HC Deb 16 March 1938 vol 333 cc544-60

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,737 9s. 6d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Departments for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1937:—

Class and Vote. Amount to be Voted.
£ s. d.
Class VI.
Vote 2. Mercantile Marine Services 10 0 0
Class VII.
Vote 15. Works and Buildings in Ireland 1,464 14 11
Class VIII.
Vote 4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances 11,262 14 7."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Ammon

I do not think it would be fair, as this Vote involves a question of life and death to some 30,000 people, that we should allow it to go through without some assurance from the Government as to the protection which is to be given to these people. They were our allies in the War, and a very definite assurance was given them that on the completion of the War this Government and other Governments would see that they were restored to their own country. I put a question to the late Foreign Secretary asking him whether it was the intention of the Government to settle these allies in their own or some other country, and the answer I received was that it was hardly correct to describe the Assyrians as allies of His Majesty's Government. I am somewhat concerned about the interpretation of the word "allies." In the report of Sir Percy Cox, who was then High Commissioner, he stated that the Assyrians, who numbered 35,000, were the more important element against the Turks and had been recognised as allies by Great Britain in the War. These unfortunate people were invited to become our allies and rendered valuable service in defeating the Turks, and I think that as a matter of honour we should honour the promise made.

It is now proposed that these people should be settled near to Iraq; that is, it is proposed to settle them within a very short distance from the very people who were responsible for the great massacre of the Assyrians a few years ago, a massacre which rivalled in numbers and savagery those which sent the nation into great emotional feeling some years ago with regard to the Armenians. Then the whole world knew what was happening, but in this case everything was done to keep it from coming to the knowledge of the public. Surely, we are entitled to ask whether any steps are being taken to see that the Assyrians are being safeguarded. Let it be remembered that they are the remnants of the oldest Christian community in the world. As Lord Hugh Cecil said in a characteristic letter to the "Times" a short time ago, their position makes no appeal to the Christian nations, who are mostly concerned with questions of materialism and of national defence. There is plenty of territory.

This country gave specific pledges to see that these people were settled, but now we are leaving them in a position of great difficulty. Even the Vote now before us provides only for the settlement of 9,000 out of 35,000. A short time ago the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said of these people that they gave their services freely, not to the Arabs but to the British Government. He hoped that a meed of justice would some day be vouchsafed to them. What the Government are doing in the Vote now before us is to try to ease their conscience by making this small contribution towards the wellbeing of a people who are in a terrible and hard position.

I suggest that there is plenty of room for these people within the British Empire; there is money to settle them; and nothing ought to be left undone to find some means of giving them a safe refuge for all time. One feels that an attempt is being made by the Government to avoid their responsibility by putting these people in that place in the hope that there will be another massacre so that they will be relieved of fulfilling their engagements. No other conclusion can be drawn from what is being done. It is proposed to settle the Assyrians within 50 kilometres of the people who massacred them before. Already there are violent attacks upon them in the Iraqi Press. They will be a minority amid a hostile majority. In those circumstances, we ought to have a more satisfactory statement on this matter. I refrain from inflicting upon the House the tremendous mass of evidence which I have from all sides, from our representatives abroad, and from the military officers responsible for bringing them to our aid and commanding them, and who give unstinted praise to the services which they rendered. All that they are getting as a reward for their services and sacrifices is this meagre settlement and it is being made under conditions which may within a short time mean that another move will have to be made and the world scandalised by the news of another outrage upon these people.

11.23 p.m.

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

If the position in regard to the Assyrians, to whom this Vote relates, were as stated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) I, too, would be very disturbed about the future of this community. But I must remain within the bounds of Order and confine my remarks to the 9,000 Assyrians whom it is proposed to settle on the Khabur River, not, as the hon. Member said, in Iraq, but in North-East Syria. We sincerely hope that, as a result of the granting of this money, a satisfactory future will be assured for these people in that settlement. The hon. Member referred to the past history of this question and expressed the hope that the whole British Empire would be searched for a suitable place in which to settle these Assyrians. He also referred to the unhappy incidents of 1933, and I sympathise with his feelings in that respect. We all regret those unfortunate occurrences, but I must point out that after that time, the Assyrian Committee of the League Council considered the question and a search was made, literally, all over the world, to find a home for the Assyrians. For instance, Brazil was considered as a possible home but was found to be unsatisfactory. Search was also made in the British Colonial Empire. I need mention only one place, namely, British Guiana, the possibilities of which were considered. But, unfortunately, that search did not prove successful. The hopes of those interested in the Assyrians then centred on the Ghab scheme of settlement in the French Mandated Territory of Syria. Through circumstances over which we in this country had no control, this scheme had to be abandoned as a result of sudden changes in the Syrian political situation due to the approaching termination of the French Mandate in Syria. It was impossible for the mandatory Power to look far enough ahead to enable the settlement to be guaranteed for any considerable future period.

