HC Deb 29 June 1955 vol 543 cc403-29

Order for Second Reading read.

3.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

As the House knows, the Austrian State Treaty was signed in Vienna on 15th May. During the debate on the Address on 15th June, Members on both sides of the House gave their general approval to the proposal that the Treaty be submitted for ratification by Her Majesty. This Bill follows from that as a formal, but necessary consequence and will, I hope, prove to be non-controversial. The Austrian State Treaty will not come into force until the instruments of ratification have been deposited by each of the signatory Powers.

It is important that before the Treaty comes into force Her Majesty's Government should be able to carry out their obligations under the Treaty and to make use of any rights which the Treaty confers upon them. It is possible to inform the House only in a general way of the kind of subjects connected with the Treaty which require legislative provision. It is not yet possible to state precisely what provisions will be necessary. Perhaps hon. Members who were in the House at those times will recall that the same situation arose when the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Bill and the Japanese Treaty of Peace Bill to implement the Peace Treaties with those countries were considered and approved in the years 1947 and 1951 respectively.

The present Bill follows the precedent of these Bills and is specifically modelled on the Japanese Treaty of Peace Act, 1951. It is an enabling Measure which, in the words of Clause 1, confers upon Her Majesty the power to … make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council and do such things as appear to Her to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof. The Austrian State Treaty contains some, but not all, of the provisions which, in the case of the Italian and Japanese Peace Treaties, required legislation. These include Article 24 on the renunciation by Austria of claims against the Allies, Article 25 on United Nations property in Austria and Article 28 on debts. There are other Articles in the Austrian State Treaty which may also require legislation, for example, Article 22. Under a paragraph of that Article, which refers to the former German assets in Austria, there is an obligation to return those free from charges and claims. Article 27 relates to the return of Austrian property in the territory of the allied and associated Powers and Article 30 relates to the settlement of disputes. Article 25 of the Austrian Treaty provides for the restoration and return of British property situated in Austria.

It may be necessary to set up appropriate machinery to take advantage of this right and this might necessitate action of one or other of the kinds contemplated in Clause 1, from which I have already quoted. The House will be aware that the date by which the occupation forces must be withdrawn depends upon the date on which the Treaty enters into force and we are all eager to see the Treaty enter into force as soon as possible. The Government of Austria have already ratified the Treaty. The Soviet Union has ratified the Treaty, the United States are expected to ratify the Treaty very shortly —perhaps in the next few days—and the French Government, we understand, some time during July.

Therefore, we do not want in any way to be responsible for any delay. We want the Treaty to enter into force as soon as possible and we shall, therefore, as soon as possible submit the instrument of ratification to Her Majesty; but we prefer not to do so until this enabling Measure has passed through the House. That is the reason we are asking the House to take it as rapidly as possible, so we shall not be in any way laggards, or responsible for the occupation of Austria lasting a day longer than is necessary.

That is all I need say about the content of the Treaty. These are really formalities, hardly more than formalities, but it has been found necessary on this occasion, as on the occasion of the other Peace Treaties which I quoted, to make provision by legislation so that some of the Articles may be able to be carried out in a proper way.

I do not think I need add anything except to say that the Bill, like the Treaty, ends one period and is the beginning of another. As the House knows, for many years past Governments of both sides of the House have worked with the good will of all parties, and we, with our American and French friends, have done all we could to satisfy Austria's just aspirations. Now, at last, with the cooperation of the Soviet Government, this aim has been achieved. I am confident that the Austrian people have not forgotten the support which they received from Great Britain and from her Allies during these difficult post-war years. I am equally confident that good and friendly relations between our two countries will continue in the future, we hope for very many years to come.

Mr. Frank Bowles (Nuneaton)

In the Treaty with Egypt there were some waivers by the British Government of claims against the Egyptian Government in respect of people killed in the Canal Zone, and, therefore, there is no liability by the Egyptian Government to parents or widows of men killed in the Zone. Is there any waiver of claims in this Treaty against the Austrian Government for British personnel killed there?

Mr. Macmillan

I hope that I shall be forgiven if I cannot immediately find the place, because the Treaty is a long one. I think that in Article 24, in page 20, a similar provision is made.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger (Grimsby)

My right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House are as anxious as is the right hon. Gentleman that nothing should stand in the way of this long-expected Treaty coming into force. I agree with what the Secretary of State has said, that this is mainly a technical matter. I am grateful to him, up to a point, for his explanation but, as he himself said in his opening sentences, it was not possible for him to be very precise about the exact use which he thinks he will have to make, or may have to make, of the powers in the Bill.

I gather from him that the Bill is only, as one might put it, marginally necessary. It is problematical whether it is required at all. I am slightly relieved to find that that is his view, because when I looked through the Treaty with a view to spotting the provisions which would require legislation I found it exceedingly difficult to see where the necessity arose. I do not think that it is any part of the function of the Opposition, in matters of this kind, to suggest to the Government that they ought to take a chance. It is far better, from the point of view of this House and of Parliament generally, that if there is the slightest doubt the Government should ask for powers and that they should lay, as they will have to do, any Order in Council there may be before the House and give the House the opportunity to express its approval or disapproval. Therefore, it would be wrong for us to object to the Bill even though its purposes are, quite frankly, a bit vague.

