HC Deb 02 August 1946 vol 426 cc1387-408

12.38 p.m.

Mr. Martin (Southwark, Central)

The question I wish to raise is not unrelated to the matter which we have just been discussing. It relates especially to the problem of the abolition of war which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in his closing words. I want the House to consider the part which the British Commonwealth of Nations and ourselves have to play in the problem, first of the abolition of war, and second of security. Security is a background, and we can be certain that it will be occupied by an international order, equipped with a legal system, fortified by a police force, or some military body equipped to carry out its commands, with an economic system which gradually increases the unity of all the national economic orders of mankind, which will lead to a peaceful and orderly change among the nations. Either we proceed along those lines until we have a system of that nature, or we shall relapse again inevitably into a competition of national armaments, which will gradually gather in speed as time goes on, and we shall find ourselves in the position in which we were seven to ten years ago.

The matters which I want to present to the attention of the House are, I know, not very suitable for discussion on an occasion of this nature. But it does seem to me to be urgent that we should face the facts, and the problem of Dominion unity and Dominion collective action at this stage of our development. I want to stress that we are, in the view of a large number of people, fighting against time. The period that elapsed between the first great war and the second great war was 20 years. The tempo of mankind, the psychological and mechanistic tempo of the human race, has inconceivably increased. There is every reason to believe that that increase is going on, as our power to create and rebuild shattered cities, as our power to produce, as our power to invent new weapons of destruction, as our power to speed up communications—as our power in all these matters develops, so its psychological reaction on mankind develops too, so the sensitivity of mankind to the dangers that beset it become more acute, so the interval that elapses between one war and another and between one crisis and another is considerably reduced.

We may have 10 to 15 years or 20 to 25 years before the next crisis is upon us. Unless we find some means of solving this question of settling human disputes without war and integrating the human race to a greater degree—I do not say to a degree that is sometimes suggested by realists in this matter, because I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has just spoken, that it is not necessary to get rid of all the causes of war before we can hope to get rid of war itself—but unless we can achieve in the next 10 or 15 years a greater measure of human integrity and unity than at present, we shall find ourselves faced with a repetition of the calamity through which we have just passed, on an immeasurably greater scale.

It is against that background that I want to consider a few of the questions that affect the British Empire at the present moment. One of the advantages of discussing it on an occasion like this is that the voice of controversy is somewhat stilled by the paucity of the attendance in the House. One feels a return to the psychological and political conditions in this Chamber which were familiar to hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament, when we forgot, for a time, the things that divided us, and found in this House something which, when one first enters into a time of party strife, it is difficult to imagine. This House, this afternoon, as is the real function of the State in moments of emergency, represents as a national assembly, and as no other national assembly in the history of mankind has ever done, the people who returned their representatives to this place. As I say, on occasions like this, when the House is rather worn out after an exhausting Session, one comes round, so to speak, from the opposite door to the same situation, and it is easier perhaps to discuss these difficult and delicate questions—because they are difficult and delicate questions—without the danger of so much heat and controversy that might otherwise be engendered.

There are certain questions which I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Government this morning—I think that this is his first official appearance in this House, and I should like to say how glad we all are to see him at that Box today—and I ask that he will not so much give specific answers to these questions, because that, I know, will be difficult, but that he will take away the problems which I, and I hope, if there is time, other Members will present to him, and have them considered by the Government during the Recess. The Commonwealth has a great part to play in this problem of averting war. If, unhappily, war should not be averted, it has a great part to play in the security of the Anglo-Saxon tradition. It would seem to some of us that we are not facing this matter as realistically as we should. There is a tendency in some quarters to write down the part which the British Commonwealth should play. I think that danger emanates from two different directions. There are some hon. Members, colleagues of mine, whose point of view I respect, who believe that these somewhat intangible and spiritual links between people of the same race and the same culture and the same political system are less important than the great ideologies.