The Assyrian Committee of the League Council continued to give the subject special consideration, and a visit was paid by the French and British members early last summer to the Khabur district where there were already settled a number of Assyrians. Some of these had gone there in 1933 and others in 1936. These British and French members of the Assyrian Committee went very carefully into the whole question of the future of the Assyrians. They came to the conclusion that there would be a good chance of economic prosperity for these people in the Khabur area, and it was decided to proceed with this settlement. The hon. Member seemed to think that this was a meagre sum to contribute towards the settlement, but, as he will see from the notes to the Supplementary Estimate, this is not a final instalment but is the sum required up to 31st March. The total amount required for the scheme will be in the neighbourhood of £18,000.

Mr. Ammon

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a communication from the French Government referring to this Khabur settlement scheme pointed out that it would increase the minority problem and indicated the danger that might arise?

Mr. Butler

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the economic part of my argument first, I will deal later with the difficulty he has just raised. He said this was a paltry sum.

Mr. Ammon

I thought the hon. Gentleman was leaving that part of the subject.

Mr. Butler

The hon. Gentleman knows I am not likely to leave unanswered any argument when it is put with the sincerity with which he has put his argument. This sum will be necessary before 31st March this year for the purpose of establishing water wheels and providing agricultural implements for the settling of the Assyrians. This sum cannot be regarded as paltry. It may seem little compared to the larger expenditure on the Ghab scheme, but in that case there were irrigation difficulties and other matters which made the, capital expenditure greater. Now we come to the other point made by the hon. Gentleman, namely, that these Assyrians will be in political danger and that this settlement will increase the number of minorities. It would be rash of anyone to give a definite undertaking that there will never be any trouble with this question again. It has a long and particularly difficult past. But, after all, this matter has been examined by the Assyrian Committee of the League and the site at the Khabur River has been visited by the French and British members of that committee. I believe the very fact that these Assyrians on the Khabur River will be surrounded by other minorities may result in a more stable political future for them than they could expect if they were settled in a district where they could more easily be oppressed by a majority. That is a point of view to which we attach considerable importance. Therefore, in view of the manner in which this question has been studied by the committee, in view of our interest in the subject, and in view of the trouble that has been taken to deal with the question, I sincerely hope these Assyrians on the Khabur River will be given every chance to make a happy future for themselves, as this is the best scheme that the League and His Majesty's Government have been able to devise.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson

I am very glad indeed that we have the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs dealing with this matter to-night. Since his appointment, I have been wondering when he was going to undertake some of the duties in connection with his new position. I am glad that he should get his opportunity on this particular subject. But I regret to say that I am very dissatisfied with the explanation which he has given to my hon. Friend. In dealing with such a large sum as £18,000 we ought to have had a fuller and clearer explanation of the situation of the Assyrians. While I, as a Socialist, do not wish to take away from any section of the people of any country that to which they are entitled, I suggest that this very considerable sum of money might be better spent in other directions. It might, for example, be spent in Scotland among the poor people in Maryhill and other districts. I would also like some information with regard to the search for a sanctuary for these people.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne)

I am afraid that that does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Davidson

The Under-Secretary dealt with it in his statement and I thought I would be in order in referring to it. Could he say how much of this £4,000 was taken in searching the world for a place for these Assyrians? We have spent money searching for places for the unemployed in Canada and Australia, and we have had Government schemes which have always been failures, but we have not had such expenditure as this on our own people at home. While it is true, as the Under-Secretary said, that the Assyrians gave us considerable service during the War, it is also true that there are thousands of ex-service men in this country on whom some of this £4,000 might have been spent more profitably. Was any of this money spent in searching Great Britain itself for a sanctuary for the Assyrians? In the Highlands of Scotland there are Indian rajahs, Americans and all kinds of nationalities settled, and they have created just the ideal conditions that would fit in with the Assyrians. The Under-Secretary showed every concern to see that no attack is made upon these defenceless people who protected our interests during the last War. Is there any chance of the policy of protecting this small minority extending until the Government accept their legal responsibility in the world with regard to other minorities?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan

