60. Captain Cazaletasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations have now agreed upon their Report on the Palestine Mandate and the White Paper; and whether he has taken any steps to bring to their attention the advantage it would be to the British people if arrangements could be made for the publication of the Report before the end of July?
§ 62. Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received copies of the Report and evidence given before the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations on the subject of the Government's White Paper proposal with regard to Palestine?
§ 69. Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the consideration of the White Paper on Palestine by the Permanent Mandates Commission; and when the Commission's Report will be available?
§ 79. Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet 2233 received the corrected minutes of the discussion of the Permanent Mandates Commission on the subject of Palestine and the recent White Paper?
Mr. M. MacDonaldA copy of the draft of the Commission's observations on the White Paper reached me some days ago; copies of the draft minutes of the private discussions of the members of the Commission reached me this morning; and I am still awaiting a copy of the corrected minutes of the discussions which the members held with me. The Commission have asked His Majesty's Government's comments on the two first documents, which will be sent as soon as possible, when the Commission will no doubt complete their report. I am unable to give any estimate of when the report is likely to be published; this is a matter for the Commission themselves, but I have no doubt that they will publish it as soon as is practicable after its completion.
Captain CazaletIn view of the report that there has been a considerable difference of opinion among members of the Mandates Commission does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be in the common interests of all that the report should be published as soon as possible so that we may know what these differences were?
§ Mr. T. WilliamsIn view of the fact that five members of the Permanent Mandates Commission declared that the White Paper was incompatible with the mandate, and that the Secretary of State was charged with turning the mandate upside down, would it not be better for all parties if the report of the proceedings was published at once?
Mr. MacDonaldWhen the report of the Permanent Mandates Commission is completed and published the hon. Member is very likely to discover that his information is incorrect. With regard to the question of early publication it is important that the publication of the report should not be delayed longer than is essential or necessary, but clearly it is impossible to contemplate the date of publication before the report is completed.
§ Mr. WilliamsMay the House be assured that the report will be published before the House adjourns early in August, so that no further steps may be taken by His Majesty's Government in 2234 regard to the League Council until this House has been able to express itself on the report?
Mr. MacDonaldI have made inquiries into the possibilities, and they have led me to a conclusion which makes it impossible for me to give an assurance. I should be very doubtful whether, if proper time is allowed for consideration of the report, it would be possible to get through the physical business of publication before the beginning of August. With regard to the second part of the question, this is not the report on which action is taken by His Majesty's Government in regard to this policy, except after consideration by the League Council. It is a report to the League Council and the appropriate next step would be discussed with the League Council.
§ Mr. Arthur GreenwoodIn view of what is now perfectly obvious from the "public Press that there is likely to be a difference of opinion between the Permanent Mandates Commission and His Majesty's Government and in view of the delay that there is bound to be before the Council has this matter before them, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will take no action prior to discussion in this House?
Mr. MacDonaldHis Majesty's Government have not taken any action prior to discussion in this House. There has been discussion in this House, and the policy of the White Paper was approved by this House. Therefore, action has only been taken following discussion and decisions in this House.
§ Mr. GreenwoodI must press the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. That is perfectly true. On the other hand, the House did not know then the views of the Mandates Commission, nor does it now. The question I am asking the right hon. Gentleman is this: After the matter has been before the Council of the League, will he stay his hand with regard to any definite action until this House has had an opportunity of discussing the report of the Mandates Commission and the decision of the League Council?
Mr. MacDonaldAs the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, the point which will arise is not one between members of the Permanent Mandates Commission and His Majesty's Government, because 2235 the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission report to the Council. The discussion will be between the Council of the League and His Majesty's Government. Certainly, I will give an assurance to the House that if, as a result of a discussion by the Council, the situation regarding the policy is altered, His Majesty's Government will not proceed with any matter affected by that situation until there has been a further chance of the House expressing its views.
§ Mr. GreenwoodI am sorry still further to press the right hon. Gentleman, but that is only a 50 per cent, answer. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether, whatever may be the result of the discussions between the League Council and His Majesty's Government, no action will be taken with regard to Palestine before the matter is discussed by the-Members of this House.
Mr. MacDonaldI certainly could not give that assurance. Let us assume for a moment that the League Council approves of the policy being pursued by His Majesty's Government. As that policy has already been approved by this House, I can see no reason in those circumstances for going back on the policy. What I do say is, that if any decision reached by the Council suggests any modification in the policy which has been approved by this House, then certainly His Majesty's Government will feel it necessary to come before this House again before taking further action with regard to this particular matter.
§ Mr. ManderIn view of the fact that the reply of the Minister was given to my original question, may I be permitted now to put one supplementary?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe reply was not given to the hon. Member alone, but also to the questions of other hon. Members.
§ Mr. ManderThey were all taken together. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is able to deny the statement which has appeared in the world's Press to the effect that five out of seven members of the Permanent Mandates Commission have condemned the British Government's policy, and that during the course of the proceedings he withdrew the Hogarth message as the result of the discussions which took place there?
Mr. MacDonaldObviously, I have no authority to speak on behalf of the Permanent Mandates Commission—
§ Mr. ManderCan you deny that?
§ Mr. ManderDo you not know?
Mr. MacDonaldAll that I ventured to suggest was that when the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has a chance of studying the report after publication he will very likely find that his information is incorrect, and I think that I can give the same reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).
§ Mr. T. WilliamsOn account of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.