§ 43. Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what answer he has returned to protests from the French and other Allied Governments against the Anglo-American Military Government ordinance concerning the future of the Ruhr coal, iron and steel industries.
§ Later—
Mr. McNeilIt is not proposed to make public the communications exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the French Government on this subject. I should like, however, to take this opportunity to make a statement about the Trusteeship Scheme for the German coal and iron and steel industry. No protest about this pronouncement has been received, except from the French Government. When the Anglo-United States proposals were first discussed with the French Military Governor and (in accordance with the practice followed since the London Talks on Germany earlier this year) with Benelux representatives in Germany, the latter made certain comments which were taken into account in the Law as finally drafted.
As for the French Government, I must make the nature of their protest clear. It relates only to the statement in the preamble to the Trusteeship Laws that "the question of the eventual ownership of the coal and iron and steel industries is one for determination by a freely elected German Government." They do not take 26 exception to the Trusteeship Laws as such. On the contrary, they favour the reorganisation scheme in principle as tending to increase production.
The question at issue, therefore, is that of future ownership. The French Government have consistently maintained that security could best be achieved by subjecting the Ruhr to some form of international ownership; and, when they notified His Majesty's Government of their acceptance of the London decisions, they stated that they continued to regard international ownership as the best solution. His Majesty's Government, on the other hand, remained convinced that some form of public ownership is the right solution of the problem. But the question of eventual ownership is one which could not he longer left in suspense if the resources of the German industries concerned are to be mobilised effectively in the task of European recovery to which the three governments are committed. The two Governments responsible for the administration of the Bizone were both of the opinion that, in effecting the needed reorganisation of the coal and iron and steel industries centred in the Ruhr on a temporary and provisional basis, it was essential to set at rest the uncertainties about eventual ownership which were impeding full production. A statement that the question of ownership would be left to the determination of a freely-elected German Government which, in the circumstances, seems to His Majesty's Government the solution most compatible with our conception of democracy, was therefore included in the draft of the reorganisation scheme as submitted to the French Military Governor some two months ago. It was to this passage that General Koenig took exception and his representations were supported later by formal representations from the French Ambassador.
These French objections were given careful consideration. It was evident that French views and our own on the question of ownership could not be reconciled, and that the good effects which we expected from the promulgation of the trusteeship laws could not be achieved if the question of ownership was once again left in the air. My right hon. Friend accordingly notified the French Government on 4th November, after full consultation with the United States, 27 authorities, that he felt unable to instruct the British Military Governor to modify the proposal which he had agreed with his United States colleague for the inclusion in the Trusteeship Law of the statement about eventual ownership.
I have dealt with the past history of this matter in order to dispel any misapprehension that we failed to keep the French Government informed or treated them with less consideration than is proper between friends and allies. But in basic objectives His Majesty's Government and the French Government are at one. We are both aiming at arrangements for the control and level of German industry, which will give security to France, to this country and to our neighbours. We are, I believe, at one also in wishing to see the productive resources of Western Germany peacefully employed for the economic recovery of Europe.
So far as ownership is concerned, however, His Majesty's Government believe it right that a freely elected German Government reflecting the will of the German people should make its own choice. But that does not mean that they can choose to restore excessive concentrations of economic power or to reinstate persons who furthered the aggressive designs of the Nazi party. These points are specifically covered in the Trusteeship Law. Neither can they make arrangements about ownership which frustrate the exercise of the powers which will be reserved to the Occupying Authorities in the Occupation Statute now in preparation, or are in conflict with present or future security controls or with the terms of an eventual Peace Treaty. As the public statement accompanying the promulgation of the law made clear, the German Government must exercise its choice "within the limits of Military Government policy already expressed." I hope that it will be possible, when current discussions on an International Authority for the Ruhr and on the Occupation Statute are completed, to make a further statement explaining the various steps in different fields—of which ownership is only one—which will be taken to ensure that the gradual devolution of authority from Military Government to German hands will be carried out in a manner which safeguards 28 our security and that of our Allies in Western Europe.
§ Mr. WarbeyIn view of certain disturbing signs of a revival of nationalism and militarism in some parts of Germany, will my right hon. Friend pay rather more careful attention to the objections of the French and other Allied Governments who do not desire that the sole ownership and control of the Ruhr mines and steel works shall revert to a German State?
Mr. McNeilI have tried to make plain that the question of ownership is, subject to certain limitations, in our opinion a matter for the German people. As to the long-term aspects of security, that is surely a subject for the makers of the Peace Treaty and does not arise in connection with a discussion to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention.
§ Mr. EdenI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. Am I right in saying that the question of the future ownership of this area and these mines was specifically reserved by agreement at the last Allied meeting which took place in the summer? If so, is it also true that this Anglo-American notification was then made without any further discussion between the Governments between last summer and the issue of the statement?
Mr. McNeilI think it is hardly accurate to say that it was, reserved. It was not included, but it is true that the French Government particularly drew our attention to their precise reservations on this subject. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that as joint administrators of the bizone we had certain responsibilities in relation to the organisation of this industry and our own administration. It was in consequence of this responsibility that we took the decision which has now been published.
§ Mr. EdenI am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but would he not agree that if this subject was reserved as between Allies as a result of a declaration by one Ally, we should have discussed the matter further with them and at length before issuing a declaration with only one of our Allies?
Mr. McNeilI quite understand and appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's 29 care on this subject, but it is hardly accurate to say that it was reserved because one of our allies, for good and understandable reasons, entered their reservations. We had a responsibility from which we could not escape by their reservations.
§ Mr. H. HyndCan my right hon. Friend say who the new trustees will be, and whether their appointment will in any way prejudice the eventual nationalisation or internationalisation of the Ruhr industries?
Mr. McNeilThe subjects are quite separate, as I have already explained. The question of the form of ownership is a matter for the German people.
§ Mr. H. HyndWho will the trustees be?