HC Deb 25 February 1964 vol 690 cc392-402

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Oram (East Ham, South)

The question of travel facilities for cultural groups from East Germany has been raised on a number of occasions at Question Time. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) spoke of the Brecht Theatre Company and its difficulties. I hope that he will have an opportunity of commenting on that problem in this debate if I am brief.

I am told that this theatre company would like to join in the festival in celebration of the Shakespeare anniversary at Stratford-on-Avon, but, obviously, there will be difficulty in accomplishing that. I recall that recently my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) raised the case of scientists in a college in Leeds who had twice been the guests of fellow scientists in East Germany and now, naturally, wished to reciprocate the hospitality; but they are prevented from doing this.

There have been difficulties, I believe, at various times with respect to artists who wish to visit the Edinburgh Festival. I also believe that if certain international football matches had resulted in a certain way, diplomatic difficulties might have been caused because the East German team might not have been allowed here.

This series of difficulties arises from the fact that citizens of East Germany need first to be armed with what are called temporary travel documents issued by the Allied Travel Office in Berlin before they can seek British visas. The N.A.T.O. Powers have decided jointly to be quite restrictive in the issue of such travel documents.

Obviously, high politics are involved in all this. I have had correspondence with the Minister of State, who has explained in letters to me what the Government's position it. I have had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State's predecessor in the Foreign Office on the matter. I took a deputation to see him, and he, too, explained the situation and that the Government's policy arises from and is a protest against the building of the Berlin wall.

It is not my intention this evening to enter to any great extent into the power politics of the issue. I want merely to suggest that anomalies, and, indeed, absurdities, emerge from the Government's present policy on this matter. A case which has come within my personal experience is particularly suitable for illustrating the absurdities into which we can fall.

Last spring I visited East Germany with a number of my hon. Friends who are associated, as I am, with the Cooperative movement. We were invited to study the Co-operative movement in East Germany. We found that, by a happy coincidence, we were staying at the same hotel as a children's choir from the London Co-operative Society and had the pleasure of being invited to one of its concerts, given jointly with one of its host organisations, a children's broadcasting choir in East Berlin. It was a delightful performance and we were glad to see the children off-stage enjoying the company of their young hosts. We considered it to be a very good exercise in the fostering of international friendship between two groups of talented youngsters.

Unfortunately, soon after my return home I was told that a difficult situation had arisen. The education committee of the L.C.S., which had sponsored the visit to East Germany, wanted to return the compliment by inviting an East German children's choir to this country for concerts but discovered that this perfectly innocent non-political exchange between children's groups came under the N.A.T.O. ban.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the N.A.T.O. policy in this matter, things are becoming absurdly inflexible when the regulations prevent the exchange of children's cultural groups. It has often been the complaint on both sides of the House that Communist régimes in Eastern Europe do not allow their citizens freedom of travel. That is a major criticism of Communism and I accept that the Berlin Wall is a formidable, unhappy physical reminder of the fact.

But I cannot understand that, while we deplore the lack of facilities for people from Communist countries to travel, we make matters worse by not allowing such facilities to those who can get permission to travel from their authorities. There might he some logic in our position if we applied this ban absolutely, but we do not. Businessmen can come here. Indeed, on my visit last autumn I met the manager of a factory, who had been able to come here during the course of business without any difficulty whatever. Everything was laid on for him to get all the necessary permits.

How can the Government or the other N.A.T.O. Powers justify this distinction between businessmen's travel and the travel of cultural artists? There is no rhyme or reason in it unless it be that the making of money is reckoned by the Government to have a higher moral purpose than the cultivation of the arts and sciences. I do not accept that standard, however. Nor do I think that many hon. Members do.

