HC Deb 27 February 1939 vol 344 cc1043-50

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Captain Margesson.]

11.12 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson

I desire to raise the question of the intention of the Italian Government to increase the number of their troops in Libya. The House will remember that towards the end of 1937 the Italian Government increased the number of their troops in Libya almost by twice the usual peace strength. When the Anglo-Italian Agreement was negotiated last year, the Italian Government gave an undertaking to withdraw their troops from Libya at the rate of1,000 a week until they had reached effective peace strength. According to the Minister's reply this afternoon that effective peace strength is roughly 32,000 to 35,000 men. Apparently, the Italian Government did withdraw large numbers of troops, and in November last the Minister stated in this House that he was satisfied that the undertaking was, in fact, being carried out.

On 20th February, however, the House was told that the Italian Government had intimated that they proposed to increase their garrison in Libya. To-day we were told by the Minister that His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome had expressed to the Italian Foreign Minister the regret of the Government that the Italian Government should feel obliged to depart from the programme of reduction. What was the reply of the Italian Foreign Minister to that expression of regret? He said that the present increase was intended solely for defensive purposes. Defence against whom? Against this country? Is it suggested that we are going to attack Italy's possessions? Defence against Egypt? Is it suggested that the Egyptians intend to attack Italian pos sessions? Against France? Is it not a fact that the tension that exists to-day between Italy and France is due to Italian threats against France? There is no evidence whatever that France harbours any aggressive intentions against Italy.

The truth of the matter is that Italy creates the feeling of insecurity and then exploits that feeling in order to justify increasing her troops in North Africa. They plead the necessity of concentrating their troops there for defensive purposes—a perfect example of Machiavellian politics. There is another aspect that is of great importance. The action of the Italian Government in increasing the number of their troops in Libya may not be a technical breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement; it may even be argued that the Italian Government have, in fact, fulfilled their undertaking by withdrawing their troops from Libya, and that they are at perfect liberty to send those troops back. But I cannot believe that this possibility was intended by the Government. If it had been, it would have rendered that part of the Anglo-Italian Agreement entirely valueless.

The Government have expressed their regret, but I think we are entitled to be told by the Minister to-night what the Government intended to be the effect of this undertaking by the Italian Government? Did they expect that the garrison in Libya would be maintained at peace strength, or was it their understanding that the Italian Government, once they had reduced the numbers of troops at the rate of 1,000 a week until they had reached effective peace strength, would then immediately be entitled to send back their troops to Libya? I hope the Minister will state frankly where the Government stand in the matter.

Moreover, it is not a question of Italian troops only. There is ample evidence of the presence of German troops in Libya. We are entitled to know what is behind these troop movements. Why is it that the Italian Government have thought fit to send, or intend to send, thousands and thousands of troops to Libya? Why is it that these stories are going round? They are not stories that are the product of the minds of people who are entirely unofficial; they are discussed in quarters that are in a position to know some thing of what is going on. I wonder whether the Minister will be in a position to explain why it is that German technicians and other members of the German armed forces are to-day serving in Libya. The truth of the matter is that on the evidence before us, we are entitled to say that the Italian Government are not playing the game, and I think His Majesty's Government ought to tell them so.

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler)

Several questions on this subject have been asked by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen during the last few days, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) will not contest my statement when I say that I have given the House all the information on this subject in the possession of His Majesty's Government. I gave all the information that I had in my possession at the earliest date which the hon. and learned Member has quoted, and then, after inquiry by His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome, I gave the House the further information which he passed on to us. I have also expressed, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, regret that the Italian Government should have found it necessary to take the steps which they have taken to send more troops to Libya. Therefore, I have been in some difficulty in finding further information that I could give the hon. and learned Member. It is rather difficult for a Minister continually to repeat the same information in answer to the same Question on the Order Paper. There is nothing to protect a Minister from having to give exactly the same information in reply to the same Question. I assure hon. Members that if I had any fresh information, I would give it, and not attempt to keep it from them.

Let me now deal with the hon. and learned Member's case as he has put it to-night. The facts are these. I have told the House of the Italian decision to send more troops to Libya. For the in formation of hon. Members who are present I may say that the peace strength of the Italian troops in Libya Is estimated at 30,000 to 35,000 men. I announced to the House the decision of the Italian Government to increase this number by about 30,000 men, and I understand that shipments of troops have taken place between Italy and Libya. The position, therefore, roughly, is this, that when all these troops reach Libya, the effectives will be approximately the same as they were at the period when we tried to get the number reduced.

I stated, in answer to a Supplementary Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), what our action has been. My Noble Friend communicated with His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome, who obtained this information, and who, on receiving it, expressed his regret that there should have been this departure from the programme of progressive reduction which was included in the exchange of letters to which I have so frequently referred in the Anglo-Italian Agreement. We, of course, regret the fact that there should have been this increase. We exchanged letters on the subject and we were glad to obtain assurances, and in a minute or two I will examine the course of events which followed that exchange of letters.

