DISARMAMENT (PRESIDENT HOOVER'S PROPOSALS). (Hansard, 28 June 1932)

§ Mr. LANSBURY

In accordance with the notice that I gave at Question Time, I desire to raise some questions relative to the Disarmament Conference, and specifically in regard to the Government's attitude towards Mr. Hoover's proposals. At the outset I would like to say that we shall probably have another opportunity of more fully discussing the Government's policy. In taking the action we are taking to-night, we are doing so mainly to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity, if he is able to take advantage of it, of briefly stating what is the Government's real attitude in reference to the proposal put forward by the President of the United States. I think the House will agree that this question of Disarmament is one which, ever since the Peace Treaties, we have had continually not only before this House but before the whole world. There has been conference after conference. People's hopes have been raised, and, relatively speaking, precious little has been done. There have been numberless proposals and projects put forward, and we have had rejoicings at the end of some conferences. Others have been admittedly absolute failures. This one has been going on now for some months.

We have lived in a condition of one crisis after another, one proposal after another, and only apparently in sheer desperation the President of the United States put forward a proposition upon which up to the present His Majesty's Government have not given any unequivocal statement. I do not stand here to say that President Hoover's proposal goes as far as my friends would desire that the British Government should go, but it certainly is one of the most magnificent proposals that have yet been put forward. It covers a wider range than any other proposition short, 1773 I think, of the Russian proposition for complete and total disarmament. At present people who have an interest in this subject and who think that it is of great importance to the world that some results should accrue from the Conference that has been proceeding for so many months, think that the British Government especially have a duty to perform in relation to the matter. We think, and the world thinks, that our Government are more interested than, or at least are as interested as, any other Government in this matter. We are more interested from the point of view of the fact that we are, if not the most powerful nation, one of the most powerful nations in the world, and if we were to join with the United States we would be the two most important nations, as regards armaments. Other nations would think a good many times before they refused to follow us.

That is not the only point. We have also to remember that this country is intensely interested in the questions of War Debts and reparations and of trade and commercial relationships. If we are to believe statesmen who make speeches on this subject—I mean the purely orthodox statesmen—all these questions are intimately linked up, one with the other. We are told by American statesmen that it is unfair that Europe should expect the War Debts and reparations question to be settled, if that settlement is to release money to be spent on more armaments. We think that the Conference at Lausanne and the Conference at Geneva are irrevocably mixed up, one with the other, and, because it is of the utmost importance that both should succeed, we want the British Government to come forward and to stand for at least as much disarmament as the United States. It may be argued that the British Government have better proposals. Let us see them now. Let the world see them now. When I say the world, I mean people like the House of Commons. This House has as much right to know what our Government have up their sleeves, as the United States have to lay their proposals on the table. We feel that a great deal of distrust is being sown in the world because of the apparent indifference shown to this one concrete proposal and it seems to us that as the days pass the difficulties will become greater. It is imperative that we should know 1774 whether the Government are prepared, first, to accept the principle of a reduction of one-third, and then work out any details which are necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman may say, as was said yesterday, that the Dominions must be consulted. I quite understand that the Dominions have to be consulted on these matters and that it is more or less necessary to obtain their consent. But this House has to vote most of the money for the armaments of the country. This is not a question for secret diplomacy. This is not a question in regard to which secrecy is important. This is a question in regard to which openness and frankness are more important than anything else. If His Majesty's Government have put propositions to the Dominions, we think those propositions ought to be laid on the Table of the House. We do not think the Governments of the Dominions have any more right than Members of this House to know what is in our own Government's mind, and no one will deny that at present we know very little of what is in the Government's mind. I remember quite well the Foreign Secretary's last speech on this subject. I listened to it from beginning to end, and when he had finished I thought it was the most disappointing statement that I had ever heard on this subject. Since then he has made, so far as I know, no advance.