I was hoping that when the Secretary of State referred to previous similar Measures in respect of the Italian and Japanese Treaties he might have been able to indicate whether, in fact, that legislation had proved necessary. Perhaps that relates most particularly to the penal provision, the second part of Clause I, because there we are, apparently, creating penalties, and I wonder whether, in the fairly long time that has elapsed since the first of those earlier Measures, and even in the three years or so since the Measure relating to Japan, it has proved necessary to have provisions of that kind.

However, I am not really worried about this, because the powers for making Orders are restricted by the words in Clause I, that Orders made by Her Majesty must … do such things as appear to Her to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof. Since we on this side of the House do not wish to object to that, and since that is a limited exercise of powers, I do not want to make heavy weather of it. I do not anticipate that there will be a danger, but I should be interested to know whether similar legislation has been used and, in particular, whether there have ever been any prosecutions.

It seems a very long time now since Western statesmen first started saying that if the Soviet Union were in earnest about peace making anywhere in the world she might well start by letting us have an Austrian Treaty. We have discussed the substance of possible Treaties ad nauseam, for four or five years, or longer. Now we have a Treaty which, broadly, is on the lines which most of us think could have been agreed a very long time ago. So far as there are any changes in it, I think that we can say—and I am glad to be able to say so—that the changes are favourable to Austria. They are better provisions than we might at one time have thought it necessary to accept.

I do not propose to deal with the substance of the Treaty. I am not quite sure whether you, Mr. Speaker, would consider it in order to do so, but it is perhaps important to say on this occasion to our Austrian friends that if we do not engage in lengthy discussions on this rather technical Bill, if we do not greet very fulsomely what is a considerable event in European politics, it is not because we underestimate this Treaty. It is a sign of what we hope will be a new climate in European and world affairs, and it means the real liberation of Austria.

I should like to take the opportunity to express to the Austrians our deep sense of the fortitude, the common sense and the dignity with which they have met the frustrations of recent years and, not least, I should like to thank them for the attitude which they have shown to our troops who have spent these years in Austria. In turn, our troops might well be commended for the record which they have put up in the occupation of Austria.

I notice that the Preamble to the Bill says that the purpose of the Treaty is to make Austria independent and democratic. I think we can say that in recent years Austria has been democratic so far as it lay in the power of Austrians to make it so. It is very remarkable, in the difficult circumstances they have had to face, how they have operated their democratic institutions. The only limitation there has been has been a limitation imposed from outside. Now that independence is to be given to them, we have the fullest confidence in the future development, of Austria's institutions and in the part which she will play in world affairs. We are very glad to give our support to the Bill in the hope that the Treaty will come into force at the earliest possible date.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

If, as I hope, the House gives a Second Reading to this Bill today, I suppose that we will merely be signifying our approval of a Treaty which has already gained the approval of the majority of people in this and in many other countries. It is proper that in carrying out this legislation we should collectively, as a House of Commons, express our appreciation of the contribution which has been made by successive Foreign Secretaries—both my right hon. Friend and his predecessors from both sides of the House—towards the completion of this Treaty.

It was probably easier for the great nations to achieve a measure of agreement on this issue than on many of the other controversial issues which separate us, but in the minds of all of us today is the hope and the prayer that, even though this may not itself be a proof that a new era has dawned, it may at least be a token of rather better things to come.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I would just add a few words of welcome to the Bill. I am sure it has been the devout wish of all free peoples for many a long year that the people of Austria should be in a position to guide their own affairs and be free from the control of outside countries.

I would emphasise what has just been said by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), that that has been the wish of countries other than our own. I was fortunate last year in being present with other hon. Members at the conference held at Vienna by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, at which about forty Parliaments were represented. A resolution was passed unanimously by the conference wishing well to the Austrian people and hoping the day would quickly come when they would achieve their freedom.

Like everyone else, we admire the courage which the Austrian people have shown. At present, they are better off economically than they have been for a very long time, and we certainly wish them success in looking after their own affairs.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I want to raise a point which was mentioned by the Minister in reply to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). The Minister either misunderstood the question or was not very clear about the contents of the White Paper. Article 24, in page 20 of the Treaty, refers to renunciation by Austria of claims against the Allies. The point raised by my hon. Friend was that of claims by British soldiers, their relatives or British authorities on their behalf against Austria. Although I have read the White Paper fairly thoroughly, I have seen nothing to cover that point. I hope the Minister will look into this and let my hon. Friend and others who are interested have a reply to the point later.

I realise that the Bill is a restricted Measure. Discussion of the implications of the Treaty could open up vast horizons, but that is outside the scope of the debate. It has already been argued whether or not the Bill is necessary, but, whether or not it is technically or legally necessary, it serves an excellent purpose even if it is only that of carrying the earlier part of the Bill, which says …that Her Majesty should have power to do all such things as may be proper and expedient for giving effect to the said Treaty… such as making Orders in Council.