I think that one must face the fact that, if one takes that point of view, one may, in an emergency, find oneself involved not only in considerable disagreement but actually in war itself, under certain conditions, with these people of our own race with whom we have so many spiritual and material links. I can only say that if that point of view were to prevail, it would make it all the more important that we should clarify our relations with the people of our Dominions at an early date. I do not think for a moment that that point of view will prevail, but it is to be found in certain quarters and we must take it into account. At the other end of the scale, there are people who think that these matters are almost too dangerous to be discussed, that they may cause considerable ill-feeling in the Dominions, that they may raise a fracas and commotion between the various parts of the Commonwealth, and that they may have disastrous consequences which it would be well for us to avoid. I cannot subscribe to that point of view either. I think that the salient thing about the British Commonwealth is that it is the only political unity that has members in every part of the world. It is the most vulnerable, therefore, of all political units at present existing on the face of the globe. Those are two things we must take into account.

Earl Winrerton (Horsham)

The hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I interrupt him. I think all of us in the unfortunately rather small House are deeply interested in his speech, but I feel that his use of the term "political unit" might give a wrong impression abroad. The British Empire is not a political unit, but is in fact a unitary system, which is something quite different. It is not correct to describe the Empire as a political unit, because the Dominions sometimes have a different view from that of this country. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a student of these things, but I think that it will give an unfortunate impression if he uses that actual term.

Mr. Martin

I am obliged to the noble Lord. I was using the word "unit" more in its Greek sense of a common civic entity. By his intervention, the noble Lord has directed me to another aspect of this matter. The uniting bond is the Crown and as the Crown is a matter which we always discuss in this House with great delicacy, I will endeavour not to give you reason to call me to Order, Mr. Speaker. Either the unitary system that is implied by the Crown is something real or it is not. If it is not something real I think we must face the fact that it might be desirable that the various members of our Commonwealth should split up and regard their association as at an end, and that we should find some other means of providing a unitary state. If, on the other hand, it means something, if it is a matter of importance, I think we have to take into account that it is conceivable that if, for instance, the political developments of the world went, as we hope they would not, if we found ourselves unable to set up a system to prevent war, and if we find ourselves falling back into a competition in arms and a continual political manoeuvre for the advantage of one group of states over another—then I think it possible that a division of policy between the members of the British Commonwealth might have the most serious implications and complications. That would not be fair to the Dominions themselves, still less would it be fair to this country, which is the habitual habitation of the Crown and least of all would it be fair to the Sovereign at the moment, especially if it happened that, in the wisdom of Providence, that Sovereign was an innocent and inexperienced young woman or girl.

I think those are problems which we should face. If the link of the Crown means anything, if it is the outward and visible symbol of an inward and spiritual reality linking the peoples of the British Commonwealth together, then I think the peoples of the British Commonwealth should be united in their policy for the establishment of a coherent world order for the prevention of war, or, if that should unhappily fail, for securing the protection of its members in the event of another conflict.

I want to say just one word about the position of the various members of the Commonwealth vis-à-vis ourselves in this matter. First, there is the problem of relations in Canada. There are two outstanding aspects of that which I think we are bound to take into account in considering these matters. Since the last war broke out, Canada has entered into a Joint Defence Board with the United States for their mutual protection in the event of war. Nothing I say this afternoon must be construed as criticism of anything that the Government or people of Canada have done. I think, personally, that they were perfectly right, and the step they took when they became members of the Joint Defence Board was inevitable. I think it was to the long-term interest both of the British race and of the peace of the world that this should have taken place. None the less it does imply inevitably, under existing circumstances, unless you have a world order, a common foreign policy. Therefore, one very important member of the Commonwealth has a common foreign policy today, in all vital matters, with a State which is not a member of the Commonwealth at all.

Earl Winterton

So has this country, in fact; let us not be mealy-mouthed about it.

Mr. Martin

The noble Lord says that, and he may be right; I will not dispute it.

Earl Winterton

What is going on in Paris?

