or 53 years of age, which means that they have served in both wars—in the first for five years and the second for six to seven years, making a total of 12 years' military service on behalf of the country. They are at a real disadvantage compared with men who have been employed in industry during the war. In March, 1946, there were 24,581 unemployed ex-Service men out of a total 371,900 total unemployed in the country. In May 53,964 men and 3,658 women were unemployed, of whom 6,374 were ex-men officers and 173 ex-women officers. In October, 1948, the total register was 569,657 of whom 6,286 were ex-officers.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman keeps referring to ex-officers over 40. Will he explain the position?

The right hon. Gentleman has said it is not possible to split up the figures so one has to take a percentage of the figures available. On 20th October this year I put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour asking him for further information. It was on this occasion that I was particularly disappointed with his reply. He said:

"I regret that statistics are not available. Persons who have served in His Majesty's Forces are not separately distinguished in the unemployment figures."

After a supplementary he said:

"I do not agree that there is a number of men suffering hardship and poverty because they are ex-Service men. The fact is that when men register for employment at the present time we do not ask them ' Have you or have you not been in the Forces?' We treat them all exactly the same, as workers."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 731.]

That is the point where I beg to differ with the right Gentleman. It is the first time he has ever given such a reply to a Question dealing with these ex-Service men. They cannot possibly be treated on the same basis as men who have held a job in industry. Many men were directed into industry during the war, and though it may not have been their line of work, neverthless they were using their hands and brains in civilian jobs. It has also to be remembered that many of them continued, after the war, to work in industry. I do not want to belittle their achievement. They played an important part in the war effort. The fighting Services could not have gone on to win the war without the tools and other equipment which these men provided.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me that many of these men stayed behind against their wills. They would rather have joined up had they had the same opportunity.

That is exactly the point I am explaining. The effort in the factories was very important; because they were in these factories many men were not allowed to join the Fighting Services. I contend, however, that if a man has been in the Army he is at a real disadvantage compared with the man who stayed behind, whether against his will or not. It is fairly obvious, and generally agreed in the House, that this situation will get more difficult. Perhaps on the Clyde and in the north-east of England there will be some measure of unemployment, for example, in shipbuilding. There are already indications in certain parts of the textile industry that unemployment is rising. Last month there were 6,000 less at work than in the month previously, and I think that if we go into that era, even on a small scale, these men will be easily forgotten. It is comparatively easy to take care of them when we have got near full employment, but when we run into economic difficulties it will be more difficult to rectify the situation.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman dealing with fit men or with men who are disabled?

I am dealing mainly with unemployed ex-Service men. There may be some who are receiving a small disability pension, but have to go to work to support themselves and their families.

I am the first to admit that the Government have done good work in the way of vocational training for young men in order to get them into jobs, but these older men have not had the same generous treatment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has instructed his appointments officers to do all they can to get these men employment but have corporations such as the Overseas Food Corporation gone out of their way to see how many of these men could fit into jobs overseas? We all know that the air corporations take on people, and that every few months they have a big redundancy list as a result of which many men taken on are out of work.

We have frequently discussed whether more men could have remained in the Fighting Services for a few more years, without a pension but on a gratuity basis. For instance, I ask the Minister of Labour to consider what he said in April, 1946—

"I am not quite sure whether I am on thin ice, but I think that consideration might be given to the possibility of retaining some of these ex-officers, between the ages of 45 and 55, without the 'ex-,' a little longer as Service officers and letting them go on for pension. I took advantage of the opportunity, when visiting a very famous military educational establishment, not so very long ago, to talk to some of the younger officers taking their staff course, about this idea, and—perhaps not surprisingly—they were rather reluctant to think that these old fellows were going to be in the way of their promotion. We have always to consider the other side of the question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 2978.]

That is fair, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what was done and what can be done in that direction in the future.

I think the Government Departments and Government-sponsored boards are the worse offenders. I am not exonerating industry, which I will refer to later, but it is up to the Government-sponsored Departments to set an example. If they do that, the others can be dealt with if they do not come up to scratch.

Hundreds of jobs are offered daily—one sees them in the "Daily Telegraph" employment lists and in other newspapers—to men between 18 and 50 years of age, and they do not go through the appointments offices. If we are to have these well-run, fine buildings, which are costly establishments, let us make full use of them. The labour officers know that these jobs are not going through their own organisations, but they can do nothing about it. I am told by one of the men who are constantly looking for jobs that jobs go "under the counter." I am not making that accusation myself, but it may be that in some cases there is favouritism. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry out a thorough check to see that these jobs are handed out fairly, and not given to friends or friends of friends.

As an instance let me give the case of a retired naval officer about whom I have been in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman. A job was advertised for an assistant purchasing officer for the South-Eastern Electricity Board. It so happened that this officer had exactly the training required. He had been trained as a purchasing officer, and he found there was no age limit when he checked up to get further details. He was not even given an interview and the job was given to a man already in the industry. That seems to be what is happening all the time. We know there must be promotion—

The job was given to the man by whom? By the Ministry or by the employer?

