HL Deb 17 May 1944 vol 131 cc810-30

VISCOUNT ELIBANK had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given by the Minister of Economic Warfare in the House of Lords debate on the 9th of May to certain questions put to him regarding the future arrangements outlined by him for closing down the Department of Economic Warfare after the war with Germany is terminated, they will cause a White Paper to be issued at an early date setting out the proposals in detail in order that Parliament may have full opportunity to discuss them before they are brought into force; and to move for Papers.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, last week there was a debate in your Lordships' House on the operations of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. Although the Motion introducing that debate had not a single reference to the future of the Department, the Minister in charge, my noble friend Lord Selborne, at the end of his reply, made a statement regarding that future. Why he chose that particular moment to make this disclosure I cannot say, but he certainly surprised some of your Lordships, certainly myself, by doing so, and not only by the act of doing so but by some of the facts which he disclosed. He further made what I regarded as an astonishing statement, that the proposals that he laid before us had been agreed between the Foreign Secretary and himself as Minister for Economic Warfare, and he made no mention as to whether His Majesty's Government had agreed to them or not.

After very careful study of his speech in Hansard and of his reply, I have summed up his statement regarding the future of his Department as follows. First, I wish to say to my noble friend that in doing so I have tried to be as accurate as possible, and in order to make it more convenient I propose to make certain comments on the details of that statement as I proceed with my speech. As a preliminary he informed us that the Ministry of Economic Warfare is divided into two parts, first of all the administration of the blockade, and secondly the Economic Intelligence Branch, which is known as the Enemy Branch. He then went on to tell us that as soon as the war with Germany is terminated, steps will be taken to close down the Ministry so far as the blockade is concerned, and that so far as the blockade with Japan is concerned a separate Department in England was not necessary for the purpose as our American Allies are the greatest authorities on the economic situation as it exists in those waters.

In my speech I questioned him closely on this point. With our immense trade interests in the Far East I cannot see that we can afford to leave the blockade entirely in the hands of the Americans without proper representation. Indeed I feel that the blockade in the Far East should be a joint operation between the Ministry of Economic Warfare and whatever department exists for that purpose in the United States of America. For that purpose alone I should have thought it was necessary to retain the Ministry of Economic Warfare until the war with Japan was concluded. I could get no satisfactory reply on that question.

Now I should like to pass to that section of the Department known as the Enemy Branch or the Economic Intelligence Branch. So far as this branch is concerned, that is the Economic Intelligence Branch, it is to be handed over to the Foreign Office and to become the Economic Intelligence Branch of the Foreign Office. This, my noble friend stated, had been agreed to already by the Foreign Secretary, and indeed he went on to say that the Economic Intelligence Branch had already been handed over to the Foreign Office partially and that it was now known as the Enemy Branch of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Economic Warfare—not the Enemy Branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the Foreign Office. The transference had gone so far that it had already gone to the Foreign Office—partially, as he himself explained. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this branch has crossed the threshold of the Foreign Office, evidently to stay. In fact, the break-up of the Department has already started apparently by the ipse dixit of the two Ministers concerned. Unless the Government have agreed to this—and we know nothing about that, my noble friend did not advise us at all on that side of the question—then it seems to me that my noble friend and the Foreign Secretary have acted ultra vires.

What will be the effect of handing over the Economic Intelligence Branch to the Foreign Office? The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in his speech, let the cat out of the bag. He evidently knew what had been arranged because he spoke before my noble friend had an opportunity of saying anything. What Lord Rennell said was that the handing over of the Economic Intelligence Branch to the Foreign afice—and he advocated it very strongly and, if I may say so, very ably—would give back to the Foreign Office what was taken away from it after the last war—namely, presumably, the control of overseas trade which was after the last war vested in the Overseas Trade Department by Parliamentary decree and statutory action.

In a very few words I should like to describe exactly what happened at that time. The Department of Overseas Trade was established somewhere towards the end of the war for the purpose of administering and controlling overseas trade with Europe and other foreign Powers. I am riot talking about the Dominions or the Colonies. When the Geddes Committee was sitting in 1923 or 1924 that Committee recommended for the sake of economy that the Department of Overseas Trade should be abolished. That aroused great objection, publicly voiced, on the part of the commercial bodies in this country, and so the Government appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave, to advise them upon it. I cannot remember the exact date but about 1925 or 1926 that Committee reported. They advised that the Foreign Office should not be commercialized and strongly recommended that the Department of Overseas Trade should be retained in its existing form. Upon that there were further debates. I have been looking up those debates and I find—it is only of personal interest to me—that I actually made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House upon that subject. I feel that I was one of those who helped to retain that Department in the State and I shall do my best, having some knowledge of the advantages it has given, to see that in the future its powers are not whittled away. Under these present proposals therefore a decision deliberately taken by Parliament is to be reversed solely by Ministerial action without Parliament being given the opportunity to consider the wisdom or the non-wisdom of the steps proposed. I submit that that is a subversion of our Parliamentary procedure and of our Constitution.