I trust that the House will unanimously agree that it is expedient that Her Majesty should have power to bring the Treaty into operation at the earliest possible moment. We have waited a long time for the Treaty, and so has Austria. Ten years have gone by. In the Potsdam Agreement, Austria was recognised as the first victim of Nazism. She was not regarded as an enemy country. As a liberated country, she was promised her independence and liberation from foreign occupation.

As one who has been particularly closely associated with Austria's problems during that period, I should like to pay my tribute to the patience and toleration of the Austrian authorities and the Government, of all parties, during those difficult years, and also to the assistance given by both British Governments during that time and by the American Government, which has perhaps been even more than ours because the United States disposed of more resources. The assistance given to Austria during that period has been fully understood and appreciated in Austria.

The purpose of the Treaty, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), is, according to Article 1, to re-establish Austria as a sovereign, independent and democratic State. I must confess that I found it a little difficult to read those terms into some of the provisions of the White Paper. It is difficult to understand how it is possible for a country to be sovereign and independent and, at the same time, debarred from having the right to make economic or political agreements which involve some form of federation or anything of that kind with another country.

It is also difficult to understand how a country can be free, independent and democratic when it is bound under the terms of the Treaty to ban from existence any organisations expressing a particular form of political opinion. Incidentally, they are not very clearly defined. It is particularly difficult when Article 9 says that Austria shall dissolve any organisations carrying on activities hostile to any member of the United Nations. I can visualise some curious situations arising if the Austrian Government tries to enforce the Article literally. I should be interested to know what would happen to the Communist Party when it started attacking the United States of America. So one could go on through the Treaty.

There is another point that I should like to mention, although we may not be directly interested in it. Article 18 deals with prisoners of war. The Minister will probably assure us that no Austrian prisoners of war are left in the hands of this country and that there have been not any for a considerable time. I hope we can also be assured that there are no Austrian prisoners of war in the hands of the American or French authorities.

However, there are many thousands of Austrian prisoners of war still in the hands of one of the signatory Powers. It is a little disturbing to find in such a Treaty prepared by the four Powers with the Austrian Government that any decisions regarding the repatriation of prisoners of war at this late date are to be left entirely to bilateral agreement between the Power holding the prisoners and the Austrian Government, and that the other parties to the Treaty are not included. I wonder whether the Minister can say anything about that. Have we been told when the prisoners will be returned, that no difficulties will be placed in the way of their return and that they will be returned as soon as possible?

The Minister made special reference to paragraph 11 of Article 22, which says: The United Kingdom, the United States of America and France hereby transfer to Austria all property, rights and interests held or claimed by or on behalf of any of them in Austria as former German assets or war booty. That is to be done without any charges or claims. This is implementation of something which has already been done, although there are probably some overhanging charges and claims which we are writing off. However, we can claim credit for the fact that both we and the United States have long since written off claims and charges against Austria, and have never at any time claimed any form of reparations from her.

It is an interesting commentary of the Treaty that, in spite of Article 21, which says: No reparations shall be exacted from Austria … the whole of Article 22 is concerned with reparations claimed under the description of "German assets" by one party only to the Treaty. That is an extremely significant factor, and illustrates the whole history of the unfortunate occupation of Austria over the last ten years.

I should like to pay a special tribute to the manner in which the Austrian Government have been able to obtain the removal of most of the provisions of Article 22. This surprised all of us who had anything to do with the earlier negotiations about a draft treaty for Austria, which went on for nearly nine years. The provisions in Article 22 were the provisions of the original draft treaty. I was rather surprised when reading the White Paper for the first time to find that tic provisions were still in the Treaty. It was not until I reached the last page that I found Annex II, which cancels them cut. It is a curious method of drawing up a treaty; all the conditions are elaborated in a very extensive Article, and then right on the back page, after a lot of appendices and explanatory notes, there is an annex which says that the provisions mean nothing at all.

The provisions mean nothing at all because the Austrian Government, as a result of the negotiations which they undertook with the Russian authorities direct, have been able to recover their interests in the Danube Shipping Company, their own oil wells and their own distributing agencies for oils and all the other things which were previously being taken by the Russians as German assets.

It is true that there are certain payments still to be made. The Austrians are still paying reparations to Russia. I believe that they are paying 2 million dollars for the previous German assets so-called which are now being surrendered by the Russians. I refer to the factories, going under curious initials, which were taken under Russian control. They have to pay 150 million dollars in reparations, but not in cash. I understand that the provision under which they were supposed to pay in American dollars at a specified rate, as provided in the original Article, has now gone, and that they are now able to pay in goods, which is a much better proposition for them.

These things have been achieved, as I say, as a result of the patience and determination of the Austrian Government to recover these properties for themselves. That is a remarkable achievement, but it is interesting to note that it was only possible immediately after the ratification of the Paris Agreements, which, again, is something of which we ought to be reminded.

I merely wished to say these few words because of my long association with the Austrian problem and because of an association which I still have with Austrian matters. I hope that there will be no dissent in any part of the House from this Bill, which I think will be taken as a complete endorsement of the Treaty that has now been agreed by all the parties, and that we can have an early ratification by the other two Governments for whom we are waiting along with ourselves.

That ratification, of course, will close a very vital chapter in post-war history. It is a chapter of ten years of occupation of an allied country—not an enemy country—which was not of our seeking, but which we were forced to accept because of the failure to get agreement with our other ally in regard to Austria.

