HC Deb 01 April 1947 vol 435 cc1847-50
Mr. Eden

By your leave, Mr. Speaker, and with the leave of the House, I desire to make a brief personal explanation.

On Monday last, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), in a supplementary question about the Yalta Agreement, asked the Minister of State whether he was aware of the repeated assurances by the former Foreign Secretary that there were no secret agreements of any kind, and whether he could explain how His Majesty's Government came to make such a statement. The hon. Member added: Now we find there are secret agreements of which some of us, in fact, had knowledge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 834.] In view of the reference to myself, and of the documents now published by the Government, I have thought it right to look up the undertakings given. I find, as I thought, that no undertaking whatever was given by myself after the Yalta Conference to the House, that no secret agreement of any kind had been entered into. The last statement on this matter which I made was, as far as I have been able to discover, on 25th May, 1944, nearly a year before Yalta. As regards the Teheran documents, it is quite true that a military agreement has now been made public covering certain steps that it was agreed by the three heads of Governments should be taken in the military interest for the prosecution of the war. These, however, were purely military in character and involved no postwar political or economic commitments upon this country or her Allies. Thirdly, there is the question of reparations which is dealt with in the published Protocol of the Yalta proceedings. As is explained in the document itself, the heads of Governments there agreed to certain guiding principles, which were to be worked out as part of a detailed plan by the Allied Reparations Commission to be set up subsequently in Moscow.

With particular reference to the question of labour in reparations, Lord Hall, then Mr. George Hall, and my colleague at the Foreign Office, made the position of His Majesty's Government quite clear in a statement on the Adjournment of the House on 11th April, 1945. After denying that there was any truth in the report that any country had asked that 2,000,000 Germans should be used as slaves for a period of 20 years, Lord Hall added: It is impossible to promise that the use of German labour as a means of obtaining compensation from Germany for the damage she has caused should be ruled out…. I know of no difference of opinion among the people of the country, as has been shown at many Labour Party and trade union conferences, and by the views of the people generally who are all strongly supporting the principle that Germany should be obliged to make compensation for the devastation she has caused, to the greatest possible extent and by what-eve' means appear most practicable. The methods by which this principle will be implemented have to be determined by the Reparations Commission and the decisions that will be arrived at by that Commission cannot be anticipated." —[OFFICIAL REPORT,11th April, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 1948–9.] I think that it is right that I should add that, in the subsequent discussion at Moscow, agreement was not reached on the subject of reparations, either in kind or in cash, and the question of labour assistance to help the Soviet Union to reconstruct her devastated territories was, in fact, not even discussed; nor was this issue discussed at Potsdam during the period for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and I were responsible. I understand that it was not discussed after our departure either.

There is one final observation which I ought to make in fairness to an Ally. The Soviet Government never asked that the question of aid from German labour should be discussed at Yalta at all. Their concern was then with reparations in kind. If the subject figures, as it does, in the Protocol, it was upon the initiative of His Majesty's Government because, if I recollect aright, His Majesty's Government felt that, if reparations were to be worked out in detail in Moscow, all aspects of this question should be studied together. I should also add that this, and all other matters affecting reparations, were the decision of His Majesty's Government collectively, and not in any sense only that of the then Prime Minister and myself at Yalta alone. I feel sure that the present Prime Minister would endorse this.

I apologise for troubling the House with this explanation. I have never taken up the time of the House in this way before, and I only do so on this occasion as it seems to me that something more than the personal reputation of an individual is at stake. I am, myself, convinced, after a careful rereading of the documents, that the House has not been in any way misled, but I think that the House is entitled to this explanation, and to the reasons which have led me to these conclusions.

Mr. Stokes

rose—

Mr. Speaker

As the hon. Member knows, there is no Motion before the House. There can be no debate on this.

Mr. Stokes

I am not attempting to debate it; but I think that in view of the personal statement which has been made in which I am involved, I am entitled to make some remarks.

Mr. Speaker

No, not now. The hon. Member raised it himself, and the right hon. Gentleman has merely made a personal statement, which, if discussed, would lead to an irregular Debate. No doubt a time will come, for instance, in a Debate on the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Moscow, when this matter can be debated. The hon. Member has not given notice of his intention to make a personal statement, and I must rule it out of Order.

Mr. Stokes

Am I not to be allowed to make a personal statement?

Mr. Speaker

It would be quite out of Order, as it would lead to an irregular Debate.

Mr. Stokes

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I express complete dissatisfaction.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether, in a voice that could be heard, although not in a speech, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) is entitled to say of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) that, "He spent his time during the war trying to do the country in"?

Mr. Speaker

Those words did not reach me.