But there is a still further arrangement between the two Ministries which will require great force of argument to make me believe that it can be right. What is proposed in the Foreign Office when Germany is defeated is that through the Economic Intelligence Branch which is to be attached, and which has already been partially attached to the Foreign Office; the Foreign Office shall have responsibility for planning and controlling presumably the many economic operations that will follow the defeat of Germany. My noble friend summed up that part of his proposals in a paragraph which I should like to read to your Lordships. It is in col. 647 of the Official Report. My noble friend said: Quite apart from the manifold uses of economic intelligence for fighting the war, economic intelligence is of vital importance for the planning of many operations which will follow the defeat of Germany. In the first place, there is intelligence for the Far Eastern war,"— I have already referred to that— economic disarmament and economic control of Germany, reparations, the economic effects of frontier rectification, the rehabilitation of occupied territories, the development of economic sources of supply to allow Europe to recuperate. These are matters on which the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers will need expert advice in the months immediately succeeding the Armistice. That paragraph alone is sufficient to show that these proposals require very careful consideration by Parliament before they are put into force.

The importance and magnitude of the operations involved seem to require a Department with a special Minister to administer them, not a sub-department of the Foreign Office which is already overworked and will be even more overworked when this war ends, and work on all these particular matters begins. I ask your Lordships to say whether you believe that the Foreign Office is the appropriate Department to control such functions. Personally, I do not think so. Surely these proposed functions are not compatible with the proper and usual functions of the Foreign Office. On the one hand you have smooth diplomacy, on the other hand ruthless repression, because that is the only sort of treatment that can be applied to Germany with success until the points mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, have been settled, or until Germany has paid the penalty for her misdeeds. Both these functions, smooth diplomacy and ruthless repression, are to be supplied by the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is to become a sort of Jekyll and Hyde Department, a role which, I submit, will fit ill that most dignified Department of the State, and it might very well spell the ruin of our foreign policy after the war.

I am not going to suggest to-day who should take on this thankless and gigantic task, but of one thing I am certain—it is necessary that the whole question as to what organization it should be, and the form it should take, should receive the very closest consideration and deliberation in Parliament, and that for that purpose alone the present proposals should be submitted in a White Paper in more detailed form for the consideration of Parliament. All these proposals require close scrutiny and discussion in Parliament. It was emphasized only yesterday in this House by the Minister of Reconstruction that what will matter most after the war will be our export trade, upon which we shall have to rely to rehabilitate our economic system. All these proposals are bound up with that vital question. It is all wrong that they should be forced through Parliament in this hole-and-corner fashion. I resent it, and there are other members of your Lordships' House who resent it. Many members of the House of Commons resent it, too. Those members have, in the past few months, shown in no silent manner what they feel about the proposals being brought forward and placed before the House by a Minister without any real notice that these things were going to be done or any indication of what the proposals are.

I can assure your Lordships that a great deal of time, a great many differences, and a great amount of heat and argument will be saved by laying these proposals before Parliament in the form of a White Paper so that we may know what they are about. It will be of great assistance to my noble friend and to the Foreign Secretary in getting their proposals through. I do not suggest, for a moment, that I am necessarily right over this, or that others must be right. I may be wrong. But I do say, at least let us have a full discussion with all the details in front of us set out in such a form that we can understand them, and not misunderstand them. Let us have these things in a White Paper. It is for that reason that I bring forward this Motion to-day and I urge my noble friend to accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I listened with great attention to the case made by the noble Viscount who has introduced this Motion, but it does seem to me, with great respect, that it is based on a fundamental error. In that Motion the noble Viscount maintains that the replies given by the Minister of Economic Warfare in the debate on May 9 were unsatisfactory. Now I venture to assert that those replies were considered satisfactory, not only by myself but by the great majority of your Lordships' House. In support of my belief, may I remind your Lordships of the debate which took place in this House on March 25 and continued on March 30 last year? That debate was about the reform of the Foreign Service. It had as its subject, its main subject, the White Paper in which His Majesty's Government proposed the amalgamation of the Diplomatic Service with the Consular Service and with the Diplomatic Commercial Service. The proposals were later approved by both Houses. Now the White Paper stated that economics and finance had become inextricably interwoven with politics, and speaker after speaker—speakers of such eminence as Lord Cecil, Lord Tyrrell and Lord Hankey—insisted on the necessity of a strong economic branch in the Foreign Office. Lord Addison, speaking for the Labour Party, expressed the fear that the reforms relating to the recruitment for the Foreign Service would be too late, and he said that there should be set up—I do not think I shall be misinterpreting him in saying this—at the earliest possible moment, a diplomatic staff at the centre of affairs consisting of persons who shall be competent to advise on all matters affecting trade, industry, social conditions and so on. That was Lord Addison's view.