By the South-Eastern Electricity Board, which gave the job to a man they already employed. Although the job was advertised, it appears that the Board was only going through the formality of advertising. Similarly, young men are given clerical jobs at £6 7s. a week over the heads of older men. The older men are no longer looking for fat salaries. At the end of the war only a few of them were thinking in terms of £1,000 or £1,200 a year; today, they would be very glad to get £6 7s. a week. It would be a very good thing to put some of them into the clerical jobs and let younger men fill other posts.

Many men with pensions, who have served a long time with the Colours, get jobs in preference to men who do not have pensions. There is a good case for the man who has given, perhaps, only temporary service in either or both of the wars getting some preference against those who have pensions. Perhaps the Minister will say also what is happening in the Ordnance factories, where, we were told, staffs were being cut down. Are the men who are to be put off going out under the old policy of "Last in, first out"? If so, it seems particularly hard for them not to get some preferential treatment.

I understand that the National Joint Advisory Council to the Ministry of Labour have endorsed a proposal for arrangements for ex-Regular Service men and women to enter the nationalised industries at the appropriate age and with experience and ability. Why cannot this scheme apply to ex-Service men who have not been Regulars? If we are to have this admirable scheme, then let it be thrown open so that, in this case also, it is possible for the man without a pension to qualify for the job. I believe that inquiries have already begun with the Transport Commission, the Coal Board and the British Electricity Authority and that they have endorsed the scheme in principle. But why not let all ex-Service men come into it?

I am also told that during the last 12 months something like 2,000 men have registered with the British Legion to be found employment. I give the British Legion full credit for what they have done in finding jobs for 300 men over 40 years of age. They have said that in some industries there is a real demand for that type of man, where he has been given a trial. Much more could be done for men who have reached an age at which they can make decisions and do not necessarily demand a high salary.

We need to go much further into this problem which involves further economic difficulties. In the few months before the present Parliament finishes its life I should like to see the Government really tackle this problem. There are many things which could be done. A small commission could be appointed to study the problem. I know that the matter has already been studied, but it is now four and a half years since the end of the war. Could not a little more be done, through the medium of the B.B.C., Ministers, Members of Parliament and members of local authorities, to bring this problem to notice of industry, in order to try to give these men a helping hand?

In the development areas some very good factories have been put up, in many cases on reasonably good terms to the employer. I should have thought that where a factory is provided for an employer or industrialist on that basis, while not making any firm agreement, an arrangement could be arrived at by which he made every effort to try to employ a certain number of the ex-Service men whom it is difficult to place in other industries. This applies also to Government Departments. Are they really trying to place these men when jobs are available?

Memories are very short. We all know that after the First World War the men were often forgotten, and even now many of the men from the last war are already forgotten. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory, if it needs refreshing, and to see what can be done. If one of the last actions of the present Government is the tackling of this problem, their help will be appreciated by everybody interested in its solution.

No one would wish to quarrel at the restrained manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put forward this important matter but I doubt the wisdom of attempting to segregate any particular section of the community as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done in bringing the spotlight of public opinion on ex-Service men only. I have been concerned with this problem for a long time. I was interested in the correspondence which went on in the columns of a London newspaper a little while ago. That correspondence revealed a great deal of distress among unemployed people of middle age, but it did not refer only to ex-Service men or to people of one sex.

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, this problem has in part been dealt with by the Government. He paid tribute to what the Government have done in the training and rehabilitation of ex-Service men. The point which must arise is that what is happening to this small section of the community reveals a far wider problem. If there are only a few thousand middle-aged ex-Service men out of work, there must be many more thousands of middle-aged people who are not ex-Service men who are out of work and equally in a state of distress.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said earlier. I said that I recognised that there were two categories. I tried to explain that those who had spent perhaps five years of the first war and six or seven years of the second war—12 years in all—with the Colours and completely away from industry, were at a disadvantage compared with those who did not serve.

I subscribe entirely to that point of view. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman when he made that point. At the same time, I say that we must not close our eyes to the gravity of the problem which exists among other sections of the community. The point I wish to impress upon the Government is that when a man is middle-aged, he particularly needs economic security. When a man has been uprooted from the normal routine of his life, either through economic circumstances or through the convulsion of war, in middle-age he needs the bed-rock of security. He needs a job. He needs to know that he will not be left unemployed, on the morrow, not knowing where to turn.

That also applies to women. With the exception of a small section of talented women, those women in middle age who go out to work, fall into two categories. There is the woman of middle age who is a widow, who has the burden of supporting children and who, therefore, is compelled to go out to work. She is faced with the handicap of having younger women competing with her for a job. The second category is the single woman of middle age who has never known the blessing of married happiness, who has nobody to support her and who must go out to work. We ought not to overlook these women who are equally entitled to consideration. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not mind because I have extended the scope of the Debate.

Some time ago in my division I learned that a company responsible for passenger transport in Lancashire had decided not to employ men over 40 as bus conductors. Immediately I wrote to the company and was given an assurance that that was not part of their policy and that they were prepared to accept men over 40 provided that they were fit for the job. That incident indicates that there is a tendency throughout the country to employ younger and fitter men at the expense of the older men who are approaching middle age.