If the Government have put to the Dominions Mr. Hoover's proposal and some alternative proposal of their own, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to tell us so to-night and to tell us what it is, so that the world may know that it is not true that our Government are boggling about whether it shall be one Dig ship here or a submarine there, whether it shall be a big submarine somewhere and a smaller one somewhere else, or whether it shall be so many bombing machines of a certain size or some of a reduced size. What we want from the Government is as clear and as categorical a statement of their position in this matter as it is possible for us to obtain, but we want most of all that the right hon. Gentleman should deal with Mr. Hoover's proposal and the Government's attitude towards it. That is to say, do we believe that the proposal is to practical one? Do we believe in it sufficiently to back it as hard as ever we can until the other Governments come in with us; and are we prepared to say to the world that we will take our 1775 stand with the American Government and people in leading the world along the path of disarmament?

We hear a great deal of Anglo-American alliances and at meetings of the societies that exist to maintain and develop the best relationship between this country and America, we hear a great deal about the Anglo-Saxon people standing together and so on. We on this side should like to see the Anglo-Saxon people, as represented by the people of this country and of America, coming together and forming a determined lead to bring about disarmament at all costs, and not only to lead the world in pious aspirations or in long speeches on the subject, but to come right down to facts, as it were, and put before the world a united statement as to what we mean by disarmament. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite was present in the Royal Gallery when the Disarmament Conference was held during the period that the Labour Government were in office, and he must, I think, have been struck with the feeling that pervaded that assembly, that we were starting on a new era. I reminded the House that I too sat in the big hall in Paris where the Peace Conference was opened, and I would remind the House again that the speech made by Mr. Wilson on that occasion was that we were then, in 1919, entering on a new era in the history of the world. How many times since then have the same sort of words been uttered, at conference after conference, at that Box and from this Box, in the other place, and in various parts of the country? I read the great speeches by the right hon. Gentleman in the Albert Hall, and by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and at the end of it all we have got nowhere.

When I read Mr. Hoover's proposal, I thought that it was one of the most splendid statements that have ever been made on the subject. It did not go as far as people like me would desire, but in these days of so much of what appears to us to be—I will not say make-believe, but unreality, I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to-night to stand at the Box and say, "We not only welcome whole-heartedly what Mr. Hoover has proposed, but we are going to back it, and we will, if possible, go further than 1776 he has done; we will not make any niggling proposals to cut down what he has proposed, but we want to carry it still further and to do what President Wilson said at Paris—carry through for the common people that security which only comes when there is real peace." We have in this House and in the country to disarm our minds of the war spirit, the spirit of domination and power, and when a man like Mr. Hoover takes the line he has, the Prime Minister ought to take the same line and say that because of the horrors that war has piled upon mankind we, the two great powerful nations of the world, will join together and set an example of real disarmament.

§ The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin)

I quite understand the motives which have animated the right hon. Gentleman in opening this brief discussion, and I only wish it were possible for me to say what I hope may be possible before many days are passed. At present I cannot answer all his questions, but I think I may be able to say something that may give some satisfaction to him, and, I hope, satisfaction to the House. I am in general agreement with much that he has just said. He spoke of having heard me make speeches on this subject, but I am not conscious of having made more than one or two in the last 10 years. I have not spoken on this subject because I have been dissatisfied with what has been accomplished by the nations at Geneva. They have been playing with the subject. There are 50 or 60 nations involved in this question. It is not only a question between two nations, however great and powerful. However, that is not a very important point.

I would like to remind the House that for about a week prior to the sudden and unexpected issue of these proposals, conversations were in fact taking place between ourselves, the Americans and the French, and those conversations were for the purpose of ascertaining as accurately as we could how much common ground existed between the three nations and the best method of enlarging that common ground. Those conversations had made some progress. To those not familiar with disarmament problems, which are numerous and most complicated, I must point out that the proposals made now are of a completely different nature from those which have been studied by the 1777 nations over a long time, and the whole problem is so difficult that it is impossible in a day or two, or even after days, to give definite replies to the questions which the the right hon. Gentleman has asked. I rejoice to see them, because they are proposals on a kind of scale on which I should like to see disarmament take place though when I say that, I do not mean in detail.