After the last war, the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office was suppressed, and the Department of Overseas Trade was created. I will revert to the latter in a short time. The result, however, was that there was a wide gap in the organization of the Foreign Office, and although the Economic Relations Department was established, it was not of sufficient strength and authority to advise tile Secretary of State on the possible effect of economic and financial measures on our foreign policy, and also to digest and adapt to the best national use the economic information which flows to the Foreign Office from abroad. The Foreign Office was compelled in economic and commercial matters to act very largely as a post office, and I am sorry to say that there was a serious lack of coordination in economic and political factors in our Foreign Office as a result of what happened. If you compare the Economic Relations Department of the Foreign Office with the economic branches which were maintained by the greater number of European Foreign Offices, you will find that these latter attached far greater importance than we did to what may be called politico-economic subjects.

However this may be—and I now come to the particular point raised by the noble Viscount—on the outbreak of war the Economic Relations Branch of the Foreign Office lapsed, and its staff was lent to the Ministry of Economic Warfare. I presume that the noble Lord is not opposed to restitution. That staff, according to the statement made by the noble Lord, is to be returned to the Foreign Office, and I hope that its numbers will be largely increased in the meantime, so that the Secretary of State will have ultimately at his disposal a really first-class competent authority, who will be competent to advise him of the effect on political relations not only of economic measures taken by foreign countries but also of economic proposals which we ourselves make. Such a staff, if it is to be effective, must clearly be under the authority of the Foreign Secretary himself, and I hope very much that it will be found possible to house it in the same building. That may not sound a very important point, but this question of what I may call physical propinquity is really very important from the point of view of efficiency.

The noble Viscount mentioned the excellent work done by the Department of Overseas Trade, and I entirely agree with him. When I was in Rome I had on my staff a very able member of that Department; I do not think anybody could have wished for a better adviser, and he was my Commercial Counseller. I can speak very highly of his work. That Department, however, has one very great disadvantage: it has to serve, as Lord Tyrrell put it the other day, two masters, the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. I do not know whether it loves the one and hates the other, or to which, if so, its love and hatred may be devoted; but I do know that that is not a satisfactory position. More important still, its central organization in London is not such that it can really tender to the Foreign Office the kind of advice on politico-economic questions which is essential if the Foreign Secretary is adequately to perform his very onerous task.

I suggest, therefore, that the statements made by the noble Earl in the debate on March 9 last were not only satisfactory but in accordance with the desires already expressed by your Lordships and also, as far as I can gauge, not in opposition to any views expressed in another place. I yield to none in the view that these questions of Government organization should be fully discussed and controlled by Parliament; but in this case it does not seem to me, in view of the debates which have taken place both here and in another place, that such a procedure as the issue of a White Paper is really called for or required.

LORD VANSITTART

My Lords, I was unfortunately unable to be present at the debate in which the noble Earl announced that he and his Department might possibly be the first casualties after the last shot. I read of that with very great regret, because the noble Earl has always treated us to statements of such clarity and forthrightness that I would rather see him amongst the last than the first to disappear. If I had been present at that debate, I should presumably have spoken before the noble Earl; and in that case, speaking under an evident misapprehension, I should have been anticipating a long and useful life for him and for his Department. I should have anticipated that on a number of grounds, on which I shall detain your Lordships to-day only for a few minutes, but on which I should like to speak frankly.

We may be within measurable time of the moment when all the worst criminals in the Axis countries will be seeking temporary addresses where their loot has already been deposited, there to recuperate and ultimately to filter back and organize Germany's third war. Your Lordships may remember that after the last war Ludendorff made a bee-line for Sweden in blue spectacles; and this time there will be thousands of such cases. I very much hope that they will receive hospitality nowhere; but the records of some of the neutral countries are not such as to give us any absolute guarantee. If these people do filter into neutral countries, I hope that the "vile bodies" will be handed over immediately. If, however, they filter into neutral countries and succeed in staying there, some of us will be in deadly earnest in "winkling them out" again, because we regard this as a matter of European security. For that purpose it may be that we shall need measures of economic suasion or enforcement. I shall certainly be amongst those who will require them.