I would remind my right hon. Friend that here we are dealing with men and women who are prepared to accept not necessarily work of a manual character but administrative duties. There are jobs of a mental character, which have always required first-class physical qualities, and yet, when one looks at the recommendation which has been made in regard to mental qualities and ability in the Cohen Report on Company Law, we find the age limit given there is 70. If we take the age of 70 for a director in the board room of a company, why on earth should we regard it as impossible for a man of 50 to do administrative work of any character?

I can understand these prejudices and difficulties arising in the pre-war years, when there was a surplus of labour of all kinds and when employers were able very easily to make their choice and select whom they wanted for the jobs, but today, when we have full production and we want to enable the more active and useful members of the community to take part themselves in productive efforts, this is the time when we should fit into the administrative, clerical and welfare jobs those who are older.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave one example of where the Government's responsibilities lie, and I believe there is a tremendous responsibility resting on the Government to set an example to private industry on whom they should employ in certain categories of jobs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman quite rightly referred to the published advertisement of a Government post, which I think provided an age limit in regard to the applicant—

A Government post?

Yes. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman can confirm that?

Yes, the South-Eastern Electricity Board.

If that is not exactly a Government post, perhaps we may qualify it by saying that it is a post of a quasi-Government character. I am sorry to see my right hon. Friend splitting straws of that character.

indicated dissent.

Perhaps he is not capable of splitting straws.

I have had correspondence from the Association of Supervisory Staffs, a trade union which deals with the managerial grade and of which I am a member, and, on the authority of this trade union and of the National Federation of Professional Workers, a body which is not unknown to my right hon. Friend, I have here a list of 15 quasi-Government posts which have been publicly advertised and which contain an age limit. It is here. I think, where the Government are wrong in laying down an age limit for jobs of an administrative clerical or welfare character.

The first of these advertisements refers to the post of an administrative assistant to a hospital management committee, and the ages thought desirable for a person to do that job are from 25 to 35. I just do not understand why. Let me take another example at random. An age limit of between 21 to 25, though people up to 28 would be considered, is stipulated for an assistant to a group manager in a gas undertaking. This seems fantastic. I can give the Minister chapter and verse and can trace the advertisements in question. There is another relating to a man, preferably not over 45, who is to be an education officer in Tanganyika. There may be some substance in the argument in regard to jobs abroad, where a man might have to encounter exceptional difficulties in tropical Africa or the Far East, for imposing a reasonable age limit, particularly where a job of an active character is envisaged. Where a man is fit enough and has capabilities, I do not think we can limit entrants into these jobs to an age of 45 years. If we return to the examples at home, I have here another case of an age limit of between 28 and 40 for a personnel assistant in the National Coal Board.

Where are we getting to as a result of this ludicrous kind of advertisement in the newspapers, which would prevent men in the region of 45 from applying for jobs of this character? Then there is the advertisement for a man up to the age of 30 as an administrative assistant in an East Midlands Gas Board, and yet another saying that applications will be accepted or considered from men between the ages of 30 and 45 for posts of senior accounting assistants at Hull for the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive.

There is something radically wrong if in these days of stringency and economic difficulties, when every man who can be used ought to be used on production, we should be getting this type of advertisement which is prejudicing the prospects of talented men and penalising them simply because they are in the region of 50 years of age. I want to see the Government adopt the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, and undertake to make some sort of inquiry into what is going on both in private enterprise and in nationalised or quasi-State industries. If ever it was necessary for the Government to set an example to private enterprise, it is so in this sphere, and it is because of this that I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for raising this matter today.

I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) on this matter, because I think he has done a good service to the House in bringing it to the Minister's attention. As he said, the Minister has certainly not been entirely idle in this matter, and we fully recognise the attempts which have so far been made. However, I am bound to say that there does not seem to have been a sufficiently affirmative approach to this difficult problem.

I propose to limit myself to the subject raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) opened up a somewhat wider field. I do not criticise him for doing so, because we all take such opportunities as we can to make particular points in which we are interested. The subject raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was the case of ex-Service men over 40 years of age. The hon. Member for Stretford dealt at some length with non-ex-Service women, but I want to come back to the original subject. It is obviously one which requires urgent attention because, as was pointed out, in the last year or so the figures show that the number of unemployed ex-Service men has roughly doubled, although it is not possible to segregate the age groups into which they fall. Therefore, there is an increasing urgency in this matter.

I was surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had said on a previous occasion, in answer to a Question, that when matters of employment were being considered no distinction was made between the ex-Service man and the non-ex-Service man. I must say that I think that is the wrong approach to this question, because I believe that the ex-Service man is deserving of special consideration for two reasons, firstly, that he has rendered special service which deserves reward, and secondly, because he has suffered the disadvantage of not being particularly trained in a special trade. That puts him at a disadvantage compared with the man who has been adequately trained in a particular trade, and, therefore, he ought to have, I suggest, some special consideration.

The reason this matter becomes particularly urgent now is that it is apparent that there is a grave risk of increasing unemployment in the not-too-distant future. I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in expressing the hope that that will not happen, but all the indications are that there is at least a threat of it. Indeed, one need go no further than the admissions of Ministers themselves to find justification for saying that. The Lord President of the Council has pointed out that without Marshall Aid there would be 1½ million unemployed, and Marshall Aid comes to an end in 1952. Therefore, we ought to look ahead and see how such threatened unemployment will affect this particular section of the community.

