§ 20. Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the British request for a committee of inquiry into the expenditure of the League of Nations has had to be withdrawn in view of opposition, it is intended to raise this matter on a future occasion by some other means; and whether the request was supported by those members of the League who have so far been unable to maintain their due subscriptions?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden)My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. It is true that His Majesty's Government's proposal in its original form, which was that an independent committee should be appointed to consider this question, was not adopted by the Council. It was, however, agreed on the suggestion of the United Kingdom delegate that the Supervisory Commission should examine the matter, associating with themselves for this purpose experts on the various questions which it was decided to discuss, and also that the Council should request the Assembly at its meeting in September to examine policy in the light of the need for economy. This resolution was adopted unanimously by the Council.
§ 22. Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement of the economies recommended by His Majesty's Government in the cost of administration of the League of Nations; what reduction in the contributions of Great Britain and the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations will be brought about if the contemplated economies come into operation; and from what date will the reduced contribution become effective?
§ Mr. EDENNo, Sir. I think my hon. Friend misapprehends what has taken place at Geneva. I have explained the decision taken by the Council of the League of Nations in my reply to-day to my hon. Friend, the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine), and it will be apparent that no statement such as is suggested could be made at least until the Assembly of the League has received 812 and examined the report of the Supervisory Commission.
§ Mr. HANNONWill my hon. Friend undertake to see that every effort is made by His Majesty's Government to reduce the present cost of administration of the League?
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSIs it not the case that we spend 90 times as much on preparations for war as on preparations for peace? Ought not this question of economy to be viewed in that light?
Viscountess ASTORDoes not the hon. Gentleman think it is very bad from the party and national point of view to have these old die-hard questions asked so often?
§ 24. Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any change is contemplated in the constitution of the League of Nations which will provide that in future only the representatives of those countries whose contributions have been discharged shall exercise voting power in the Assembly and in the various committees which operate under the general direction of the League?
§ Mr. EDENThe Assembly of the League has not hitherto been prepared to adopt a proposal to this effect.
§ Mr. HANNONSurely the time has come when this House ought to have a more definite declaration of policy from His Majesty's Government on this matter? Will the hon. Gentleman say how much longer we are to agree to allow non-contributing States to take part in the deliberations of the League and to come to decisions?
§ Mr. EDENThe hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the decision does not lie with the Government but with the League, and no decision will be taken until the League meets in September. Meanwhile, His Majesty's Government will watch the situation.
§ Mr. HANNONIs not this country the largest contributor to the funds of the League?
Captain CROOKSHANKSeeing that the League never reaches a decision, it does not make any difference.
§ Mr. THORNECannot the hon. Gentleman persuade some of his friends to table a motion raising the question whether the League should be abolished or not?