May I express the hope that if the hon. Gentleman, in looking about for a place for these Assyrians, should decide upon some desert spot in the Highlands, we shall see another instance of the Assyrians coming gleaming with silver and gold so that, at any rate, they will not be a charge upon the local authorities?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn

I have one or two questions to ask about the next Subhead 6, which is concerned with the cost of unloading ships which were seized and searched under the powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act, but in which no offending cargo was discovered. The curious thing is that the Government, acting on information which they will not disclose, appear always to have seized ships which were carrying harmless cargoes and always destined for the Government of Spain. It is strange that at a time when the North Coast of Spain especially was so urgently in need of food that His Majesty's Government should have acted upon information which was so unreliable as to cause not only damage to the shipowners but always hardship to the people in Spain. The "Spring-wear," for example, was chased into Gibraltar by two armed trawlers of Franco's fleet. At Gibraltar the cargo was put overside into lighters.

I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would tell us who instructed the authorities at Gibraltar to impede this ship. Surely when a British ship flying from pirates—because that is what they were—and receiving, no doubt for excellent reasons, no adequate protection from the British Navy on the high seas, had reached Gibraltar, she deserved better treatment than to have her cargo turned out. There was considerable expense in doing so—I think £600—and demurrage losses were caused to the owners. Now Parliament is asked to vote the money. The owners have had to go without the money for demurrage up to this point. I understand they have made a claim—I think £625 for the "Springwear "—but it has not been settled. This item of £4,000 in the Estimate was unexpected. There was no Money Resolution for the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act. It is usual if a Bill will involve expenditure to have a Money Resolution and Clauses in italics, but I think I am right in saying there was no such Resolution. It is allowable, I know, to pay for something for which an Act of Parliament does not provide by means of an Estimate, on the ground that an Estimate under the Consolidated Fund is included in an Act of Parliament, but it is not a desirable practice. It is not desirable in the case of the "Springwear." Not only have we to find £4,000, but, in addition to that, we have to find something to meet this claim for demurrage.

I do not propose to divide the House on this matter, but although it is so late we must ask questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We must ask what he will do on this claim for £625 for demurrage, made by the owners of the "Spring- wear." I understand that the case is before the courts. I should think that a very reasonable way to treat the claim would be to appoint arbitrators, one from the Treasury and one from the shipowners, with an impartial chairman, so that the sum could be assessed and the company that owns this ship reimbursed for the loss that has been caused to them by the action of the Government.

I press the further point on the hon. and gallant Gentleman: On what information did he act? Was it merely that General Franco's trawlers chased the ship, and that that was considered enough by the Gibraltar authorities, or that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had some proper information on which he acted—with a cost to the Exchequer of about £1,000 in the case of the "Springwear"? The "Sarastone" was carrying potatoes and was in St. Jean de Luz on 13th April. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that she was seized and taken to Bordeaux, and there discharged at a cost of £1,200 to the Exchequer. I presume that in the case of the "Sarastone" a demurrage claim is also outstanding to the Government, and that the country may be put to the charge of about £2,000, or perhaps more, by this action of the Government.

It is very curious that at the time when this ship was lying in St. Jean de Luz the Board of Trade should disseminate as news that the approaches to Bilbao were so heavily mined as to be unsafe for ships to go in. We all remember reading in the newspapers how a certain Captain Jones, called Potato Jones, and other very gallant skippers, ran the blockade into Bilbao. In point of fact, in a few days many ships went in and out of Bilbao in perfect safety; nevertheless the Board of Trade considered it wise to circulate that rather alarming statement to the skippers. More than that, the Admiralty issued a positive order to ships not to leave St. Jean de Luz. What was the state of food in Bilbao at that time? Let me quote from the "Times" of 14th April: Nursing mothers are eating food worth twopence a day. Chickens cost £1 and the price of cats is soaring. That is to say, there were starvation conditions in Bilbao, while there was a cargo of potatoes in St. Jean du Luz. There were great ships like the "Hood" lying three miles off—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I hardly think that that is a matter which arises on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Benn

I do not desire to go beyond your Ruling, but this is a material point. It was at this moment that the Government desided to take this ship to Gibraltar and search her. They turned out the cargo of potatoes for I do not know how long; I have not been able to ascertain that, and we have to pay £1,200 for the discharge, and sundry amounts for demurrage.