That period of occupation will, I think, go down in British and European history as something of which the occupying countries have no need to be ashamed at all, but, on the contrary, of which they can be extremely proud both as to the manner in which that occupation was carried out by our troops and other representatives in Austria and for the results which we have achieved. I think that we can claim some part in this achievement, in collaboration with the Austrian Government, after this long, difficult and tragic period. Therefore, I give the Bill my support.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling (Brighton, Pavilion)

The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has, I think, rightly pointed out that the reason for such a short debate today is that there are only certain technical problems to be dealt with in this Bill and that it in no way means that we are not interested in the very great event which has taken place, that of Austria once again becoming independent.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs also pointed out that there was a debate in June in which the subject was mostly dealt with. But there were then various Clauses about which no one was certain what would happen when negotiations took place in Vienna. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) commented on the fact that it is rather strange to refer to the Treaty as the giving back to Austria of her sovereignty when so many ties are attached to it.

I do not want to say anything against the Treaty as a whole, but I feel that we should not pass from it today without somebody referring to at least one other matter, and that is the fact that the Hapsburg family is forbidden by this Treaty ever to return to Austria, and that all its goods and properties are confiscated. It will be remembered that in the 1930s all the regulations made against members of the family as the result of the First World War were removed, and that they were allowed to return to Austria. Then the Nazis moved in and some members of the family had to escape, while others were put into concentration camps. Regulations, which are still embodied in this Treaty, were afterwards forced upon Austria to the effect that no member of the Hapsburg family was to be allowed to return to that country.

It is felt by many people in this country and in America, and also, I believe, throughout the world, that it is a little unfair that all their goods and property should be confiscated and that none of them should be allowed back. Such restrictions do not operate in other countries. In France, for instance, the Comte de Paris and other Pretenders to the throne are now allowed to return to France and even all the minor members of the French Royal Family have been allowed back. The only persons forbidden to return were the actual claimants to the throne. But, in this case, the whole family is forbidden to return, and every single bit of property is confiscated.

When we consider what the members of the Hapsburg family have done wrong, all we can remember is that the present Pretender's father, the Emperor Carl, did his best to stop the 1914–18 war, and probably because of that suffered so considerably. He was forced off the throne before the war was quite over, and I think it is well known to Europe and to most of the world that his sons, his widow and the other members of the family have lived a very hard and tragic life up to the present time. All that they claim as a family is that they should be given back their properties, which is, after all, what is given back to other people. The Convention on Human Rights provides for that in most parts of the world.

We were told that this was entirely an internal matter, but, in view of the fact that the only reason why it was ever in the Constitution of Austria is because it was forced on Austria from outside, that can hardly be used as an argument. At present, the two or three parties concerned internally have not felt that they could come to an agreement on the question. Many other points were proposed from outside when the ambassadors discussed these matters and Russia gave way on them. What a pity this was left out!

It seems rather sad that we were not able to take any part in trying to get this unjust ban on the family as a whole removed. I know that nothing can be done about it at present, but, as the hon. Member for Attercliffe said, it is rather ironic that we should be approving a Treaty which is to give Austria sovereign independence when she is tied down in this way, and when it may well be that she might be more than willing to let many members of the Hapsburg family return to Austria, people who, as far as we know, are, very definitely, friends of the West.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand (Middlesbrough, East)

I do not propose to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling). I rise only to add a few words to what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd).

This afternoon, my mind went back to the time I visited Austria, nearly nine years ago. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe was the first British Minister to go there after the war and that I was the second. I went there in consequence of a decision by the then Government that we should try, though at that time our resources were very limited, to do all in our power to restore the Austrian economy.

There followed from that visit the mission of the Federation of British Industries and the establishment of the Anglo-Austrian Chamber of Commerce in London, which is still flourishing. When I was there in 1946, men walked about the streets of Vienna almost like ghosts. The calorie intake of the average Austrian was barely enough to keep body and soul together. The rubble lay in the streets of Vienna, the people being unable to shift it because they lacked the physical energy to do so.

Last year, when I was there again, Austria looked so prosperous that one could hardly believe the change which had taken place in the interval. It had become more prosperous than one had ever dared to hope that it might. Much of that, I know, is due to the help afforded by the United States of America, but some, I take pride in thinking, is due to the action of successive British Governments. One rejoices today to think that Austria is now not only independent, but prosperous and living an economic life which, between the wars, was denied to her.

I am glad to say how pleased I am that this Treaty should be brought forward, and I wish to say how much praise I think is due to the politicians on both sides in Austria. We sometimes take pride in speeches made in this country about our political genius and our ability to run a two-party Government. We also take pride in our ability to come together from time to time when any national emergency makes that necessary.