Mr. Martin

At the same time, we arc free, as Canada, in a sense, is not free, to withdraw from that association. The fact remains, if that is so, if we have an agreement with the United States of America for common self protection, that has at important significance upon our foreign policy, and I think it should be considered not only with regard to our foreign policy but with regard to measures that we are obliged to take for security. If the United States have, in fact, some advantage, as I assume they have, from that association, then they have a responsibility to see that the asociation is preserved. The Joint Defence Board has not, so far, resulted in Canada becoming a member of the Pan-American Union, but it is quite obvious that that will be a development which is liable to take place in the near future. That again is a matter which I bring out not as criticism or complaint but as a question which I think we should rightly consider from time to time in this House with regard to its implications. When, some time ago, Lord Halifax, who is not a political figure with whom I often find myself in agreement, was advocating something of the same kind as I am advocating today—a greater political union of action between the members of the Commonwealth—he was met by Mr. Mackenzie King, who said: I maintain that apart from all questions as to how the common policy is to be reached and enforced, such a conception runs counter to the establishment of effective world security and therefore is opposed to the true interests of the Commonwealth itself. We are certainly determined to see the closest collaboration continued between Canada, the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries. Nothing that I am saying should be construed as supporting any other view than this. Collaboration inside the British Commonwealth has and will continue to have a special degree of intimacy. When, however, it comes to dealing with the great issues which determine peace or war, prosperity or depression, it must not, in aim or method, be exclusive in meeting world issues of security, employment and social standards. We must join not only with Commonwealth countries, but with all like-minded States if our purposes and ideals are to prevail. Our commitments on these great issues must be part of a general scheme, whether they be on a world basis or regional in nature. We look forward, therefore to close collaboration in the interests of peace not only inside the British Commonwealth but also with the small friendly nations outside it as well as the great. These are brave words, but the real question is, are they significant words? Does the Prime Minister of Canada mean that he is going to advocate that he believes he will be able to reach an order of that kind in which the world will be secured from war? If he does nobody will he more pleased than the people of this country. Nobody will more heartily agree when we can return to a situation in which the various members of the Commonwealth can act independently in freedom. So long as we have not reached that state and so long as the problem of an effective peace system on the one hand and war on the other remains, there can be no reason whatever why the British Commonwealth should not act as a single unit for the prosecution of this aim of obtaining a proper and decent world order, and why we should be ashamed to think for a moment that that should be desirable I do not know.

Only last Tuesday there was an article in "The Times" referring to the Peace Conference. It explicitly prefaced its remarks by saying that, of course, the British Empire, as members of the British Commonwealth, never acted as a bloc. But we should act as a bloc. There is nothing to be ashamed in that if we are acting in our own interests. Other nations act in blocs. There is the Pan-American Union, and the Russian system has become a bloc. There is no conceivable reason why we should not act as a bloc for peaceful purposes—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)

Is not that what in fact the Empire did in the first week of the war?

Mr. Martin

The noble Lord is correct. They did. The point I am discussing now is whether it is likely to happen again. One reason why it is not is, I suggest, the existence of the Joint Defence Board which makes it almost certain that if a localised war in which we were involved broke out in Europe, Canada could not again come to our assistance for the reason that, if attack was made, which has now become quite feasible, it would be by a European State. Let us suppose that Germany revives and regains her ancient power, and in 15 or 20 years another war breaks out between Germany and England in Europe. It would be impossible for Canada, under those conditions, again to come to our assistance, unless the United States agrees, and it is quite possible, in view of the powerful weapons now existing in the world, that the United States would not agree. That is the problem we have to consider.

I pass next to Australia. Australia has not yet found herself in the Joint Defence Board. I think that is only a matter of time. I do not see how the United States, if they felt that they were threatened by a world war in a measurable distance of time, could possibly avoid coming to the conclusion that the defence of those outposts in the Pacific was vital. What the consequences of that would be, I do not wish to pursue at this juncture. I only wish to point out the likelihood of it. But suppose that that does not happen, and Australia becomes involved in a war with a revived and refortified Japan. What are our responsibilities with regard to Australia? No country in the world is so vulnerable to airborne invasion. No country has so vast a coastline. Have we any responsibilities in the event of such a thing happening to go to the assistance of Australia? Legally, I do not think we have such responsibility but morally, of course, we have great responsibility; and if the world again entered into a situation in which there was a competitive race in arms, we should have to consider the protection of our communications with the Pacific very seriously indeed.