There is another anomaly. We welcome cultural visits from other Communist régimes. Last autumn, there was a highly praised visit by the Bolshoi Theatre Company which brought great joy to British audiences. We have just heard that the Americans and Russians have reached an agreement for cultural exchanges. They are not to be unlimited—the Russians object to jazz—but at least they represent a good step forward which has been widely welcomed. If we are to welcome this sort of cultural exchange, what is the logical reasoning for resisting cultural exchanges with the East Germans? If it is said that it is the wall which makes the difference with the East Germans, that it is the wall which is to blame, do we believe that the building of the wall was a German decision and only a German decision? If on our side it is a N.A.T.O. question, are we not reasonably to suppose that on the other side it is broader than a question of Germany? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot refuse normal human relationship with the East Germans because we say that their Government is the mere tool and puppet of the Russians, which is what we say, and, at the same time, welcome cultural exchanges with this very Russia whom we accuse of pulling the puppet strings. The situation with cultural exchanges with East Germany is completely anomalous and illogical.

We are assured that the situation is constantly under review, but I am by no means confident that the Government are actively pursuing the question within the countries of N.A.T.O. I would welcome any evidence that they were. Either we are to carry these restrictions to their logical conclusion—and I hope that that is not the path which we are to tread—or—and this is what we ought to do—we should do everything possible to relax the regulations and liberalise, so far as lies within our power, the interchange of human talents.

That is the path which the Government ought to be seeking to follow. At the moment, they seem to be playing a game of tit for tat, and in these matters of human relationships that is unworthy of any civilised country.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)

I should like briefly to raise the issue of the invitations which have been issued to the Brecht Theatre Company and the way in which they have been treated. It is generally agreed by all competent critics that during the last 35 years Bertolt Brecht has been one of the most brilliant playwrights who has written in any European language. His plays are being performed in practically all countries, no matter what their political régime or general philosophy and approach to life.

Some time ago, the company was invited by a London impresario, because of the demand among the theatre-going public, to have a season of several weeks in London. He was refused this famous travel document of which we have heard and could not come. More recently, at the Edinburgh Theatre Festival, invitations were sent by the organiser of the festival to a number of theatre directors in various countries to take part in a theatre conference.

The Brecht Theatre Company was invited to send two directors, but they were refused this travel document, on the authority of the Foreign Office, so it had to be announced at the Edinburgh Festival that these directors would not be able to take part in the conference.

We are now in Shakespeare Festival Year and I understand that an invitation has already gone to the company, or is to be sent, to take part in the festival to honour William Shakespeare. Many companies from other countries will come here for this purpose and it will be a sorry day, in the year when the world is to honour Shakespeare and when many ambassadors, including the Soviet Ambassador, will be leading the procession at Stratford on the day when the commemorative part of the festival is taking place, if it were to be announced that the Brecht Company had been prevented from coming to England. The general principles behind this need a great deal of explanation and justification.

All of us raising this matter are as much opposed to the policy of the wall and the dictatorship in East Germany as is any member of the Government. We are on record in demanding again and again a lessening of the dictatorial methods of the East German regime. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), I have recently appealed to the authorities there for the release of two political prisoners. There is no difference in approach on this matter. What is at issue is something much more limited but very important. The N.A.T.O. countries, at the insistence of the West German Federal Government, have decided to impose this ban. This has led us into absurdities. I urge the Government to take the lead, first of all in this country and then in the N.A.T.O. countries. in having some relaxation introduced into this absurd business.

If it is possible to argue that businessmen can come to this country, this relaxation can be introduced. On the other hand, if the East Germans instructed some of their political propagandists on their initiative to come to this country and to try to cause political trouble here, and the Foreign Secretary decided not to let them in, he would have my support.

Here, however, we are dealing with people who are making a contribution to the international cultural life. We always criticise—I certainly do when I meet East Germans—the limitations on the artistic life of East Germany. I ask them, "Why do you publish only Dickens and Shakespeare and few other English writers? Why not publish 'Animal Farm' and all the other books which you regard as critical of your philosophy?"