The Austrians have shown an equal political skill during this period. The way in which the Coalition Government have been sustained during these years of emergency; the forbearance, patience and courage with which they have confronted extraordinary difficulties and, from time to time, grave human insults, in part of their country, deserve our praise. I want to say how gallantly I think the Social Democratic Party has behaved, considering all the tribulations which it has suffered. In particular, I should like to pay a tribute to the work of Dr. Schaerf, who has done a remarkable job of work. He is the Vice-Chancellor, and the party to which he belongs is the smaller party in the Coalition. I welcome the fact that the Austrian Treaty is to be ratified, and I am glad that I am able to be here to say so.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Since 1918, and the break-up of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austria has been a small country whose fortunes have been watched with sympathetic interest by all forward-looking people in Europe and the world. All liberal-minded and progressive-minded people have had a specially affectionate sympathy for the struggles of the Austrian democracy between 1918 and 1938. It is a matter for common rejoicing—and I suppose that it is one of the few matters about which that can be said—that a Peace Treaty should now have been made in which all the late belligerents have concurred.

The Bill which is before the House this afternoon is not for the purpose of ratifying the Austrian Treaty; it is a Bill giving the Government powers which they think they might need in order to give effect to the ratification of that Treaty when the instruments of ratification have been deposited and the Treaty actually comes into force. I suppose that is why the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) had very little to say about the merits or the details of the Treaty itself, and one quite sympathises with them in their outlook.

I do not want to extend the scope of the debate, but I should not like the House to feel that if it wanted to debate the whole subject of the Austrian Treaty—its merits and demerits; what it contains, what it does not contain and what it might have contained—it would not be perfectly in order to do so. I hope that I am right in saying that, because this is a Bill, as its Short Title says, to Provide for carrying into effect the Treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic Austria. If any hon. Member thought that it was a bad Treaty I suppose that he would be entitled to say so and offer that as a reason why the House of Commons should not give the Government the powers which they seek in order to carry out its terms.

In fact, most speeches—except those from the two Front Benches and one other—have been not about the Bill or the machinery contemplated under it, but about the merits of the Treaty itself. Until he neared the end of his speech I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) was in favour of the Treaty at all. However, he came down upon the right side in the end.

Mr. J. Hynd rose——

Mr. Silverman

Perhaps I am going too far. I was thinking of that part of my hon. Friend's speech in which he said that the Treaty was not really a Treaty to re-establish an independent and democratic Austria, because it did not leave Austria independent enough.

Mr. Hynd

What I was saying was that while the Treaty is to be welcomed—even the terms of the Treaty in its original draft were acceptable to us, and they were very much worse than these—nevertheless. I do not regard it as a perfect one. Indeed, in the present state of the world, it would be very difficult for the four main Powers concerned to come to an understanding that would be regarded as perfect by everybody.

Mr. Silverman

I quite understand that that is my hon. Friend's view. What I thought I was doing was commending his right to say so, in view of the more restricted character of the previous part of the debate.

In other circumstances, the House might have welcomed an opportunity of discussing the Treaty in all its details, but I think I understand why nobody wants to do so now. At the end of ten years after the cessation of hostilities, this is the first occasion upon which all the Allied belligerents on our side have concurred in making a Peace Treaty with what was, technically, our common enemy in the late war. When we find agreement upon such a question for the first time among Allies we are a little anxious and chary about going behind the fact of the agreement to see how it was achieved, or what one side or the other had to give up to achieve it.

The fact that the Treaty has been made is far more important than any point which a Member of this House might think could have been dealt with better in the Treaty. I suppose that we should all regard the Treaty as being very important in so far as it closes the door upon disagreement upon this subject, but it is very much more important having regard to the door which it opens to future negotiations and agreements upon other matters.

Substantial agreement upon this Treaty was achieved long ago. In so far as the Treaty which is now to be ratified differs from the draft treaty upon which agreement had been previously sought, it differs to the advantage of Austria, and nobody complains about that. I suppose that the reason why effect had not been given to the agreement which had been achieved in substance so long ago was that the Soviet Union, rightly or wrongly, regarded the matter as being indissolubly bound up with other questions in Central Europe—notably that of a possible German settlement. Whether they were right or wrong no longer matters. I think that we are all glad that they have now been able to divorce the two problems and take a long step forward towards peace by giving effect to the agreement which has been achieved.

The main characteristics of the Treaty on which agreement has been achieved—the principles were long ago agreed to—are the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Austrian territory and Austria's undertaking, which is quite consistent with her independence and her sovereignty, that she will not enter into military offensive or defensive alliances. She has entered voluntarily into a Treaty which restricts that right, by agreement and not by abdication of her right. There are many people who believe that those principles could have been applied, and that it still may be possible to apply them, to the German problem, with which we are not concerned this afternoon.

But for the positions that people have taken up on this matter over past years, due to the progress—or lack of it—towards general agreement, it is very difficult to see why these principles, which have produced full agreement and a Treaty of peace with Austria, could not be applied with the same good will to produce agreement in the case of Germany. The importance of the Treaty is the example it gives of how agreement could be achieved in much more difficult problems than the Austrian problem, although the nature of those problems is obviously exactly the same.

Mr. S. N. Evans (Wednesbury)

On a point of order. Are we not getting a bit wide? An assertion has just been made which I do not accept. I do not know whether we are going on to a wide debate, but it would not be wise for a one-sided declaration and assertion on this matter to be taken as the unanimous view of all of us on these benches.