There are one or two difficulties to which I should like to allude. This matter has to be examined with the very gravest care and in order that we could have a preliminary examination I asked that our representatives might be spared to come over from Geneva to give us first-hand news of what was going on and to bring with them certain memoranda that had been received in connection with these proposals which we had not seen in London. We had a discussion of over two hours yesterday afternoon. I can assure the House that one or two gentlemen who have written in the Press that there has been a split in the Cabinet on this subject, will be very glad to hear that that is not the case. I am sure no one will rejoice more than the "Daily Herald." There is not a single word of truth in the articles which appeared, and they will rejoice to know that I have never known any Cabinet—I have been in a great many now—more unanimous than the Cabinet was in discussing these important proposals yesterday afternoon.

The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary returned to-day. The Foreign Secretary flew, and is, I hope, safely in bed in Geneva now. They will report to the members of the Cabinet who are still out there—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Trade—and I hope very much that when they have had time to have some consultation we may be in a position here to give the House some really substantial information. But the House will see that until the Prime Minister has knowledge of our discussions, and until our colleagues have met, it is perfectly impossible for any Minister here to give any definite or authoritative reply. With regard to the point about the Dominions, the various subjects we discussed yesterday will be communicated in the ordinary course to them, and I think it will probably be only a matter of a day or two before we get their reply.

1778 I hope the House will take it from me once more that, as I said at the beginning of these few observations, not only do I rejoice that proposals on this scale are being put forward, but I most sincerely trust that proposals may be carried that will ensure, if not in that form, as great a reduction in quantity as is contained in the so-called Hoover proposals. We have been working for a long time, and I have had a good deal to do with the work myself, on these problems. The House will recognise, and I hope the Opposition will recognise, that this country has responsibilities which no other country has, for we are responsible not only for the safety of our own food supplies in time of war—we have a duty to our own people—but we are responsible for the maintenance of law and order for some hundreds of millions of people in the East and for keeping open the sea communications between ourselves and the Dominions on the other side of the world.

Therefore, although it is perfectly possible for us to join in bringing about as great reductions as are suggested in the proposals which have come from Washington, yet there are various aspects of disarmament that must be guarded against by any Government in power in this country because of the responsibility they have to their own people and to their people overseas. You cannot make a yard stick of disarmament, because there are several countries that may be able to make equivalent contributions but which must settle, inside the limits that are allowed, how best they can distribute their forces between the Air Force, the Navy and the Army. These things are difficult and complicated, and have not yet been studied in direct reference to the novel plan which has been put forward by President Hoover. I have just put these thoughts before the House to show what questions have to be considered, and must be considered. I do not admit what the right hon. Gentleman said, that a delay of a few days will endanger anything being done on this occasion. I do not think so at all. I think that by far the most dangerous thing is to rush in and say that a certain plan is possible before we have had time to examine it. I entirely agree with the essence of the proposals, and I would be anxious, as I am sure the Government is, to see as great an amount of dis- 1779 armament as is comprised in these proposals.

Whether the proposals as they have come to us are the best form, either for us, or for other countries, in which to get that amount of disarmament, requires the closest examination. That is the position. We are going into this (matter with a view to making the whole thing a real success. It is quite impossible, I imagine, although I have not been in consultation with anyone, with proposals of this magnitude, to see the results achieved immediately. I imagine that, if these questions are to be taken up, as I hope and believe they will be, seriously and with a view to giving effect to the essence that is contained in them, it is probable that the Disarmament Conference, or the greater 1780 part of it, which has been engaged on these great problems, will have to adjourn and meet again at as early a date as possible, to bring into effect among these multitudinous nations the amount of disarmament that could be brought about by the adoption of these proposals or of equivalent proposals. I do not think that there is anything at this moment that I could say. I have had no opportunity of having any consultation with the Prime Minister, but I feel quite certain that I have said nothing to-night to which the Head of the Government would take exception.