I come now to an even more important matter, although it may not be so swift in operation. In the former case we shall have to act quickly, because the cause of justice cannot be protracted. After the last war it was notorious that a number of countries assisted the ex-aggressors to evade the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. That would be another matter of first-class importance, in which many of us again would be in deadly earnest, because this time we do mean disarmament to be a reality. Again we might need the machinery of economic suasion or enforcement, this time in a slightly deferred form, because personally I do not think that such measures of evasion would be attempted until several years after the cessation of hostilities, whereas the matter of the war criminals would be one of a few months. There is a distinction between those categories, but on both of them I should be prepared to take a strong line, and I think that millions of people will take the same view.

Even if that method is contested by any of your Lordships, there is another very important consideration which I hope will be contested by no one. In a debate on a Motion which I brought before this House in regard to the chemical industry of Germany, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned something which I have long advocated—namely, that it will be necessary to ration the Axis countries very strictly after this war in all imported and important war materials; not only chrome and wolfram of evil memory, but a list of things as long as one's arm. That will be necessary because we must at all costs prevent the aggressor countries from laying up war stocks. It is obvious that that policy—and it must be an essential part of our peace policy—would be defeated unless we were also going to ration the satellites and the sympathizers; and that will be an enormous operation, and very complicated and protracted. I should very much like to know exactly how it is contemplated that that should be carried out before I could possibly make up my mind on the subject. It is a very difficult matter indeed and any other thing that we have ever attempted in peace-time—the enforcement of sanctions against Italy, for example—would be a drop in the ocean compared to it.

Therefore this measure, I think, requires a good deal more consideration than it has received at present. Is it suggested that the Foreign Office should be in charge of the execution of these measures of economic suasion or enforcement? Hitherto the Foreign Office has not been an administrative Department, and I do not think that you turn it into an administrative Department by attaching to it an Economic Section detached from the Ministry of Economic Warfare. Surely an Intelligence Department can advise you, say, as to what the ration should be. It could also advise you as to how the rationing might be enforced, and it could also inform you as to who was breaking the ration. Is it supposed that it should be the enforcing Department, the executive Department as well? If not, what exactly is proposed? For all those reasons I would like to suggest that before parting with the actual machinery we should be given a good look-see at what is going to take its place, and that that should be in the nature of an offer, and not of a decision.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, you have just had the edifying spectacle of two eminent members of the Foreign Service completely differing from each other. The noble Earl on my right considers that the Ministry of Economic Warfare and all its work should be turned over to the Foreign Office and that the Foreign Office should rule the economic world in future. The noble Lord who has just spoken takes the opposite point of view, and he makes no secret of the fact that he would not trust the Foreign Office a yard. I rise to support very briefly the proposition of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. I was present at the debar e and played a small part in it, and I was a little disturbed at what fell from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, but Lord. Elibank was quicker in the uptake than I was, and saw the full implications of what was said sooner than I did. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, told us in effect that when there is an Armistice with Germany terminating hostilities the whole of the Pacific side of economic warfare will be handed over to the Americans holus-bolus. That is in effect what he said. I will quote it if necessary. In fact, he went so far as to suggest that it was the American Navy which was fighting the war in the Pacific, assisted by the British Navy. Never did I expect such words to be used in your Lordships' House.

THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE)

No, I did not say so.

LORD STRABOLGI

Yes, I have got it here. The noble Earl said: In the case of Japan it is the American Fleet, now assisted by the British Fleet, that is enforcing the blockade and the complication of negotiations with neutrals really does not come in. As the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has pointed out, we have immense interests in Asia and the Pacific. Are we really proposing to abandon the conduct of the whole of our economic warfare against Japan to our American Allies because the American Fleet happens at the moment to be predominant in the Pacific? That is an extraordinary statement to make, and it is unfortunate in this respect. Our ill-wishers in the United States are continually harping on the theme that when the war in Europe is over we shall not be 100 per cent. in the war in the Pacific. We shall have to be, and we shall be, 100 per cent. in the war in the Pacific. Statements like this from the noble Earl will be seized upon by the Anti-British Press in the United States, which will say, "There you are. The Americans are again to be left holding the baby. Just what we told you." Those statements should not be made in your Lordships' House, and if it is the suggestion that the economic side of the war in the Pacific should be handed over to the Americans, with a little assistance from our War Intelligence Department and a little assistance from the Royal Navy, then I think that should be corrected at once. It is a very dangerous statement indeed.