This Supplementary Estimate is a new service. This is the first time any charge has been put on the Estimates for this matter, and I think we are entitled to make the inference that in their conduct of affairs on this coast of Spain, when the Basques were being exceptionally hard pressed, His Majesty's Government, in the exercise of the great policy of impartial non-intervention about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke this afternoon, were in fact making themselves the willing and conniving ally of the blockade by General Franco. If the Parliamentary Secretary, at this late hour, can give me some brief answer, I shall be very grateful.

11.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace)

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point again. It might perhaps have been expected, after the enjoyable hour and a-half that we had up to 1 a.m. last week, that this Supplementary Estimate might have got through "on the nod," but, knowing the right hon. Gentleman as I do, I was under no illusion. So, recognising the importance of the questions addressed to me the other night, I have informed myself somewhat further in regard to the proceedings under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act, 1936. The reason why no Money Resolution was required for this additional service was that there was no Money Resolution attached to the Act in question—

Mr. Benn

That is exactly my complaint. My complaint was that the strictest propriety would have demanded that a Bill involving expenditure should have a Money Resolution, but the Bill had no Money Resolution. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is using a procedure which has been used before; he is using a Supplementary Estimate as an Act of Parliament. I believe that that has been allowed to be done, but it is not a correct Parliamentary procedure.

Captain Wallace

I will pass on, if I may, without referring to the general question of Parliamentary procedure, which would hardly be in order on a mere Supplementary Estimate, to tell the right hon. Gentleman what has happened under this Act; and I hope the House will agree that it is a different picture from that which he has given of His Majesty's Government starving the unfortunate people on one side in Spain. Since the Act came into force, approximately 1,000 British ships have called at Spanish ports, the number trading to Government ports being considerably greater than the number trading to Nationalist ports. That is, at any rate, some prima facie evidence that, if ships were to be searched, the chances were that more of them would be ships going to Government ports than to Nationalist ports. In view of the large number of our ships that have gone to Spain, I think the House will agree that the number searched under this Act, is extremely small, and that it is entirely erroneous to suggest that the action taken in the case of the four that were stopped—three of which were searched and one it was decided not to search—has interfered appreciably with the transport of supplies to the Spanish Government. The figures themselves make that clear. The total number of ships about which the Board of Trade have received reports alleging the carriage of goods in contravention of the Act is, up to date, 21, but in none of these cases except the four referred to was the evidence considered by the Board of Trade to be sufficient to justify a search.

Mr. Benn

Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the proportions as between Government and Nationalist ports?

Captain Wallace

I could not do so with accuracy, but I think it would be fair to say that a very large proportion were ships going to Government ports. As regards these four cases, the information in three of them came from confidential sources. The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience as a member of previous Administrations, will recognise that I am not able to give to the House particulars of these sources; but they were sources which His Majesty's Government would have found it difficult to ignore. In the case of the "Springwear," which was the first case under the Act, the Nationalist authorities, as I said in the House the other night, stated that they had definite information that the ship was carrying machine guns. In view of that information, we thought it was advisable to undertake the search. I think the House will realise that because we did undertake that search—which turned out to be fruitless—we were, therefore, in a much stronger position than we should have been if, having passed the Act and having been supplied with that information, we had decided to ignore it.

Mr. Benn

Did the information come before the "Springwear" got to Gibraltar, or when she was still on the high seas?

Captain Wallace

Speaking, so to speak, without the book, I believe it came before she got to Gibraltar.

Mr. Benn

Exactly. Why was the information not then passed to the Admiralty so that they could send a destroyer to protect these ships which were being pursued by pirates?

Captain Wallace

I am afraid that is a matter which should be addressed to the Admiralty. Over 1,000 ships were going to Spain, the greater proportion to Government ports, and the fact that we searched only three ships shows that the action of the Government did not in any way interfere with the transport of supplies to either of the belligerents. Although the House can only take my word for it since it is not possible to adduce any tangible proof, I assure hon. Members that this Act has been administered by the Board of Trade without any bias whatever and that the decision to search in the three cases was taken by the Board of Trade only after the most careful consultation with other Departments concerned and in pursuance of what we believed to be our duty in regard to a suspected contravention of the Act.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