When unemployment comes they are the first to be hit both for the reason which I have already pointed out, that they are not trained or not as trained as other men are, and also because they are getting to an age when it is difficult for them to compete with younger men. I contend that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that he makes no differentiation in favour of these men, and I ask him to reconsider the matter particularly in the light of unemployment which is coming. He ought to reverse that policy and put into operation a policy which gives special consideration to these men for the reason that they are placed at a disadvantage by reason of training and age.

Although, as has been said, the right hon. Gentleman has not by any means let this matter slide, I feel that he has merely treated it as part of the whole problem of. employment. What I would like him to do is to reconsider that point and put it into a special category of its own. If it is merely treated as part of the general policy of employment, these are the men who, when unemployment comes, will be the first to suffer. They will suffer unless they are given special consideration. For those reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be warned in time of the menace which hangs over these men, and to work out some special scheme which will give them particular treatment so that their particular problem can have his attention.

The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) complained that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) went a bit wide of the subject. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for Maccles- field (Air-Commodore Harvey) in some of the approaches that he has made—

If I may interrupt, I specifically said that I did not complain of what the hon. Gentleman had said. I said that we all take such opportunities as we can of riding our own particular horses.

I thought the hon. and learned Member said that he proposed to return to the original subject, and that in that sense there was an implied criticism.

I have considerable sympathy with part of the objective of the hon. ana gallant Member for Macclesfield. What rather disturbed me was the underlying theme of the whole of his speech. I could not help thinking, particularly when the hon. and learned Member for Brighton indulged in a political side-kick, to which I do not object, that there is a great difference between the treatment of the ex-Service men after the recent war and the terrible fate of the ex-Service men after the First World War. I do not wish to be thought unduly political when I say that I take the view that that is due to the advent of a Labour Government.

I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the gratuities after the 1939–45 war were nothing like as good as the gratuities after the First World War.

We are not dealing with gratuities. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will let me keep to the subject and deal solely with the question of employment. I agree that in the case of the long-service man who is cut off by his Service experience from civilian life, the community, the State and the Government have a special responsibility to shoulder. I remember two very vivid instances, one of them recently, when one of the long-service men who took part in a recent action was being interviewed over the radio, and he was asked what he was going to do when he left the Service. The interviewer thought it was a wonderful thing. It was not a wonderful thing to the man who was being interviewed, and I sensed a note of fear. I have met, as has the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, men who have been so long in Service life that they have become almost fearful of going into civilian life because it is so foreign to their environment and experience. That feeling is entirely a result of their environment. I quite accept that we have a special responsibility to these men and that everything should be done to fit and re-adapt them to civilian life, whether they were officers or whether they served in the ranks.

When we come to the question of disabled men, however, I cannot go all the way with the hon. and gallant Member. It seems to me that after the recent war, perhaps even more than after the First World War, it has been much harder to give that sort of special qualification to which the hon. and learned Member for Brighton seemed to refer. I cannot see that we have any greater responsibility, shall I say, for a man who was in uniform and who suffered in a bomb incident than for a civilian who suffered in a bomb incident; if they were both equally disabled, then the community has an equal responsibility. The last war was, in practice, a total war, and if we draw up the definition of the man or woman who put on uniform, where shall we draw the line, even within such a definition? The hon. and gallant Member knows as well as I do—and I had Service experience, as he had—that there were many jobs in the Services which were just as much civilianised as some civilian jobs. I cannot see that the mere fact that a person wore a uniform should give, in terms of disablement or of experience, any special claim to special treatment.

When we turn to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford I am much more in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield. I do not want to weary the House with statistics, but I must say—and I am not approaching this from the unemployment angle, but from the angle of full employment—that I become very alarmed when I go into some of the large post offices of this country and notice the enormous change which has taken place during the last three years. Three years ago it seemed to me—and I make this as a general observation—that the personnel on the counters were mainly women and middle-aged men, but when we go into post offices today we find fine, stalwart, husky men, virile young chaps of about 20 to 30, in place of the women who did the job previously. It may be that there is a special revenue sales angle which requires us to have these husky young fellows, like film stars, behind the counter, but in terms of a realistic view of the economy of the nation it is appalling.

I have a very strong suspicion of what is behind this, and it is a point which affects the whole personnel of management of many of the branches of the Civil Service, of Government and quasi-Gov-ernment institutions. From the angle of management they want the fittest men, they want the men who will be the least trouble and the least likely to be away from work. I recognise, as I think we must all recognise, that if we have the older men, if we have a higher degree of disabled men, then we are bound to have more labour difficulties than with the fitter types. My experience teaches me that among many Government and quasi-Government Departments there is no realisation of the manpower situation which the country faces.

I hope that in his reply the Minister will call our attention to the great work he has done in rehabilitation, and I recognise that with him; but I must say, quite frankly, that my observation teaches me that many of our large Government Departments are not playing the game, and are certainly not trying to fit in these men as they should.