Lastly, there is the problem of South Africa. We have our own differences with South Africa from time to time about questions of race and colour and so on, but they are not, I trust, serious questions. South Africa occupies a position of great importance in connection with our strategic communications. Now that the Mediterranean may not be available to us as a passage in the event of war our position would be of greater seriousness. In any discussion that may take place between this country and South Africa in regard to these problems, the other members of the Dominions should be called in for the fullest consultation. It may be that they are, but we have not had anything like a full-dress Imperial Conference for a considerable time. Such conferences as those with the Prime Ministers allowed very little to escape. In this country we know very little of our responsibilities, obligations and duties with regard to Imperial defence and preservation of Imperial communications in the event of war. Those responsibilities and duties have been enormously transformed by the inventions at the end of the last war, even if we do not take into consideration the atomic bomb. Our whole system of military defence and security has been put on a quite different footing. That makes it all the more important that we should without fail do our best to see that a true and effective peace system is implemented as soon as possible.

For my part I would add nothing to the difficulties of His Majesty's Government at this juncture with regard to these problems, but, without any question, unless this problem is faced candidly and courageously in the near future it will present us with unmanageable difficulties with regard to our attitude at Peace Conferences and in securing an effective system of self-defence while we are trying to build up an effective world system. The responsibilities of His Majesty's Government, and in particular those of the Foreign Secretary, are greater today than anything faced by any Ministers of the Crown or Rulers of this country since our history first began. Unless this problem be solved, I doubt whether we shall, in the end, be able to solve the problems of peace.

1.9 p.m.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

I rise only for one purpose and intend to speak only for a short time. I shall then ask the permission of Mr. Speaker and of the House to leave before the Debate is over—if one may apologise in advance—because I have to catch a train. I hope that it will not be considered by the Dominions that the very small attendance in the House on this occasion is any indication of lack of interest in this subject. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Martin) has, on an afternoon when the House is adjourning for the Recess, raised a question of immense complexity which cannot possibly be disposed of even in the half hour's speech he has made and really requires a three-day Debate. The problems go to the very roots of national and international existence. So far as I am aware, nobody knew that the hon. Member was going to speak on this subject. I certainly did not know. If I had known, I should have consulted the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who speaks for the Opposition in matters of foreign policy. Because I have not had an opportunity of consulting him, I am not going to propound any policy but only mention a fact or two. No one who knows the sincerity of the hon. Member would quarrel with him for having raised the subject. It was a speech of some length, and, if I may say so, not of great clarity. It attempted to deal in a "flibberty gibbet" way—if I may use that term—with matters of immense complexity such as inter-Imperial defence, and things of that kind. With all his sentiments I think many of us would be in agreement, and with many of his sentiments in great agreement. I think it would be useful for someone on this side of the House to make clear that the reason why there is such a small attendance is because no one knew the matter was to be raised in this way. It does not mean that the House is not interested in these matters, which are vital to the future of this country and, indeed, to the whole world.

I did not mean to use the term "mealy-mouthed" in any derogatory sense, but one of the things which alarms me, having been in the House not only before, but after, the 1914–18 war, is the tendency to talk around a subject which was symptomatic of those years. Everyone, whether Tory, Socialist or Liberal, in and out of the House, if not a complete lunatic, wants to see the greatest possible measure of international cooperation. But what all these speakers ignore, is that it just not does exist at the present time, and cannot exist until some working agreement between the great Allies and small Allies on the one side, and the Soviet Union on the other, can be found. Until then, it does not exist, and no one can deny that. The aspirations of the Minister of State cannot be satisfied until there is an understanding with Russia. I am not criticising anyone—I am not entitled to speak on behalf of the Opposition on foreign policy—I am merely stating facts. Until cooperation exists, we must face the facts of the present situation. It is more evident every day that, for the purpose of mutual safety, to put it no higher than that, the United States and this country have to act together. They are acting together. The Foreign Secretary and Mr. Byrnes could hardly be in closer contact in regard to these conferences. Similarly, the Dominions must work in close contact with us and the United States.

As I understood it, the hon. Member wants a different system in the future and says that we must either have a closer integration, or the whole thing will come to an end. I am not so sure. I think that the British Commonwealth, like this country, flourishes on inconsistency. Although I do not personally agree with all the political views of my old friend, Mr. MacKenzie King, for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect, I agree with a great many of the hesitancies he sometimes shows on these matters. At the moment, there is the closest possible working arrangement between the United States, the Dominions, and ourselves, and, of course, the Colonies. Until a better system, a world economic and spiritual agreement takes place, that is the best thing this country and the Dominions can do. Everyone hopes that the much bigger achievement will be reached, but it is still very far from being reached as yet.

