HC Deb 14 October 1946 vol 427 cc611-3
56. Mr. Stokes

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will now give instructions that nothing of any value is to be blown up in the British zone and that any buildings or equipment which it is considered must be removed under the Potsdam Agreement shall in future be moved in an orderly fashion and not by dynamite.

Mr. J. Hynd

In general we are already working on the lines suggested by my hon Friend. Demolitions required to conform to the Potsdam Agreement are carried out with explosives only when other methods are impracticable, e.g., in the case of pill boxes and flak towers and gun emplacements. Normal housebreaking methods are used whenever possible and care is taken to preserve material suitable for later use.

Mr. Stokes

If that is the case, why the idiotic blowing-up of the yard of Bloehm und Voss, in which 12,500 tons of useful steel were converted into twisted scrap which can now only be made useful by using coal, which we have not got in the zone?

Mr. Hynd

The episode in question took place some time ago. It was carried out because it is not always either practical or economical to demolish by other means structures which can equally effectively, and more economically and speedily, be demolished by explosives. Since then, the blowing up or dismantling of a pile of scrap iron has been an economic question, but the policy which is in operation is the one to which I have referred.

Mr. Stokes

Does my hon. Friend really suggest that converting into twisted scrap is the best way of making use of what was useful steel?

Mr. Hynd

It is a question between making it into a pile of twisted scrap in a few minutes, or making it into a pile of dismantled scrap in a few months or years

57. Mr. Stokes

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why instructions have been given for the destruction of the deep-water wharves and quays at Kiel, and how it is proposed to maintain a population of nearly 300,000 persons in that district if no ocean-going vessels are in consequence able to dock there.

Mr. J. Hynd

The deep-water wharves and quays in question are naval installations, the destruction of which is an essential measure in the disarmament of Germany to which we are committed by the Potsdam Agreement. Full consideration will be given to preserving at Keil any facilities which will be required for its peaceful trade. The dockyard facilities at Kiel were confined before the war almost entirely to the service of the German navy, cargo services being handled at Hamburg, Lubecke, Wilhelmshafen and other ports. The problem of finding alternative employment for workers displaced as a result of disarmament is one which is receiving the attention both of the Control Commission and German authorities responsible for reconstruction.

Mr. Stokes

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that instructions have been given by his Department to cancel the orders which have already been issued for the destruction of all deep-water wharves which can accommodate any vessel of over 1,250 tons, which is only the size of a large fishing vessel?

Mr. Hynd

If my hon. Friend is referring to Kiel, I cannot add anything to the answer that has been given. If the question refers to other ports, I would point out that we are not demolishing the quays and wharf facilities of other ports.

Mr. Stokes

Am I to understand that wharves at Kiel, over and above what is sufficient to accommodate vessels of 1,250 tons, are being destroyed, and, if so, why?

Mr. Hynd

I should like to nave notice of the exact terms of that question before I give an answer.

Sir R. Ross

Is it not important that the principal German naval base should be completely destroyed?

Mr. Hynd

Yes, for all naval purposes.