HC Deb 19 January 1949 vol 460 cc145-8
18. Mr. Norman Bower

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what agreement the Russians have been allowed to dismantle the Borbeck plant at Krupps works at Essen and remove it to Russia.

25. Mr. Keeling

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the U.S.S.R. is permitted to move munitions plants from the British zone of Germany while her blockade of the Western sectors of Berlin continues.

29. Mr. Martin Lindsay

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what machinery is being transplanted from the Krupps works in Essen to the U.S.S.R., and by what route.

Mr. McNeil

Equipment for the production of pig iron and steel in Krupps Borbeck works was allocated to the U.S.S.R. as reparations by agreement of the Control Council on 5th December, 1945. All special purpose equipment for the manufacture of arms had previously been removed and destroyed. The approximate weight of the equipment was 74,500 tons, of which about 72,500 tons has been loaded for despatch by rail to Hamburg and thence by sea to the Soviet Union. No equipment has been allocated to the U.S.S.R. since the beginning of the blockade; but the delivery of the small balance of equipment already allocated to the Soviet Government continued after the blockade of Berlin began because His Majesty's Government did not wish to aggravate a grave situation by themselves breaking agreements to which they were a willing party.

Mr. Keeling

Has the Minister any reason to think that Russia would be made more friendly to this country by our refraining from imposing a blockade on her while her blockade of us continues?

Mr. McNeil

It is, of course, untrue to say that we have not imposed a blockade upon her in response to her action. I have already pointed out that no further allocations have taken place or will take place.

Mr. Keeling

But the deliveries continue.

Mr. McNeil

But the delivery of a relatively small tonnage—the remainder of a very large contract—we felt we should complete because we were parties to this agreement.

Mr. R. A. Butler

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us at what date these deliveries stopped and will he give us an assurance that no further deliveries will take place in future?

Mr. McNeil

I hope I have made it plain that this remainder has not been stopped. In January some 68,000 tons had already been trans-shipped but as to exactly what amount remains I should not like to be committed. I think it is around 2,000 tons.

Mr. Oliver Stanley

Is it not rather contradictory to have come to a decision that deliveries are not to be made in all other instances but still to go on delivering in this particular case? Surely, if it is right to decide that no deliveries should be made, no deliveries ought to be made at all?

Mr. McNeil

I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that we may be talking about different things. There is a decision to prevent allocation. There is also, with a few exceptions, a standstill in trade movements which we did not seek to make. The real point is that all this tonnage—except, perhaps, for 2,000 or 4,000 tons—was already in train and that it was only that portion which was permitted to move thereafter.

Mr. Lindsay

Surely, the fact that the balance of deliveries is small is of no consequence at all, and is this not a matter of principle? Surely, this is an act of appeasement and an absolutely monstrous thing that we should continue to deliver these supplies when the blockade of Berlin is imposed against us?

Mr. McNeil

I do not think it is necessary to prejudge the situation between principle and appeasement. I am already trying to make the point that my right hon. Friend did not wish to prejudge the situation or to precipitate one by withholding what was, I repeat, a minor balance in terms of the total tonnage, but that on the overall attitude we have held firm. We have not attempted to appease by any subsequent negotiations.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Stanley

But are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that these deliveries are not yet completed and, that they are still being made, and although it might have been quite reasonable in the early days of the blockade, does it not become quite ludicrous when the blockade has lasted for six months?

Mr. McNeil

This is quite a complicated process. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The stuff is brought to the ground, as I understand it; it is then trans-shipped to Hamburg. My information is that all the considerable tonnage is already at Hamburg. I have given the figures, that at an early date in this month 68,000 tons of the complete 72,000 had already been shipped from Hamburg.

Mr. Pritt rose

—

Mr. Lindsay

On a point of Order, I beg to give notice—

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Speaker

I called the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt).

Mr. Pritt

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that one vital principle is to keep a contract if we can? Does he not agree that it is wrong to refer to the position in Hamburg as a blockade, as nearly 1,000 tons of supplies are passing through by the freewill of the Soviet authorities every 24 hours, and they can get as much more as they like?

Mr. McNeil

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for his intervention. I have tried to make it plain that we were attempting to keep to a contract, but it must also be plain that our subsequent attitude had to be altered when it was found that all parties were not keeping to it. I suppose it is literally inaccurate to call it a blockade, but, as has been pointed out, it has the effect of a blockade because only certain supplies are permitted through and then only by specific permission.

Mr. Lindsay

I beg to give notice that, owing to the intolerable weakness of His Majesty's Government in carrying out this monstrous act of appeasement, I shall raise this question again at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Back to