Mr. Martin

The point I was making, was that there should be a unitary effort by the members of the Commonwealth to secure the peace system. I do not mean that there should be greater integration for all purposes, but, until the peace system is secured, for that particular purpose there should be greater unity than is being shown at present.

Earl Winterton

I think the answer to that is that, from a practical working point of view, in these matters we are working with the Dominions very closely at present. I see a slight danger in this position. I think the whole House is in agreement that we want to get a general world economic, military, political, and spiritual agreement, and that we have not got at present. If we emphasise too much that in lieu of obtaining it, we should build up a new system, we are in danger. I think it would be better to have things as they are. The position today is that the United States, the Dominions, and ourselves are working as closely together as any countries could. In lieu of the complete system, that is the only alternative. Most of us on this side of the House would like to pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary, the Dominion Prime Ministers, and Mr. Byrnes who have made that possible. As a Tory, I think we all owe to Mr. Byrnes, the Foreign Secretary, and Dr. Evatt and the representatives of the Dominions, the utmost debt of gratitude for maintaining the relationship between the Dominions, this country and the United States which, unhappily, no longer exists, and which even the greatest optimist could not imagine for one moment exists, between those countries and the Soviet Union. It may be recreated, but today it does not exist.

1.17 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville (Eye)

I feel that this subject would require a three days' Debate and an Imperial conference and, probably, a world conference, before we could reach a clear view of the picture. However, I think we are indebted to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Martin) for the great sincerity he shows in dealing with this subject, and it is all to the good that it should be aired, even on the Friday before the Recess.

I would like to deal with the point made by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in regard to the Canadian Prime Minister. I think that what we are pleading for is not any sacrifice of political status or centralisation, but for consultations consistent with the speed of modern events and modern times, in order to avoid the kind of misunderstanding which happened, for instance, over the Dominion consultations on Egypt. The hon. Member for Central Southwark referred to the Joint Défence Board. It may be, as he said, that Australia will eventually come into the Board, and Canada is certainly in it. I am not quite sure that I agreed with him when he implied that this means that the fixed or exclusive relationship in foreign policy between America and Canada might become closer than between Canada and this country. Those who have been to Canada, have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with distinguished French Canadians in Ottawa. As the noble Lord said, that suggestion of the hon. Member would be unfortunate. The statement of the Canadian Prime Minister, on his recent visit to this country, would endorse what I am saying. There is no question whatever of any fundamental shift of Canadian policy in that matter. Enormous ramifications of defence policy go far beyond what the hon. Member for Central Southwark dealt with, and beyond even a Committee of Imperial Defence. Canada is a member of the dollar area and, at the same time, is concerned with the Ottawa Agreements, and is having extreme difficulty in that respect with the sterling area. She has had to come to this House to increase the number of her constituencies which is extraordinary. All these things have to be reviewed in the light of international relations.

I have made a lot of speeches on this subject and I am not going to make one at great length at this hour. The Statute of Westminster envisaged the status of the members of the Commonwealth of British Nations, but it never set up machinery for democratic consultation upon this new basis. Time after time we get the same problem arising between the Dominions Office and Ottawa, Canberra and other capitals. We had it during the war. Lloyd George solved the problem by having an Imperial War Cabinet and an Imperial War Council. We never had that in the war which has just ended. There was a difficulty. Canada had a distinct point of view on the matter, and Australia was pressing almost in the opposite direction.

A great deal depends on the kind of initiative which is taken by His Majesty's Government. Surely, Canberra, Ottawa and South Africa are still interested in any new proposals or initiative which may come from His Majesty's Government. It may be that the status of the High Commissioners should be increased to Ministerial level so that they could sit in Cabinets when foreign policy was being decided—sit at policy-making level and not merely to be informed when the decision has been taken. Do the Government object to them having a voice in foreign policy-making? Perhaps that is one of the things we ought to suggest, something which we might take the initiative in putting to the Dominion Prime Ministers. The "scrambler" telephone, which provides completely private direct communication between the Empire capitals, may have made things easier; fast aircraft, the jet air-liner, will make consultation much easier. It may be that the wireless system will assist in the machinery of consultation.

