§ LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether a report has now been received of the circumstances under which His Excellency M. Litvinov, Ambassador-Designate of the U.S.S.R. to Washington, and Mme. Litvinov, were not accommodated in the British passenger aeroplane leaving Teheran for Cairo, and were left behind at the aerodrome; what persons actually travelled in the aeroplane; and whether it is proposed to take disciplinary action against the person or persons responsible; and to move for Papers.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that His Majesty's Government will welcome the opportunity I have provided for explaining the rather serious happenings "at Teheran, which received a great deal of notice in the newspapers, and which, I roust say, seem to have been very badly handled from the Press end; that is to say, whoever sent the accounts, 138 no doubt quite unintentionally gave a very misleading story of these happenings. The circumstances referred to in my question seem to have been the occasion of a certain amount of misunderstanding and muddle, and I am certain there was no intentional discourtesy to this distinguished Russian diplomat who was travelling to such an important post. At the same time, I think it is necessary to make perfectly clear what happened, and I would particularly like to ask my noble friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what arrangements were made as soon as it was found that there had been this misunderstanding. What was done then? Did they immediately get hold of another plane suitable for M. Litvinov and his wife, and why did they have to go on in a Soviet plane, which led to further delays? I dare say there is an explanation, but I think it would be useful if that information could be given.
§ Your Lordships are aware that M. Litvinov has been a good friend of this country. He probably understands English better than any other leading member of the Russian Government, thanks to his long residence here and his experience, and the fact that he married a very charming English lady, the daughter of a distinguished English citizen. I have had the privilege of knowing M. Litvinov personally, and I have had a good many dealings with him both at Geneva and before that. I am glad to say that he is a very good-humoured man, he does not bear any malice at all. All the more reason therefore why on all occasions—I am sure this is the Government's intention and always has been—we should treat him with the greatest consideration and courtesy. And previous dealings with him have not been too happy. I see my noble friend Lord Harmsworth in his place, and he will remember that when he was Under-Secretary in another place and the late noble Marquess, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, was Foreign Secretary, our dealings with M. Litvinov were not always of the happiest. He was appointed, your Lordships will remember, as Consul-General of the new Government of Russia after the Revolution. He was promptly arrested and put in Brixton Gaol, and there were other troubles which I need not specify. But I must say that afterwards he obviously showed no trace of any resentment, and I 139 have always found that not only did he show an understanding of the British people, but certainly he has been a friend of our policy and an advocate of close Russo-British relationships.
§ In these circumstances I am sure the noble Lord who is going to reply would wish to give a full explanation. I repeat that I am quite sure that there was no intentional discourtesy, and that the whole thing was a misunderstanding. At the same time—and I am sure the noble Lord will agree with what I am going to say now—it is desirable to make it absolutely clear that our new policy and our new attitude to our Russian Allies since 22nd June last is fully understood and shared and implemented by all members of His Majesty's Service, wherever they are, however remote, and however rarefied the atmosphere in which they may be living. I beg to move.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne)My Lords, the noble Lord said he was sure that His Majesty's Government would welcome the opportunity of a full explanation of the incident to which his question refers. I think we all fully appreciate that the only object of the noble Lord in asking this question is to ensure good and improving relations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, and I am glad to give him the assurance that that is of course the object of His Majesty's Government and of their representatives abroad. In one way perhaps I a little regret that he should have found it necessary to reopen this question, for this very unfortunate incident had already, as noble Lords know, been the subject of a Government answer in another place. His Majesty's Government have tendered their sincere apologies both to M. Litvinov himself and to the Soviet Government, and one might have hoped that the matter might now be regarded as closed.
If there are two things which are absolutely certain, they arc, first, that His Majesty's Government deplore as much as does the noble Lord himself, the inconvenience to which M. Litvinov was put, and, secondly, that such inconvenience was entirely unintentional, and not in the lease susceptible of some of the rather fantastic interpretations that have 140 been put upon it in some quarters—inter- pretations which, I was very glad to see, the noble Lord himself did not share. There is no question at all of any dis-courtesy having been offered to M. Litvinov, nor is there any question of his having been refused accommodation in the plane. What happened was this. M. and Mme. Litvinov arrived at Teheran on November 17. It had been expected that they would continue their journey to Cairo by an R.A.F. aeroplane on November 18, and seats were reserved for them on this plane. But they decided to postpone their departure, and to travel by a B.O.A.C. plane on the following day. It had been assumed that their reservations had been transferred from the first plane to the second, but in fact, by a most unfortunate but entirely unintentional error, this was not done, and the plane left before M. Litvinov arrived on the aerodrome. A full list of the passengers who actually travelled, for which the noble Lord asks in his question, is not yet available, but I think he will agree it is not really relevant, because if the officials had been advised that M. Litvinov and his party were going to travel by the plane adjustments would have been made to accommodate them. If M. Litvinov had indeed arrived before the departure of the plane and if the plane unfortunately had not started before its scheduled time, because it had its complement of passengers, of course a readjustment of seats would have been made on the aerodrome to accommodate M. Litvinov and his party.
I need not say how very deeply His Majesty's Government regret the inconvenience which was caused to him. So far as lack of co-ordination is concerned, this error, I fancy everyone will agree, arose not from any inherent weakness in our organization, but from an unusual combination of circumstances, and particularly from the fact that a last-minute change was made in the plans. Noble Lords will therefore agree, I think, that it is not a case for disciplinary action, nor, I am sure, from my personal knowledge of him, would M. Litvinov himself desire such a thing. I hope therefore, in view of the full explanation I have been able to give, noble Lords will agree that this most regrettable incident may now be regarded as closed.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I am very much obliged to the 141 noble Lord for his explanation. This unfortunate concatenation of circumstances is obviously the explanation. Before withdrawing my Motion, may I protest against the suggestion that because a matter has been ventilated in another place, your Lordships are not entitled to discuss it here? There are advantages, my noble friend will agree, in discussing a matter in your Lordships' House, and the fuller answer that can be given to a question in your Lordships' House is a good reason sometimes for putting forward such a Motion. I am very much obliged to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.