I have been hoping that at some time in the life of this Parliament we could have a day on which we could deal, not only with the specific aspect which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put before us today, but with the whole question of the age structure of our population, and its relation to industry and social life. I take this opportunity of saying, quite frankly, that I believe one of the great mistakes that has been made in the life of this Parliament has been to accept the pre-war concepts of a return of unemployment and the pre-war estimate of the longevity of our people as a basis of our social services because both those things are quite inapplicable today. I do not believe that our country can go on indefinitely as it is, with a retirement age at 60 or 65, throwing middle-aged people aside in all branches of industry, because that places an intolerable burden on the people actually engaged in production. I sincerely hope that the Government will do us the honour of reading this Debate, and that perhaps during the lifetime of this Parliament we shall be given an opportunity of getting to grips with the problem.

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for raising this subject today. After all, all of us on both sides of the House must soon go to our masters and seek renewal of our contracts, and looking at the ages of those in the House, and of those who are not here at the moment, we can see that this is a problem with which some of us may be personally concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) may stroke his locks, but I would remind him of the old saying that you can have hair or brains. Personally, I, who am not now so well blessed with locks as my hon. Friend, have never been dissatisfied.

This Debate has been most interesting, and even if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to reply to all the points that have been made today I hope he will at least consider them. I think that what the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), said about the Post Office needs qualification, because it is probably true to say—and perhaps the Minister can bear me out—that a post office tends to employ the labour which is not in the greatest demand by industries in the district of that particular post office. Certainly, in rural areas there is more female labour in the post offices than in the big cities, where there are many female operatives in the factories. Everything that has been said this afternoon reinforces me in a belief which I have long held, that one day we shall have to establish a system under which those who serve the State, in any capacity, are treated the same at the end of their time in their main job. I believe that one day we shall have a system not unlike the French system, under which ex-Service men go into a branch of the Civil Service, the Customs, and so on, but perhaps that is a long way off.

I hope the Minister will be able to give some indication of the present state of affairs in the Ministries. I have been looking at the figures after the 1914–18 war, and I find that, in 1924, 97 per cent.

of the male staff of the Ministry of Pensions were ex-Service men. I do not know whether it is as high as that today. I rather doubt it. In the past many Ministries have been proud to print on their official notepaper a note to the effect that they employed ex-Service men. I hope they are all seriously considering whether they have now got their full proportion, because I feel they have not.

I wonder whether the Minister has figures showing how many of those who are now unemployed went back, after their military service, to a civilian job and have since been dismissed from it. I am afraid we must face the fact that some men, especially the older men, who were perfectly satisfactory in civilian employment before the war, came back from the Forces into that same employment only to find that they no longer fitted. These cases are just as tragic as any of the others. It is not always that these men feel that they are unfitted for the job which they have been given immediately after the war. I hope the Minister, if he cannot give us accurate statistics, at least will give us his Ministry's estimate of the number of these men. The figure I have in mind is somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000. I think we should seriously consider whether there is not some form of employment which has not yet been considered in detail and for which they would be fitted.

I notice that when the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley was being planned, there was a Question asked in this House, in 1922, as to whether special priority was being given to ex-Service men being taken on for the Exhibition. I think the Exhibition employed about 20,000 men, during the time it was in being and while it was being built. Has the Minister considered, in connection with the Exhibition of 1951, the possibility of giving ex-Service men employment there? There must be a certain amount of general labour which could absorb a good many ex-Service men in the work now being undertaken, and more as the opening of the Exhibition gets nearer. I hope that matter will not be overlooked.

Lastly, may I say a word on the question of whether a man is entitled to greater consideration because he is an ex-Service man? I should have thought that the criterion was, first, how much he was able to keep in touch with the job which he had come from and would be going back to, and, second, how much he had suffered by being compulsorily taken from his home. One of the biggest debts which this country owes is to men who had to go abroad, and the fact that there was enforced separation from their families through no fault of their own. I do not pretend that those men, who did their job in industry during the war, do not deserve their country's thanks quite as much, but those who were separated from their families feel that they have earned some extra consideration from their country. I hope the Minister will confirm that attitude, because I am very disturbed by the answer which he gave to my hon. and gallant Friend for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), and I hope he will take a rather more open-minded attitude about it today.

I am glad to have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, through your courtesy in calling me today, of taking part in this Debate. I would like first to point out that, although the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), for whom I have a great admiration, said that this Parliament was dead, I think that this Debate has shown that this Parliament is not dead.

We have been given a very constructive speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) when he said that speech represented on the whole, together with the speeches made from these benches, the sense of the House. I think that we in this House feel very deeply about the way that ex-Service men are treated today. I have the greatest possible admiration for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has dealt with this subject since the end of the war, and I am quite sure that feeling is echoed throughout this House. When we have come to my right hon. Friend, on behalf of ex-Service men in trouble, we have certainly had a very fair hearing. I wish to deal today with a constituency matter.

While agreeing entirely with what has been said, and supporting the plea that on the whole the policy of the Government should be for young ex-Service men to be put in productive industry and older ex-Service men in administrative and clerical jobs. I wish to deal primarily with a matter that is entirely a constituency matter, relating to R.A.F. personnel. In doing so. I hope I shall not be considered lacking in the usual courtesy one gives to the House if I quote the poem, which, after all, was the best known of all war poems, written by John Pudney:

"Do not despair

For Johnnie head in air

He sleeps as sound

As Johnnie underground

Fetch out no shroud

For Johnnie in the cloud

But keep your tears

For him in after years

Better by far

For Johnnie the bright star

To keep your head

And see his children fed."