Mr. Silverman

I have never claimed for myself, or been accorded by anyone else, the right to express the opinions of anyone but myself. Nevertheless, I humbly hope that if there is any intelligent principle to be read into what I have said, and if its reasonableness, logic, rationality or common sense commend themselves to anybody, to that extent it may be supported by those other people. I am not seeking to speak for my hon. Friend at any time on this subject, although I assure him that the opinion I have expressed happens to be that of many millions of his colleagues in the country.

I have dealt with the narrower constitutional issues and would like to devote a few minutes to the Bill which is, in some way, a penal Bill. It amends, or gives executive power by delegated legislation to amend, the criminal law. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said when he moved the Second Reading, that it was not penal reform, and that similar powers were contained in a previous Act in 1947 and in the Japanese Treaty Bill in 1951. I would like to repeat the question which my right hon. Friend asked about this matter.

Were Orders in Council made at all on either of the previous Acts? How many were there, and was it found that they were really necessary? Looking backwards, could it now be said that the Acts could have been operated without them? How many contained penal provisions, and was it necessary to make use of them? Although the Government are entitled to rely to some extent on precedent when they are putting these powers again into a Bill, it is not necessary to go on taking powers unless, in practice and experience, they were needed.

The criminal law of this country ought not to be amended by delegated legislation. Although I am absolutely persuaded that much of our delegated legislation is essential and that we could not carry on the business of the country without it, we should not use that power where we can avoid it, or in criminal matters unless we are bound to do it and there is no other way open to us.

We should not in any case use delegated legislation to alter the criminal law except by affirmative Resolution, if we need to use delegated legislation at all. I gather from the Bill in Clause 1 (3) that any statutory instrument containing an Order in Council made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. That is the negative procedure of praying for annulment. There is another form of delegated legislation which requires the Government to put a Motion on the Order Paper and get Parliamentary approval for it. For the criminal law the affirmative procedure should be used. We should not alter it by Order in Council and leave the alteration to have the force of law unless the House of Commons negatives it.

The offences in the Bill are completely undefined, while the penalties are substantial. In one case the maximum fine is £500 or two years' imprisonment, or both. No one can say that the penalty is trivial. The offences are in no way defined. A person contravening or not complying with an Order in Council made under the Bill commits an offence. The Foreign Secretary had only the vaguest idea of what the Orders in Council would be, and obviously, therefore, only the vaguest notion of what offences they may create.

The House of Commons ought not to view this matter lightly. We ought to limit delegated legislation as far as we can and ought to look very jealously on any attempt by the Executive to increase those powers, especially in criminal matters.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I believe that this is the first occasion in the post-war years that I have been able to support a Government Bill which is introduced for the purpose of carrying into effect a treaty. I was an opponent of the North Atlantic Treaty, of the Paris Treaty and of the Japanese Treaty. I certainly have no regrets for this opposition, although for a while it temporarily embarrassed me with the Labour Party.

I am very pleased indeed to congratulate the Foreign Secretary in starting on his diplomatic career by introducing a Bill which shows that he has not only been co-existing but partly collaborating with Mr. Molotov. I hope that this collaboration with Mr. Molotov will continue until we have similar Bills and similar treaties, especially one to solve the problem of Germany. I am very glad indeed that this Bill provides for carrying into effect the Treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic, and, I am glad to say, a neutral Austria.

The word "neutral" is very important, because it will occupy the minds of more and more people in the years to come. Austria, as a result of this Treaty, is to be as neutral as Switzerland, Sweden and Ireland.

Mr. S. Silverman

Much more neutral.

Mr. Hughes

My hon. Friend says, "Much more neutral," but certainly, for the purpose of this debate it can be said, without going into any technicalities, that there is established, at least in the negotiations leading to this Treaty, the fact that Austria is outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and outside the so-called Russian scheme of defence. The establishment of the principle of neutrality is recognised in a way of which I cordially approve. The more neutral nations that there are in the world, which completely abolish from their minds the possibility that war can be anything but a destructive and futile way of solving international problems in our time, the nearer we shall move towards a better civilisation.

Clause 1 of the Bill says: Her Majesty may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council and do such things as appear to Her to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof. What are "the provisions thereof"? I turn to Article 15 of the Treaty, of which I cordially approve, and which is headed: Prevention of German Rearmament. It is rather curious that in the Paris Treaty the Government set out the policy of the rearmament of Germany, and Article 15 of this Treaty declares for the prevention of German rearmament which is, again, a step forward towards a more enlightened international policy.

It is laid down in Article 15 that Austria shall co-operate fully with the Allied and Associated Powers in order to ensure that Germany is unable to take steps outside German territory towards rearmament. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will carry this idea to some of its more obvious logical conclusions.

In paragraph 2 of Article 15, we are told: Austria shall not employ or train in military or civil aviation or in the experimentation, design, production or maintenance of war material: persons who are, or were at any time previous to 13th March, 1938, nationals of Germany; or Austrian nations precluded from serving in the Armed Forces under Article 12; or persons who are not Austrian nationals. I understand that this Treaty has not come about as a result of the formula of which we hear a great deal these days—negotiation from strength. When the Foreign Secretary spoke in the debate on the Address, he produced a series of platitudes which seemed to me to cancel each other out. He said that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was not force, but negotiation. He also said, in the same paragraph, that our policy was negotiation from strength.