Let me remind the House of the answer which the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs gave to His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome. Count Ciano informed His Majesty's Ambassador that this increase in troops was intended solely for defensive purposes. He said with emphasis that that was the case, and that when things were normal, the Government would consider whether the strength of the Libyan garrison could not once more be returned to normal.

Mr. Bellenger

What is normal?

Mr. Butler

I have given the House the difference between what we are in formed is the normal, which is about 30,000 or a few thousand more, and the abnormal, which appears to be about double that number.

Mr. Bellenger

What are the circumstances?

Mr. Butler

I am coming to that, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has kindly left me a certain amount of time in which to elaborate it. Such are the facts. Now let us come to the original exchange of letters. The Italian Government undertook in that exchange of letters to make certain reductions in their effectives. That undertaking, as I have said in answer to various questions, they carried out in the period after the exchange of letters, but the duration of such an undertaking must, in our view, be judged in relation to all the circumstances in which it was made. Let us examine what happened. Count Ciano wrote a letter on 16th April in which he said: I have the honour to inform your Excellency that the Head of the Government has given orders for a diminution of these forces. Withdrawals have already begun at the rate of 1,000 a week and will continue at not less than this rate until the Italian Libyan effectives reach peace strength. This will constitute an ultimate diminution of these effectives by not less than half the numbers present in Libya when our conversations commenced. The situation which formed the subject of the conversations referred to, and which was directly envisaged in the Note which I have just quoted, was that the Italian forces in Libya had been very greatly increased simultaneously with the state of tension which arose after the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, a state of tension which, the House will remember, it was the primary object of the April Agreement to relieve. Count Ciano's Note, which I have just read, stated as a fact that the head of the Italian Government had given orders for a progressive reduction at the rate of 1,000 a week until the effectives reached peace strength. His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome acknowledged receipt of this information, and, as I have on various occasions informed the House, the promised reductions were, according to the information received, duly carried out.

The hon. and learned Member at Question Time to-day asked whether this was a breach of the spirit of the Agreement. I said that I could not actually agree with the words he used; but let me make this point quite clear. We do not like the sending of these troops. We would infinitely have preferred that it should not have taken place, and we have expressed our regret that it has taken place. The position of His Majesty's Government is quite clear on that point.

On the question of breach of faith, I am obliged to follow the profession of the hon. and learned Member and stick very closely to the document. There is nothing in this exchange of Notes or in any other part of the general Agreement to bind the Italian Government to maintain their forces in Libya at any particular level indefinitely. We could hardly have expected that Government to pledge themselves to maintain their garrison in Libya for an indefinite period at a given strength irrespective of what was happening in the Colony or elsewhere. Indeed, we have to acknowledge that the situation has changed through circumstances over which we, His Majesty's Government, have had no control in such a way that the Italian Government, I understand, now claim that the safety of the Colony requires them to increase their garrison. The House will not expect me to say whether the Italian fears are justified or not, nor can we claim the right to decide the circumstances in which such fears would warrant an increase in the Libyan garrison. The fact with which we are faced is that, rightly or wrongly, the Italian Government now hold that the forces which some time ago were adequate for the defence of Libya are at the present moment no longer sufficient.

Mr. Henderson

Is it carrying out the intentions of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler

I am coming to that. Such a construction as that suggested could not be placed on any undertaking by any Government unless an undertaking were explicitly given to accept a definite restriction for a fixed period of years. Having examined the Italian Agreement literally, one cannot say that there has been a breach of faith, but one can say, as I have said on several occasions, in answer to questions and in reply to the hon. and learned Member to-night, that we do not like the sending of these troops to Libya, and that we very much regret their being sent. We certainly trust that the situation will develop in such a way that a return can be made again to the normal complement of troops in Libya. I ought to add, that there is one thing that naturally follows from the spirit of the Agreement, and that is that the Italian Government have given us this information clearly and definitely: and I have given it clearly to the House. However much we may regret the situation, the facts are as I have stated.

Mr. Henderson

Has the intention of the British Government been carried out?

Mr. Butler

I have said that the under taking given to the British Government was that the troops should be reduced, and considering the circumstances of the time when the Agreement was made, that Agreement was carried out. But the understanding that these troops should be reduced has been altered by the changed circumstances which the Italian Government aver, to our great regret, have arisen at the present time. I think that that is the reply to the points which the hon. and learned Member has, raised. I can only repeat that we should have much preferred that these troops should not have been sent. We have expressed our regret, and we trust that circumstances will arise when the situation in Libya will return to normal.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.