Surely this is very unsatisfactory. The Government have declared by one of their Ministers that they did not recognise that they were bound by the laws of neutrality, and that these three ships were stopped and searched with great inconvenience to everybody concerned. When these Estimates were in Committee, the reason given for the action was simply nothing. They did not tell us. Now the Minister tells us as frankly as he can—I am sure that he wants to tell us—that the reasons were so confidential that they cannot be revealed. I used to be in the Government service, and I then learned to regard the source of information in these circumstances as so utterly unreliable that you dare not say what it is. I learned also that a confidential source is a reliable source. Now the Minister tells us that the information is so confidential that it cannot be revealed. Are the Government to take the word of an unrecognised collection of rebels who on land are rebels and on sea are pirates? It is suggested that what they tell the Government is good enough. The Government claim that they interfered only in the matter of four ships, and in every one of those cases they were absolutely wrong. In one of them they hide behind a collection of rebels.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Davidson

It has been made clear by my right hon. Friend that there will be no Division. We have heard the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we want the greatest amount of information possible. I am seriously perturbed at the reply of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it seems to me that the Government, and his Department particularly, are spending money on idle rumours and are giving expenses to certain people whose names he cannot divulge, who act with his Department in a confidential capacity, and then he comes to the House and says, "We have given them this money; we are spending so much on this information, which has been fruitless, but I cannot tell you who are the informers" I think that, at least from the right hon. Gentleman, and at least on one Parliamentary day, we can expect a frank and fearless statement on the Government's policy. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman stated blandly that the mere idea of three vessels being searched would not disturb other shipping; but does he not know that the spread of this idea among the owners of ships that there was a risk of the British Navy bearing down upon them, taking their ships to outlandish places and searching them, creating expenses which, when claims have been sent in, might not be met, is a very direct interference with shipping, and that the very fact that the captains of those ships feel now, as we have seen from many statements in the Press, that they have to take as much trouble in dodging the British Navy as in dodging the Franco Navy creates much disturbance? What happens to those informers who give wrongful information to the Government?

Captain Wallace

The sum asked for is only for unloading and reloading vessels. It has nothing to do with sums paid to informers.

Mr. Davidson

I am very glad to hear the Minister's statement. I am glad that those who give this wrongful information are not paid for it, because, judging by the results, they do not deserve any payment from the Government. But this raises an important issue. Are the Government employing people—?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That, obviously, cannot arise.

Mr. Davidson

I accept your Ruling, Sir. As I have previously said, Supplementary Estimates are the best school for learning the rules of debate. It is true that in the school of experience we learn most, and it stands us in good stead in the future. I have no doubt that your excellent rulings and your guidance to me during the Debates on the Supplementary Estimates will stand me in very good stead indeed after the next General Election.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has informed the House that none of those steps were taken without serious consultation with other Departments. I would like to know what Departments were involved? Do these Departments bear any share of the expenses or are they wholly borne by the Department of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? He has been very good tempered and cheerful throughout these long-drawn-out Debates on Supplementary Estimates, and I hate to think that other Departments are putting it across his own Department or taking advantage of his good humour and good temper. We ought to know exactly what other Departments are involved, what responsibilities they have and what they contribute to this particular cost?

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell

I disagree with the point of view which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. He criticised the Government on the ground that they had been impeding ships going into the ports. A great deal has been said in newspapers and so on about this sort of thing. It has been written up a great deal, and nobody denies that ships—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That was exactly the point upon which I stopped the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mitchell

I want to keep in order and, of course, I accept your Ruling. I was simply trying to reply to the point which the right hon. Gentleman opposite raised in his speech. The point I wanted to make was, that any step that the Government had taken, by search or by other means, to limit the number of ships going towards any ports that were likely to be in the danger zone was desirable.

Mr. Benn

Why?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That question does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Mitchell

Perhaps I shall have an opportunity at some other period in the Estimates of replying to this point, upon which I feel very strongly.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan

I am not going to attempt to discuss the blockade along the coast of Spain, especially that part of Spain which is in the control of the Spanish Government. I have no doubt that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends who detain these ships at sea add much more to the difficulties of feeding the Spanish people than does the Spanish blockade itself. I was rather alarmed by the point raised by my hon. Friend when he said that this was a new Vote. What alarms me is whether it is to become a permanent Vote. It will be a permanent Vote if the policy of the Government in regard to Spain goes on as it is at present. My hon. Friend mentioned that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the other night was given a lesson in foreign policy. I would ask whether the informant, the mysterious friend and, no doubt, also the friend of Mussolini, is the same gentleman or lady who gives them all the information on Spanish questions when such information turns out to be so inaccurate?

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.