This Bill is not the result of negotiation from strength. It is doubtful, indeed, whether, at present, we are able to negotiate at any European conference from a position of strength. The sooner we abandon these catch words and proceed to negotiate not from strength—because it is extremely doubtful whether we have it or not—but from common sense, the better it will be.

I especially approve of Article 13 of the Treaty, because it comes out for the Prohibition of Special Weapons. It states: Austria shall not possess, construct or experiment with—(a) Any atomic weapon,… So Austria is not to embark on any futile, nuclear experimentation and the possession of atomic weapons. This is an advance towards civilisation of which, I am sure, the people of Austria, if they have due regard for their own security, will heartily approve.

Article 13 also says: Austria shall not possess,… (b) any other major weapons adaptable now or in the future to mass destruction and defined as such by the appropriate organ of the United Nations … Nor shall Austria possess: (c) any self-propelled or guided missile or torpedoes, or apparatus connected with their discharge or control, (d) sea mines, (e) torpedoes capable of being manned, (f) submarines or other submersible craft, (g) motor torpedo boats. (h) specialised types of assault craft, (i) guns with a range of more than 30 kilometres,… Austria is advancing towards intelligent civilisation, and the Foreign Secretary has collaborated with Mr. Molotov in bringing this about. I therefore prophesy that if the Foreign Secretary continues to embark upon this kind of foreign policy he will be far more popular in this House, in diplomatic circles and among the people of this country, than he has been hitherto.

We are also told in Article 13: Austria shall not possess … asphyxiating, vesicant or poisonous materials or biological substances in quantities greater than, or of types other than, are required for legitimate civil purposes, or any apparatus designed to produce, project or spread such materials or substances for war purposes. I am sure that the Secretary of State for War will recognise this as almost an extract from one of the speeches which I have been delivering in this House for many years.

I think that I have said enough to show that we are advancing towards an intelligent, international policy in European affairs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) indicated, all that is necessary is to apply these ideas to Germany. I welcome this step forward, I hope that my commendation will not embarrass the Government, that we shall have many more treaties as a result of this collaboration with Mr. Molotov, and that this will lead to the permanent peace of Europe and of the world.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

This Treaty is described as one for the reestablishment of a free and democratic Austria. That is to claim for it more than any Treaty can really accomplish. Treaties can establish the independence of the State so that it may be democratic, but democracy can only be established by the will and choice of the people. However, we can rejoice that the conditions of this Treaty are at least such as to give the Austrian people the opportunity once again to be a democratic community.

Many of us have watched with admiration their efforts to achieve that in the extremely difficult circumstances of the last few years, because it is of very great importance, not only to Austria but to the peace of Europe, that Austria should be a democratic State. Situated where she is, so near to the frontiers of the undemocratic part of Europe, it is every much to be desired that Austria should be able to show to Europe and the world by her example that even when a nation is small, even when it is inevitably, by its position, drawn into the whirlpool of great power politics it can, none the less, provide for its people a civilised and reasonable way of life.

My answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), who raised the question of the Hapsburg family is this. Whether we like it or not, it is the historic fact that the name of the Hapsburgs is inevitably associated in the minds of a great many people in Austria and elsewhere with the conception of tyrannical rule in that country itself and imperial ambitions beyond its borders. I am not arguing whether that view is necessarily justified but that, emphatically, it is there.

I cannot believe that any useful purpose would be served by trying to reopen that question now. We would merely raise again the whole problem of the possibility of maintaining in Austria a form of Government by consent and by good will. Surely, to the Hapsburg family we must say that it has not been historically an exclusively home-keeping family; that the world is wide and that there are other places and other capacities in which it can serve mankind even if this particular corner of the world is, for very good public reasons, ruled out for it.

In the past, Austria has set to Europe and the world a shining example of what a progressive democratic Government could be and what it could do for its people. The name Austria connotes many different things to different people; to some the splendours of the Imperial Court, to others music and gaiety, but to many it brings to mind the splendid progressive Government which was to be found in Vienna and other Austrian cities, in the years from the end of the First World War up to the tragedy of 1934. What happened in 1934, when Austria lost her democracy illustrates how important it is to Europe that she should be a democratic country.

After the destruction of Austrian democracy—one of the most gratuitous and mean acts in the whole record of any form of Fascism—it was made clear to Europe as a whole that nothing stood in the way of any ambitious tyrant except the limit of his own power. The way was thrown open to the aggressor, the example of murdered Austrian democracy encouraged every other enemy of the peace there was in Europe, and Europe learned in time how much it had lost when, partly by its own supineness, it allowed Austrian democracy to go down.

Many of us who can remember with intense bitterness those days in February, 1934, when we read of the destruction of Austrian democracy, have waited in hope for a long time for this day when once again the people of Austria have the opportunity to be not only an independent State but a State that will set an example of freedom and progressive Government which we may hope in time may radiate outwards from there into darker corners of Europe.