But we have no leg to stand on if, while making those critical demands, our own Government indulge in this sort of prohibition against bona fide artists who are invited to come to this country. I conclude by urging the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—both should not need much explanation—to see the distinction between political instructors and propagandists, on the one hand, and actors and playwrights, on the other, and to start by relaxing these prohibitions this year in allowing this company to come into the country to take part in Shakespeare Festival Year.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South)

I rise briefly to support the general case which has been argued from these benches in the last few minutes. As Member for a Leeds constituency, I want to concentrate the mind of the Under-Secretary of State on the issue which was brought to his notice on 10th February by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon).

May I remind him of the circumstances of the case? Two visits had been made from the Leeds College of Technology by students to the Engineering Hochschule, in Karl Marx Stadt, in Eastern Germany. When that happened there was no ripple, as far as I understand it, of the international scene. Nobody at Fontainbleu imagined that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was in danger. Nobody in Western Germany imagined that anybody in Leeds, in particular, or in this country in general condoned the East German régime, and the East Germans were under no illusion about it, either. If the reverse journey took place, I am sure that the same thing would occur.

This afternoon we heard the Prime Minister condone the use of East German ships to carry British buses to Cuba because of American legislation. Nobody imagines that because of this he condones the East German régime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) mentioned on that occasion, on 10th February, the two parts of Germany got together for the Winter Olympic Games recently in Austria, but nobody imagined that the West German Government condoned the East German Government on that occasion and N.A.T.O. did not object. At Christmas, when the wall was breached for excellent reasons, nobody imagined that the Bonn Government condoned the East German régime.

I come to the point. Let these Germans come to Leeds. They will find out in cool, succinct northern terms what is thought in this country of the East German régime They will not find it out otherwise. I ask the Minister to thaw the N.A.T.O. attitude of 1948. I appeal to him to let the East Germans come to Leeds and to find out what goes on in a democratic country.

11.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Mathew)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) for having given me the opportunity to try to put this matter in its proper context. Of course, cultural groups in this country find it hard to understand why it is more difficult for an East German choir or an East German theatre company to visit this country than for a comparable Russian, Polish or Czechoslovakian group to do so, and I think I can say that Her Majesty's Government fully understand that point of view.

It is, of course, the general policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage artistic, scientific and sporting exchanges with the countries of the Communist world, as indeed with all others. We know that the Communists regard all such activities as primarily political, but we, on the other hand, regard them as part of the process of the exchange of ideas without which the development of truly peaceful co-existence could not take place.

The risks of political exploitation by the Communists are outweighed, in our view, by the higher importance of human contact as a means of gradually breaking down the barriers of misunderstanding between East and West. We must obviously have a good reason for not applying this policy in the same way to East Germany. That good reason is the Berlin Wall, as a number of hon. Members who have intervened have indicated.

Before I talk about the wall, I should say something about the special situation as regards travel which has always prevailed between East Germany and the N.A.T.O. countries. The hon. Member inferred that the special temporary travel permits were a sort of unnecessary invention of N.A.T.O. Of course, travel facilities and other travel regulations between East Germany and N.A.T.O. countries are complicated by the fact that East Germany is not recognised as a separate State or country.

Because we do not recognise the East Germany authorities, we cannot, of course, recognise East German passports. Therefore, in order that the inhabitants of East Germany may be able to come to Western countries they are given what is called a temporary travel document. This is issued by the Allied Travel Office in Berlin. Originally, this was a quadripartite organisation, but now that the Russians have split off, the Allied Travel Office is operated exclusively by the Americans, the French and ourselves.

These temporary travel documents are issued jointly under the authority of the three Western governing Powers in Berlin and have to be supplemented in each case by a visa for the particular country concerned. Until August, 1961, it was the practice of the Western Governments to issue these travel documents to East German visitors on a generous scale, a wide scale. We could not, of course, give travel facilities to political leaders of a régime which we did not recognise, but normally there was no other restriction.

About 20,000 such temporary travel documents were being issued every year. Then, in 1961, the Communists put up the wall. This illegal and arbitrary challenge to the status and authority of the Western Powers in Berlin could not be allowed to pass without some response. And this was not all. The East Germans enforced their new policy with great and inhuman cruelty. They built and manned the wall, and did not hesitate to shoot to kill at East Germans who tried to enter West Berlin. Not only men but women and youths have been shot down.