We remember what the Services did in the war, and we now want to see, not only that those who died have their children properly looked after, but that those ex-Service men who live have every opportunity of gainful occupation.

I am pleading today on a subject in regard to which I find myself in some difficulty, because, in a way, I disagree with the case I am putting forward. I am pleading on behalf of the Patrick Aviation Company, Limited, which is in my constituency and employs 14 ex-Service men. I understand that two of these men were long-range bomber pilots, one of them a Coastal Command pilot and another a fighter pilot. Since the end of the war, as the House knows, the Ministry of Civil Aviation announced their intention of nationalising civil aviation, which Parliament has now put into effect, and certain services have since been allowed by the Ministry to keep going.

The Ministry have allowed the service run by the Patrick Aviation Company between Birmingham and Jersey, which has been run exceptionally carefully from every point of view—I think it has a 99.5 per cent. accident-free record. This service has been carried on in winter and summer, and the fact that it has been run both in the winter and the summer has the approval of its sponsors, the Birmingham Corporation. At the moment, the company is under notice that it cannot run this service during the summer, although it is now carrying on the service during this winter. If the company is not allowed to carry on the service during the summer, I am informed by the managing director that it has already put up so much money that it will make a loss, assuming that it closes down next year. If the company is not allowed to carry on during the summer, it will not be worth carrying on during the winter, with the result that 14 ex-Service men in my constituency are to be turned out of a job by the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Will the hon. Member tell us whether he voted for the nationalisation of civil aviation?

I am delighted to tell the hon. and learned Member that I voted for nationalisation, and that I should vote for it again. I hope that my position is perfectly clear. I consider that it is quite impossible to carry on civil aviation on behalf of this country and maintain our imperial communications without nationalisation. The Government's case has been made out time and again, and I hardly think the hon. and learned Member should reproach me, at a time when I am trying to fight for my constituents, by bringing in a party point of that kind.

I am not thinking about the capital invested in this company by its directors, but about the livelihood of the 14 ex-Service men who are now employed in it and are living in my constituency. This company is going to be closed unless it can get some form of service, because nobody can expect the directors to carry on the service at a loss. It can only make a profit during the summer, but when the summer comes, the company will not be allowed to operate, because the Ministry of Civil Aviation will have taken it over before that.

Speaking on behalf of the ex-Service men who are threatened with unemploy- ment, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whether he can put forward some kind of case with the Ministry of Civil Aviation in order to see that their employment is secured over a period of 12 months. I do not wish to be unfair about this matter, because it is a matter on which one can easily be unfair. I think it is quite wrong—and in this respect I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Brighton for his intervention—that the Government should have to carry on aviation services which are unprofitable and not be able to take over aviation services that are.

I know that I have been asked time and time again by people prompted by the Tory Central Office, "Is it not a fact that all nationalised industries are not working at profit?' and such drivel as that which has been inspired by the Tory party. The Minister of Civil Aviation is entitled to say, "If something is working at a profit I, who have to make a loss on my Imperial communications in the interests of the British Commonwealth and Empire, must be entitled to take over that part of civil aviation which is working at a profit." I entirely agree with that case.

This is really a matter for my right hon. Friend, and I ask him to think of the 14 ex-Service men and their families in my constituency. On their behalf I ask him to intervene with the Minister of Civil Aviation, who I may say, has been quite reasonable about the matter, and has not yet made up his mind. I am asking my right hon. Friend if he cannot intervene with his right hon. Friend on behalf of these men to see whether some compromise cannot be worked out which will safeguard their jobs. I am grateful for having been given the opportunity to speak in this Debate this afternoon, which shows that this Parliament is not dead, and that it can still do a good deal for the benefit of our constituents.

We have had an interesting discussion, and I was particularly impressed by the case made out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), who opened the Debate. If I may clear away one or two questions which have arisen since he sat down, I will return towards the end of my reply to the main points which he put. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) referred to the employment of staff in a number of what he called "quasi-Government posts." Many of those he referred to, such as the hospital committees, gas undertakings, the Docks Executive and the Coal Board are all completely independent in the day to day running of their services, and I have no authority to give any instructions or directions to them.

I should like to tell my hon. Friend at once that I personally very much regret that any of these Departments should fix an age limit for posts of any kind. I have continuously appealed to employers throughout the country, with some success, not to debar a man because he is a certain age. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford made use of the phrase that these people "Have need of economic security," I have pointed out to employers that because of that need the men who have reached that age are likely to be very good servants, for, having found this security, they are likely to study and stick to their jobs.

Some of the Government Departments, who were in the habit of fixing an age limit, have, because of our representations, agreed to cut it down considerably and so give greater scope for employment in a much wider sphere. I still hold the view that it is wrong that men, whether ex-Service men or otherwise, who have reached the age of 45 or 50 should be considered as unsuitable even to apply for a job. I hope that in State, municipal or private industry we can reach the point where that can be broken down.

rose —

I have not much time. There is one other point in that connection which has a peculiar effect. Many age limits are fixed because the firms in question have pension schemes and do not want to take on a man over that age because of its effect on the scheme. It is awkward that a firm which has done something to help those in its employ should, by so doing, deprive itself from taking on a man who cannot qualify for the scheme. However, we are constantly in touch with groups of employers on these matters and, when we get down to brass tacks, we find them to be genuinely sympathetic. We shall continue our efforts in that respect.

