HC Deb 26 January 1949 vol 460 cc909-12
26. Major Guy Lloyd

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why reparation deliveries of capital equipment to the U.S.S.R. from the British zone of Germany are continuing; and how many Soviet dismantling commissions are still working in the zone.

34. Mr. Dodds-Parker

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what shipments of reparations to the Soviet Union from the British zone of Germany are at present taking place; whether the British zone is at present receiving any reciprocal deliveries from the Soviet Union; and whether, in view of the blockade in Berlin, His Majesty's Government intend to continue such shipments to the Soviet Union.

Mr. McNeil

My right hon. Friend is examining this whole question, which has many ramifications.

Major Lloyd

That may well be, but is the Minister aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in this country, without any regard to their political views, are amazed that, in view of the Potsdam Treaty, the Berlin blockade and the hostile propaganda, we should still be delivering stuff to Russia as a result of the Potsdam Agreement? What defence can the Minister possibly put up for this ridiculous situation?

Mr. McNeil

I agree that strong opinions are held about this subject, but I do suggest that the argument is not one-sided, and that there is a considerable return which we may have for this trade. I do promise that our attitude is being considered at this very moment.

Mr. R. A. Butler

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the answers to Questions on a recent occasion and expedite the examination of this subject so that we may have an immediate answer which satisfies my hon. Friends on this side of the House and the House generally?

Mr. McNeil

I cannot promise that the answer will be immediate. It will be given as soon as possible. I hope that it will satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I cannot promise that either.

Mr. S. Silverman

As what is concerned in this Question is reparations, that is to say, the making good of damage done during the war, will my right hon. Friend take care, when our policy is considered, to remember, first, that we made an agreement about this matter, and that we usually keep our agreements, and secondly, that in the late war it was the Soviet Union and not Germany that was our Ally.

Mr. John Hynd

Before my right hon. Friend replies, and in reference particularly to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), may I ask him, as these deliveries are supposed to be in return for reciprocal deliveries from the East, what assurance have we that we shall in fact receive those reciprocal deliveries?

Mr. McNeil

I am anxious to avoid controversy on this subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is a complicated one, not easily disposed of by question and answer. The truth is that since the blockade we have had the first instalment of reciprocal deliveries. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), while I appreciate the point he has made, and while we shall bear it in mind, this is not a simple, straightforward transaction affecting reparations. We are under an obligation to deliver 25 per cent., 15 per cent. of which they must repay.

Major Lloyd

As not even the Minister is in the least satisfied with his reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

38. Mr. Peter Thorneycroft

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now give an assurance that no part of the equipment dismantled from the Krupps' Works will in any circumstances be handed over to the Government of Czechoslovakia, whether as a member of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency, or for any other reason.

Mr. McNeil

No, Sir.

Mr. Thorneycroft

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that full consideration will be given to whether anything should be sent out to Czechoslovakia? Would he agree that it is exactly the same as sending it to Russia and could we have an undertaking from him that consideration will be given to both these matters in a statement made to the House before any further equipment is sent to Czechoslovakia?

Mr. McNeil

The second question of sending plant to Soviet Russia or the Soviet German zone, I would prefer to separate, for reasons which I have offered. On the question of Czechoslovakia, we are bound by agreement, into which we freely entered in 1946, which refers to all the I.A.R.A. Powers, and I am sure that the House would agree that it would be unfortunate and unfair if we used our position as an occupying Power to go back on that promise.

Mr. Thorneycroft

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that despite everything that has happened since Potsdam—I am not going to enumerate them all, including Berlin—we are to go on sending potential armaments over the frontier to Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Blackburn

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is a Foreign Office defence in relation to this matter of protests, that protests today to any of these countries are quite futile. The only way that we can hope, I submit, to get our word accepted by the Soviet Union or its satellites is to take effective action.

Mr. Molson

If it is any use asking the Minister any supplementary questions on this point, will he answer this one? Has any change taken place in the attitude of our Government towards Czechoslovakia since the coup d'état in February last?

Mr. McNeil

Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. A. Butler

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance that the same early consideration will be given to this subject as he promised in the case of an earlier Question about reparations to Russia?

Mr. McNeil

I should obviously be stupid and unfair if I did not agree to bring this to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but while I volunteered the promise in the case of the other one, because of submissions which had already been made to me, I do not want to promise that there is the same likelihood of a readjustment on this subject as upon the other one. However, I gladly agree that it should be reviewed.

43. Mr. P. Thorneycroft

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he stated to the hon. Member for Monmouth in answer to a Question on the 20th September last that no equipment from Krupps' Works at Essen had been sent to the U.S.S.R. during the previous 12 months when substantial quantities of such equipment had been sent and were still being sent to that country.

Mr. McNeil

The information given to the hon. Member on 20th September was correct; no equipment has been sent to the U.S.S.R. from the Krupps' Works in Essen. The only deliveries of equipment from the Krupps' complex to the U.S.S.R. have been made from the works at Borbeck which, I am assured, is a separate plant situated five miles from Essen.

Mr. Blackburn

Will the Minister give an assurance that no deliveries of any kind will be made to the Soviet Union so long as the present blockade of Berlin continues?

Mr. McNeil

No, Sir. I have already indicated in response to two other Questions that this subject is being reviewed.

Mr. Charles Williams

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave dissatisfaction throughout the country, and a feeling that far too much is going to Russia at the present time that might be used against us in a future war?

Mr. McNeil

The amount of stuff going to Russia with which these Questions are concerned, is negligible.

Mr. Gallacher

Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling throughout the country that there is too much anti-Soviet propaganda on the part of the Tories in this House?