Where I think the hon. Gentleman opposite put his finger on an important point was in his view that it may be that in some of the Dominions the old idea that Tory Imperialism still dominates Whitehall exists. I think there is a newer, fresher opinion in the Dominions, which sees the Commonwealth of British nations as a democratic arrangement. That is to say, we want to see that while, say, a young scientist on atomic energy may come from Australia or anywhere else, there should be some way whereby the united view of the British Commonwealth can be expressed. I have raised that point on many occasions in this House, but the initiative must be that of His Majesty's Government. Otherwise we should shut up the Dominions Office. I would myself like to abolish the Dominions Office and Colonial Office and set up a Commonwealth Consultation Council in this country. What disturbs me, and the noble Lord, with many of us, has said this on numerous occasions, is that there appears to be no kind of initiative here on these new ideas. That is the criticism in Canada, Australia and South Africa—that we have surrendered our initiative, as the home country in a great democratic confederation.

We really ought to have a Debate on this subject, because time is a vital factor on this question. The defence of this country cannot be organised unless the vast question of the decentralisation of industrial war potential is tackled. Is anybody in the Government doing that? Has anyone in the Government measured the narrow margin by which we got through in the last war, and how long it takes a democracy to mobilise its production, scientific resources and the rest? The Committee of Imperial Defence should have upon it scientists and industrialists also from the Dominions. We should plan our economic development and research, and the nucleus of our decentralisation—aircraft plants and technical development plants and laboratories in South Africa, Australia and Canada. This is life and death for this country. I have said this for the last four or five years, but no one appears to want to initiate this. Certainly, bring the United States into these consultations, but unless we consult with the Dominion Governments and make this policy one which can be carried out, we have no more chance of planning the defence and security of this country than the man in the moon. I have asked over and over again whether there is anybody thinking about this? I ask it again today.

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. The main thing he has to do is to justify the existence of the Dominions Office. We should have a visionary policy which will capture the imagination of the younger people of the Dominions in regard to the scientific and-industrial potentialities of the British Commonwealth. Let us have an industrial Cecil Rhodes scholarship system which envisages an exchange throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. Give us these things, such as wireless and modern equipment, in which youth is interested. No lead of any kind comes from the Dominions Office. If the Dominions turn to Washington and the Joint Defence Board , and get a lead and initiative there, they will turn there also in design, science, industry and production. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not held office for long, and that this is a problem which touches something of Government, Dominion and international policy. I would ask him to go back to his Department and really make the Dominions Office do something about this matter which will be considered really worth while.

1.27 p.m.

Mr. King (Penryn and Falmouth)

I am just back from Canada where I had some conversation with the Canadian Prime Minister. I wish I could speak at length on Canadian affairs but as I have only about four minutes in which to speak I cannot follow the argument of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) in detail. But I will say this: I cannot accept the point of view he expressed in accusing this Government—or past Governments; I am not making a party point—of lack of initiative. It is quite useless to think we can dictate to Canada or any other Dominion on their policy.

Mr. Granville

I have been in this House for 17 years and I am against dictation from Whitehall. I am an advocate of a democratic Commonwealth, but I say that unless we can initiate from a Dominions Office, then why have it?

Mr. King

There is obviously a distinction between initiative and dictation but in this matter it is a thin one. My impression was that Canadians were very satisfied with the Dominions Office. What I would welcome is initiative coming from the Dominions. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member asked in effect for some new instrument of unity; I think the phrase was new machinery of consultation. I wish, in that connection, to draw attention to the one piece of machinery which does exist, and which has not been mentioned at all, the Empire Parliamentary Association. Presumably everyone here knows of the office in Westminster Hall. It is known to Dominion statesmen and Members of Dominion Parliaments everywhere. They frequently make use of that office, and it arranges the provision of seats for them in the Gallery. It also issues a quarterly journal describing the work of the Parliaments of the Empire, which circulates also in the United States of America. Above all, the primary task of the Association is to arrange for delegations to visit the Dominions. I cannot think that the importance of that work is yet sufficiently realised. From 1890 onwards men have talked vaguely of a Parliament of Empire. Some have gone further and talked about a Parliament of Man, a Federation of the World, phrases which, to many of us, now must seem the phrases of a visionary, a dreamer, or as I hope, a prophet. However that may be, it is certainly not yet realised that in the Empire Parliamentary Association there is at the moment the nearest approach to a Parliament of that kind which exists.