The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) asked what was the extent of the problem. One would think from this Debate that there were hoards of ex-Service men unemployed. It must be remembered that considerably over five million of the men and women who went into the Forces were demobilised after the war ended. This does not take into consideration those demobilised or discharged during the war, and although five million came out of the Forces there were only 300,000 unemployed altogether in October of this year, of whom about half were ex-Service men. If we assume that they represent a full half, there are 150,000 ex-Service men unemployed out of that total.

The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) referred to Exhibition employment. I can assure the House that whatever my Ministry can do to "sell" our unemployed persons to any job we will do it, but we cannot say to the Exhibition authorities, "You must take ex-Service men." However, we will go to them and say, "We have these ex-Service men, will you take them?" The hon. and gallant Member went back to 1924 in stating that the Ministry of Pensions had about 95 per cent. I am satisfied that in most sections of the Government service, where ex-Service men without previous trades can be employed, they are employed. I feel quite sure that every messenger and attendant in every office of the Ministry of Labour is an ex-Service man—anyway, a vast proportion of them are—and I can say the same for the other Departments.

The House will also bear in mind the great work done in rehabilitating men who have been patched up and made whole again. If any Minister had a pet job in his Department I have it in this work of looking after our disabled people. I was interested to see that in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Pensions, now in the Vote Office, a tribute is paid to my Department in association with their own in the resettlement of those who have been disabled.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield said that we seem to have lost sympathy with ex-Service men and I hope to be able to show that that is not true. The hon. and gallant Member also quoted from a speech made during the time of the Coalition Government, when either the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) or the present Foreign Secretary said that ex-Service men would not be placed at a disadvantage. I can assure him that that is absolutely the position now, and that they are not placed at a disadvantage. In case it may be argued that I am merely saying that they are placed on terms of equality with others, I can show that they have more than that.

The hon. and gallant Member asked whether Government Departments were using our appointments offices. Yes, they are. Two years ago we were able to get them to use our Appointments Department and the department dealing with the scientific register. In that way many of the Government Departments make applications to us. We hope to secure from all the big nationalised boards the same recognition of the use of that Department.

Another matter to which the hon. and gallant Member referred seemed coincidental with my own experience, although I thought he would draw a different conclusion. I have several times spoken on problems of manpower to officers of various ranks in one of our big staff colleges. On one occasion when the lecture was over I said that I would like the Services to keep more of their officers over 40 or 45 for another few years, to give them a better chance. There was nearly a riot, and somebody said, "They would stand in the way of our promotion." That is exactly what the hon. and gallant Member himself has said.

That is one of the problems generally in industry. In fact, some employers, when asked not to discharge people on reaching the age of 65 and to compel them to go on pension but to retain them in employment, have explained that if they were to retain these people there would be blocks to promotion all along the line. Many of these employers are trying to find some kind of semi-responsible jobs in which such men can use their experience without preventing younger men from stepping up.

Another very interesting point, to which reference has been made, is that of advertising. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield quoted the case of a naval officer who went to the Electricity Board. I have not particulars of that case, but it frequently happens, particularly with municipal authorities, that they have to advertise when they are about to fill a certain post. At the same time, they have a man in their office who is suitable for promotion even if they did not advertise. They nevertheless complete the procedure of advertising, with the result that very often someone who imagines he is very well fitted for the appointment suffers bitter disappointment.

In spite of all our publicity and Debates in this House it is not yet common knowledge among employers that we have an Appointments Department. It is partly for this reason that many employers resort to Press advertising. Frequently, my Department contacts these employers and offers them assistance in finding suitable applicants. If the employer has already received replies to his advertisement he may not contact us, but if he does come to us we may be able to offer him a choice of staff.

It must, of course, be borne in mind that we can only submit applicants to employers. We cannot make an employer accept the applicant, however suitable we think he may be. Sometimes we might even be tempted to feel that, "If this man is not good enough for the job, we will not try any further," but we do, of course, continue trying until the employer is satisfied. Some men, especially the ex-Regular officer, are difficult to place in employment. The difficulty is not the fault of the man, but is because of his isolation from any kind of industry. Sometimes we submit five, six or seven of these men without their being accepted for a particular job.

Nowadays, instead of having hordes of men queueing up for work in the offices of the Ministry, there is generally a host of jobs waiting for the men. We have, as a result, fewer people with whom to deal; instead of the applicant having to stand at the counter we have, in some places, set aside separate rooms where he is asked to sit down instead of having to stand up. That makes a difference. The man will be interviewed, questioned and examined. We will gather all the information we can from that man. A man who has been following a trade for which there is no appointment vacant may have had a hobby. When the man is questioned it may be found that his hobby makes it possible for him to be fitted into some other trade more easily.