Moreover, the East German authorities, while still admitting some visitors from Western Germany totally barred the population of West Berlin from the eastern sector of the city. In the face of this provocation the Western Powers had to react, and they did so by suspending the issue of temporary travel documents to East Germans. I think that in all the circumstances the House must recognise that this was a reasonable measure.

If the East Germans were to allow no people out of their country except the gaolers and the custodians of the prison that they were operating, it was not in our interests to make travel easy for the gaolers alone.

Mr. Mendelson

We have quoted examples of the children's choir and the theatre company. The hon. Gentleman is talking about gaolers.

Mr. Mathew

Nobody is allowed to leave East Germany unless it suits the purposes of the East German authorities, and those purposes are in every case political. These are the facts that hon. Gentleman have got to recognise. If we had followed the policy which has been suggested, we would be playing the game of the gaolers, who are playing a political game and nothing else.

Relaxations were made last year in respect of those coming over to take part in international games or international conferences. These 1963 relaxations are an earnest of N.A.T.O.'s good faith. N.A.T.O. has continued and is continuing now to keep this policy under review. There is absolutely nothing inflexible about that policy. I do not wish to suggest that the present situation is by any means perfect. Of course, it is not. We shall continue our search for ways and means of making it possible for East German groups who are invited to Western countries to make visits, where such visits are not calculated or planned by the East German régime to bring political advantage to them.

We welcome, for instance, the Christmas passes agreement. We welcome it for its own sake and in the sincere hope that it represents some change of attitude on the East German side. The success of the arrangement above all, proves the strength and the continuing power of human bonds between East and West Berlin, bonds to which the East German régime itself has deliberately and callously denied natural expression for a very long time.

Between 17th December and 5th January nearly 1¼ million visits were paid to East Berlin by about half a million West Berliners. But movement from East Berlin to West Berlin remained forbidden. Those who tried to escape were shot, even during the passes agreement. The hard truth is that the East Germans are trying to make political capital out of human suffering for which their own policy is wholly responsible. N.A.T.O. cannot be expected to support the motives of the East German regime in this.

We have heard a number of criticisms from hon. Members opposite of N.A.T.O. policy towards East Germany. But the House may be sure that that policy is neither unjust nor pointless. Its purpose is not to make an empty and meaningless protest or gesture; nor is it a display of pique. Its purpose is, in fact, a considered attempt to persuade the East German authorities that we will not treat those whom they allow to travel in a normal manner, until they grant normal civilised treatment to their own citizens. We shall continue that attempt until it is successful, even though we shall try to do so in ways which will cause the least possible hardship to people and organisations in Britain. Our aim is to secure that free dom of movement which the people of Berlin and. East Germany have a right to expect, and of which they have been so unjustly deprived. I do not think that aim is unworthy.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

There may be wide agreement with what the hon. Gentleman says about not wishing to recognise East Germany and to register our disgust at the wall. But, clearly, what he has said is totally inconsistent. In the first place, every Communist country controls which citizens shall come out of that Communist country. If we are to object to Communist visitors on that ground, we must object to visitors from the Soviet Union and from every other such country.

On what basis does N.A.T.O. discriminate? We are not asking for ourselves to stand outside the N.A.T.O. arrangements, but why is it that, for example, athletes with the maximum publicity representing Eastern Germany are allowed out, businessmen of the greatest influence are allowed out, but school children are not allowed out? There cannot be any kind of consistency in this policy. We are not so much objecting to the principles but to the extraordinary topsy-turvy way in which they are carried out.

Mr. Mathew

A number of applications are made for travel documents. About a half of them are granted at present, according to my information, and each case is weighed up on its own. The hon. Member talks of East German teams, but this is an all-German Olympic team. The Communists have not been unknown to use small children in choirs and others for political purposes. As I say, each case is weighed up on the facts. It is all very well to talk about one case about which an hon. Member may know in his constituency, but—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.