I have a happy memory of the E.P.A. meeting at Bermuda this year. It was in a House very similar to this House, the Bermudian House of Representatives, that, under the chairmanship of the Lord Chief Justice of Bermuda, there sat down British Members of Parliament of all parties, Canadian Members of Parliament of all parties, a New Zealand Member of Parliament, with American Senators and Members of the American House of Representatives. There we had a discussion similar to what well might have taken place here. We found Labour or C.C.F. Members from Canada, Members of the British Labour Party talking with Conservative Members of all their countries, , and I never saw anything that more nearly resembled an Empire Parliament than that Conference. That is a most valuable instrument of unity which has so far not been mentioned at all. I know, of course, that there must be primary contacts between the Governments of the Dominions and America, but in addition to that, there is very great importance in the contacts which already exist and have proved so valuable between private Members upon whom, in the end, Governments must depend.

One other question. Is it realised, for example, that, in the United States, there are 23 Senators, under the able chairmanship of Senator Hatch, and 38 Members of the House of Representatives, 61 Members of Congress in all, in their group which is attached to the Empire Parliamentary Association, a significant fact? Nor have I never known better relations exist or more friendly discussions take place than took place on that occasion. One last recollection. I remember very vividly the honour which I had of addressing the whole of the American C.C.F., the nearest equivalent to the British Labour Party. That was an invaluable opportunity, because, through the C.T.F., it was possible to put across our point of view and receive in return the Canadian point of view. It was an honour I shared with my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and Wansbeck (Mr. Robens). From the Canadian and American Senators I gained much, I learned much. May such opportunities recur and may the E.P.A., which makes them possible, thrive and grow.

Lastly, I would like to quote to the House something which was written by Mr. Duncan Hall, an Australian and former Professor at Harvard University. This is what he said about the Empire Parliamentary Association: It is only when account is taken of the work of the Association that we can fully explain the extraordinary unanimity of the Parliaments of Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand on the necessity of their countries entering the war, and the rapid decision of South' Africa, to take and remain steadfast in the same course despite the opposition of a substantial minority. The machinery of the Empire worked because Parliamentarians, Ministers of the Crown and leading officials had met so early and worked together so long on common tasks, knew each other so well, and saw each other so often. That is a very high tribute indeed and one of which this House should take note. One last sentence: It may well be, that in the near future, as a result of the discussions here in Washington, that the first inter-Parliamentary Conference of the English-speaking peoples will become a possibility and this may open a new chapter in the history of the Empire Parliamentary Association. That conference has now taken place. It is done. I think this House ought to be aware of it. I think it ought to be proud of it, and of the work, the E.P.A. has done on its behalf.

1.33 p.m.

The Under Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Bottomley)

I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate for their kindly references to myself. I am sorry that the noble Lord had to go, because he did say something about the arrangements for this Debate, and I would like to inform him that notice of this Debate has appeared in the usual place just outside this Chamber for a week. I am a strong believer in the British Commonwealth and Empire system, not because of its old form of Tory imperialism, to which the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. E. Granville) has referred, but because I see in the British Commonwealth of Nations the greatest moral force in the world. I do not think we should be too disturbed by what has been said about the paucity of attendance. I might also add that it is infrequent that Debates of this kind take place, and I believe there is strength in both those observations. I believe it is a fact that the Commonwealth and the Empire is such a smooth-running machine that we find that there is confidence among all Members of Parliament in leaving it to the Department concerned, without raising the matter often in Debate.

We have heard today about the need for unification. I do not subscribe to that. Indeed, there has never been any question of unification between parts of the Commonwealth. A free discussion runs through all our peoples, we have common ideals and it is a common purpose that keeps us together. There are consultations on all matters, as we know, and, on the one particularly mentioned today— defence—it naturally follows that there is consultation on that matter as well as on the others. It is no secret that, at the recent Conference of the Dominion Prime Ministers, defence was one of the problems considered.