We do not leave the matter there. We have placing officers who make contact with the employers. I assure the House that if a man is 45, 50 or 55, it is not merely a question of putting his name on a list and waiting for somebody to ask for him. Our placing officers get into contact with employers in the area and advocate the case of that man. They will say, "We have a man here. You said that you wanted one under a certain age, but this man is a few years older than that. Have a look at him. Send for him." I have been surprised at the success achieved not only in this respect but among employers who have seen men who did not look as if they were worth anything because of the rough times they have had. Employers have found that men wanting a job will fit in and they employ them. I say this just to show that this is not merely a routine matter.

The Minister gets all the praise and very often he gets all the blame, and it serves him right, but I must say that I am full of admiration for the personal devotion shown by our staffs all over the country in their efforts to place the men who have come before them. I should like to explain what happens. When an unemployed person goes to the employment exchange for the first time, to register, we record whether he is an ex-Service man or not. When a man goes along afterwards in the ordinary way and says that he is out of work and has come for a job, we do not ask, "Are you an ex-Service man?" We have a record of every one. Until the end of 1948 we kept a constant record of the employment or otherwise of the various groups, but we dropped that because we did not think that it served any useful purpose in view of the rapid diminution of the number of employed. That record is necessary for two reasons. We want to know who has been in the Services because there are certain Government Departments like the Post Office who give all classes of certain jobs to ex-Service men. There are other Government Departments who reserve a variety of jobs for ex-Service men and there are certain grades of the Civil Service which are restricted to ex-Service men, mainly ex-Regulars. I will come to the very difficult question of ex-Regulars in a moment.

We are attempting to persuade local authorities and industry generally to adopt a policy designed to absorb ex-Regulars at levels appropriate to their age, experience and ability. There is no real problem in handling the ex-Service man who is not an ex-Regular because, in the main, those people were in some sort, of work before they entered the Service, and as it is four years since they left the Service most of them have settled down. I want to emphasise, the fact that the employment exchange official does not himself exercise any preference on behalf of ex-Service men. I submit that that must be the case.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) gave some indication of what is happening. If there is a job available and two men apply, both of whom are fit for the job, the employment exchange manager cannot say, "Have you been in the Service? If so the job is yours", or "If you have not been in the Service the job is not for you." Let us assume that both men have been in the Service. In that case we must decide what we mean by the word "service." I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) who said that those who had made a sacrifice of home life by going abroad should be considered. Is the exhange manager to decide that one man should get the job because he has been abroad and that the other one should not get it because he has not been abroad?

What is meant by the word "service "? Does it mean the man who joined the Forces at the beginning of the war and ststyed until the end? Does it mean that the men who went away and served six months get the job against those who never went away? When we talk about sacrifices, I quite understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who himself served in the war, has a deep feeling of sympathy and comradeship with those who served, but I and others also have a deep feeling of comradeship with those who stood alongside us in the streets of London and other towns when the bombs were dropping, who went on with their work during the day, and, at the end of it, turned out as air raid wardens or members of the Home Guard. I mention that to show the great difficulty about it, but I say that we will do what we can to help, but are we to say "Here is a job, a postman's job; if you are not an ex-Service man you cannot have it"?

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the problem of the over-40's who have not been Regulars did not really exist. Surely, the Debate has been concerned with those who have not been Regulars?

I will cut out any further trimmings and give the real facts. The problem of the ex-Regular is not the problem which is worrying us, as I will show by the figures. Let us take the work of our Appointments Department, which deals with jobs of the managerial, administrative and executive character. The majority of these are ex-officers, and we have separate statistics between these men and ex-Regulars, and these are the facts. At October, 1948, there were 7,501 unemployed men of all ranks on the appointments register; in October, 1949, the corresponding number was 5,348, a reduction of 2,153, apart from all those we filled up in between. Of these totals, ex-officers in October, 1948, numbered 5,432, and in October, 1949, 3,664, a reduction of 1,768. In that period of 12 months, we have filled vacancies by ex-Service men to the number of 7,000, of whom 3,731 were ex-officers. Since VE day, 31,400 men of all ranks were placed by the appointments offices in the managerial, administrative and executive posts. If anybody likes to take that figure and compare it with the cost, he will find what a tremendous amount of good work has been done by these offices in securing appointments for these men.

With regard to the ex-Regular officers, the really difficult problem is that of the ex-Regular officer who leaves the Forces at the age of 45 or 50, and this problem of the ex-Regular of middle age is really part of the larger problem of the older workers in industry, except with the difference that he has had no training for the job which he has in view on returning to civil life. In spite of the difficulties, the appointment offices have been able to place 642 ex-Regular officers in employment in the last 12 months, in addition to 207 who have been placed through the exchanges, which figure is included in the other figures which I have already given.

I am bound to say that there is no complacency on the part of the Ministry and no lack of sympathy with these men. We are doing all we can to overcome this difficulty, particularly the problem of the over 40's. Careful note will be taken of what has been said this afternoon and I can promise that anything which has been suggested which might help us in this matter will be followed up.

In view of the offer by my right hon. Friend to do what he can to help, will he mind saying that he will try to help the 14 ex-Service men I mentioned to him, and will he see if anything can be done to ensure that they remain in employment?

I cannot say what I will do about their remaining in employment, but we will certainly do what we can to help them.

Will my right hon. Friend also look into the matter of newspaper advertisements which indicate a preference for younger men, and try to make some more satisfactory arrangements?

I cannot interfere with that.