4.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton)

On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I should, first, like to thank all those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have extended such a warm welcome to the Austrian State Treaty and to this Bill. It has been a very great experience to find how many hon. Members of many different views have, on this occasion, co-operated in giving this welcome and in assisting the passage of the Bill. Even the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made every endeavour to make an emollient speech; though it was at times rather difficult for hon. Members to recognise that and there were some interjections.

My duty is merely to deal with some of the technical points that have been raised, but may I, in passing, remind the House and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in particular, that, in fact, this is not a Peace Treaty? It is important to remember that. Austria was not at war with this country as Austria, but as an integral part of Germany. The State of Austria was never at war with this country. That is why this is the Austrian State Treaty.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked about the penalty provisions contained in the Bill. These provisions are similar in character to those which were asked for in the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Bill and the Japanese Treaty of Peace Bill. The first answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is that in all those cases the powers were taken in the respective Orders in Council. I think I can say that, in all the Orders, certainly in the Japanese Treaty of Peace Orders, though the powers were taken there is no record of prosecutions having followed. That does not show that the powers taken were unnecessary but rather the reverse.

It is necessary to take these penalty powers in order to prevent persons wrongfully disposing of Austrian property or providing false information in connection with it.

Mr. S. Silverman

In this country?

Mr. Turton

As in the case of the Japanese Peace Treaty. That will depend upon the nature of the penalty powers that are required. If those powers had not been taken it might well have been that false information might have been given or there might have been wrongful seizure. That is why the power should be given and why the penalty should, of necessity, be heavy.

Mr. Silverman

Must the offence be committed in this country, or committed in regard to property in this country? I am interested in the machinery of it. Where is the offence committed, in what court would an offence be tried if committed and what kind of offence could be committed?

Mr. Turton

Dealing, first, as to where the wrongful information would be given, it would be given to the offices that it may be necessary to set up under Article 25, which deals with property in Austria. It is possible that it will be necessary to set up offices to deal with claims for property in Austria. Equally, under Article 30, it may be necessary to make appointments to a conciliation commission to which disputes in connection with British property in Austria may be referred. It is wrongful information to those bodies that would be made subject to that penalty.

Mr. Silverman

But where could one prosecute?

Mr. Turton

If the offices were in this country then the venue would, no doubt, be in this country. If the commission were in Austria it would be necessary to see how, by Order in Council, the jurisdiction of the British courts could be extended.

Mr. Silverman

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. It is a small point but one, perhaps, of some importance. If the court is being held in this country then no doubt the evidence taken before it would be evidence on oath; false information given to the court would be an offence against the Perjury Act and no Order in Council would be needed, nor would any special powers of any kind.

If, on the other hand, the false statements were made before a mixed international court of the kind referred to— but in Austria—then it is extremely difficult to see how any sanction, or any criminal sanction, could be applied under these Orders in Council, but it would seem to be clear that, in Austria, an offence would be committed against Austrian law. As the explanation is given, it becomes very difficult to understand why it is necessary to have these amendments by delegation to our own criminal law at all.

Mr. Turton

I believe I was incorrect when I referred to the Article. The main Article was Article 27, which deals, in particular, with Austrian property in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has made the assumption that when I talked about a commission or tribunal there should be a court. That would not necessarily be so. This would be a body to determine claims, for the evidence need not necessarily be given on oath. Therefore, it is necessary to have these penal provisions, as it was necessary in the Japanese Peace Treaty.

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne then asked why it is necessary to make these Orders subject to the negative Resolution procedure instead of the affirmative procedure. Again, we are following the precedent set under the Japanese reaty of Peace Act, 1951. I submit it is a proper procedure, because the Orders in Council are limited to the provisions of the Treaty which have been laid before Parliament, and it is necessary that the Orders in Council should become operative at the first possible moment. For those reasons, as in the Japanese Peace Treaty and other peace treaties, the Orders are made subject to the negative and not the affirmative procedure.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) raised the question of waiver of British claims. It is a fact that there is no provision in these agreements for any waiver of claims similar to those contained in the Egyptian Agreement. There is, of course, the other provision to which my right hon. Friend referred, but it is the other way round. In fact, there is no waiver of claims.

The hon. Member for Attercliffe also raised the question of prisoners of war. That matter does not really come within the terms of this Bill. That is really a matter between the Austrians and the Russians. We and our Allies have long ago done our duty about Austrian prisoners of war in our countries. Article 18 deals with the long delay that has taken place in restoring Austrian prisoners of war from Russia, and I am happy to learn that in recent days a large number of prisoners of war have been duly returned from Russia to Austria.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) referred to Article 10, dealing with the Hapsburg law. That, I submit, is a matter for the Austrian people. I have great sympathy with what was said on this matter by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). It is not a matter in which we should interfere. The Austrian State is a democratic State. If they wish the 1919 Act to remain, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to intervene.

The hon. Member for Attercliffe, I thought wisely, said that we would not have had this Treaty and this agreement if it had not been for the Paris Agreements. This State Treaty is the result of a long process of patient diplomacy. Sometimes the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has been irked by our patience in diplomacy and has opposed it. Here he can see the first fruits of the policy of patient diplomacy which has meant peace for Austria and also co-operation among all Members of this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. Allan.]

Further proceeding postponed pursuant to the Order of the House this day.