Our strength lies in the exchange of ideas and information. The rigid centralized machine is foreign to our way of life. I am quite sure we all agree with that, and that that kind of machine, or that sort of rigidity, does not suit us. I think it is too early to lay down what would happen if we had the unhappy event of a future war. The last war was instructive, and I suppose it would be true to say, that one of the disasters between the 1914–18 war and the war that occurred in 1939 was that we did not realise that new wars begin where the old wars leave off. Therefore, I think it is too early to make any decision about these matters. It was inevitable, of course, that the burden of the last war should fall upon the United Kingdom. We had the task of maintaining a front in Europe, as well as defending our lines of communication and our Colonial Empire. Fortunately for us, we were successful, but we also know that the Dominions recognised that and have been most generous in their references to the way in which we carried that burden. I make one quotation only, as an illustration. Other Dominion Ministers have expressed similar sentiments, and I will quote only these words of Premier Chifley of Australia: I referred earlier to the heavy burden of the military commitments being borne by the people of the United Kingdom, who poured out blood and treasure without stint to save the world. I therefore told the Conference, and I am certain that I was expressing the sentiments of both sides of this House and of the people of Australia, that it was recognised that Australia must, in future, make a larger contribution towards the defence of the British Commonwealth. After a comment like that, the matter must not be left without paying tribute to the magnificent part the Dominions played in Empire defence. During the war, I was a Deputy Regional Commissioner in the South-East of England and I had an opportunity of working with Canadians and of knowing of the wonderful work which they did at the time of our direst peril. Equal tributes could be paid about Australia and New Zealand, who, apart from their own campaign in the Far East, also fought alongside us in Egypt. South Africa is remembered for the tremendous part her troops played in the Battle of Alamein. Time does not permit me to acknowledge fully these valiant services. Spontaneous cooperation, in fact, has been our strength, and I agree with the interjection made by the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) about the outbreak of the 1939 war, when there was instantaneous cooperation between all the members of the Commonwealth, in the struggle that appeared before us.

Reference was made to the close cooperation between Canada and the United States. This is founded on a long tradition and of joint participation in the last war. For my part, I see in it a source of strength for peace for the world as a whole. I do not think we need to be disturbed about it at all. I referred earlier to the lessons of the last war. We know that towards the end of the last war there were new developments and they, in due course, may provide us with even more sensational developments, as we heard this morning, during an earlier Debate in connection with atomic energy. We all have in our memory, I am sure, recollection of the rockets which fell near this great assembly, of the flying bombs, and finally of the atomic bomb itself. In the same way as the aeroplane assisted to contract the world for war purposes between the last two wars, so it is that these weapons equally can contract the world for the future. No country can ignore them until there is real peace.

The Commonwealth countries, of course, are examining them. I think it is common knowledge that a mission recently went from this country to Australia to investigate with the authorities there a site, and possibly a way in which long range rockets could be used. The mission has made a report which is being considered. I should not be expected to say anything more than that. Comments appeared in the Press about the scientific conference held in London recently. Not only did the conference consider matters generally, but, obviously, they considered these new scientific weapons from the point of view of defence. I suppose it would be quite right to say that there was a pooling of information on the matter. I think it is generally known that as far as the Services are concerned already there is a uniformity of organisational training and equipment.

It is true to say that the United Kingdom have kept in more constant consultation with the Dominions than ever before. In 1944, we had all the Prime Ministers from the Dominions here. In 1945, we had a visit from the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and South Africa, and Dr. Evatt, the Australian Minister of External Affairs. This year, as hon. Members know, all the Dominion Prime Ministers have been in this country at one time or another. I think that is an indication that there is the closest and fullest consultation between us. His Majesty's Government have proposed to the Dominion Governments the establishment in each Dominion of United Kingdom liaison officers for the purpose of studying defence problems with the local military authorities, and have suggested reciprocal arrangements in London. These proposals are still under consideration by the Dominion Govern- ments. The exact method of organising such interchanges necessarily must vary from Dominion to Dominion in the light of local circumstances, the object being to secure such a measure of coordination as is practicable.

I was asked if I would note all the comments that were made during this Debate and take them back with me to the Dominion's Office. That I propose to do. I agree that in a short time that we have had we have not been able to cover all the ground, but I repeat that it has been a worth while Debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Martin) for raising the matter.