I had the great pleasure of spending many happy years in another place with the noble Earl, and again and again, both as Minister and as private member, his lovable impetuosity led him into making rash statements. To my great delight he used occasionally to bring down on him the wrath of his own political leader and Prime Minister. I feared that when he was elevated to your Lordships' House that impetuosity had been curbed. Personally I am delighted it has not. We had an example of it in the debate last Tuesday, and I think we are greatly indebted to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to the implications of what was said. In that debate I was speaking for my noble friends here, and both Lord Nathan and myself felt that the suggestion that the Ministry of Economic Warfare should be wound up at the earliest possible moment and a part of it handed over to the Foreign Office was dangerous, and when I spoke I entered a caveat. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has reinforced that to-day.

Speaking for my noble friends on these Benches, I have to say we consider that, far from winding up the Ministry of Economic Warfare, we should strengthen it after the Armistice with Germany, and that it will have a most useful part to play in the post-war settlement. You have a machinery in operation that has been successful, and to destroy it now merely for the purpose of saying that you were winding up superfluous Ministries, and getting the plaudits of those who complain about the growth of bureaucracy, would be a mistake. For these reasons I think we ought to have a White Paper and know where we are, and if the noble Viscount goes to a Division I shall go with him.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, I welcome the debate that the noble Viscount has inaugurated, because it is undesirable that there should be misapprehension on this point, and the speech of the noble Viscount and this debate give me an opportunity of clarifying matters which appear to be obscure. I am afraid the noble Viscount has read a great deal more into my speech than is there, and the scope of my announcement was not so portentous as he appears to infer. The noble Viscount made some complaint that I had alluded to the subject at all, but I do not think I should have been treating your Lordships' House with candour if I had not, because the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who inaugurated the debate, had pressed me on the subject of the future of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. Therefore, I felt it was only right and proper that I should inform your Lordships of the attitude of the Government in the matter. Then the noble Viscount seemed to assume that a great constitutional change had been brought about by the Foreign Secretary and myself in what he calls a hole-and-corner manner, without any Cabinet sanction. I can assure him that is not the case, and in fact on looking at my speech I found that in my reply I pointed out that this had not only been very carefully considered in the Departments concerned but also by an Inter-Departmental Committee as well. A change of this sort, of course, would not be made without the consent of the Government as a whole.

The change is not nearly so important and far-reaching as the noble Viscount seems to think. In my speech of which he made complaint I was addressing myself to two points. The first one was, should the Ministry of Economic Warfare continue in whole or in part after the war; and, if the view of the Government is that it should not continue as a whole, the second question which arose was, with what Government Department should what is left be associated. The noble Viscount who moved this Motion, and Lord Vansittart in a characteristically interesting speech, argued that the Ministry of Economic Warfare should continue as a whole after the war, and that was also the view of Lord Strabolgi.

Lord Vansittart gave three reasons why the Ministry should continue. The first was in order to "winkle out" the German criminals from neutral countries to which they had fled; the second was to prevent evasion of the rearmament clauses of the Peace Treaty by Germany; and the third was in order to ration ex-enemy countries in all commodities important in war-time, and not only them but also their satellites and sympathizers. I do not know exactly what countries he includes in that list, but I gather that the noble Lord contemplates continuing something very much in the nature of a blockade indefinitely—until, at any rate, human nature is so reformed that the danger of war has been removed. When it comes to "winkling out" German criminals, I can assure the noble Lord that no one will be keener to support his attitude than myself, and I think the great majority of your Lordship's House, if not all, would take the same view. The same is true of any evasion of rearmament clauses; but I do not think it is necessary to maintain a Ministry specially for these two purposes.

When I expressed the view that the Ministry of Economic Warfare should disappear after the Armistice with Germany, I did not mean that several months might not elapse. The actual date no one can foresee. I would certainly agree that, as long as there was any useful work that the Ministry as a whole could properly do, it ought to be continued. It is impossible at this juncture to say when the precise moment of the change should be. Subject to that reservation, I do not sec how either of these two operations would necessitate the continuance of the Ministry in its present form. With regard to the perpetual rationing of ex-enemy countries, that is a very big question, but again I do not think that would necessitate a separate Government Department to supervise, if indeed it formed part of the peace policy; I am not prejudicing that question at all. If it did form part of the peace policy, if the noble Lord's views were accepted, it would not require a separate Government Department or the machinery of the blockade to carry it into effect, if indeed it could be carried into effect.

Then the noble Viscount who moved and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, both urged that the Ministry of Economic Warfare would be required to enforce the blockade against Japan. I feel that both these noble Lords have rather misconceived the problem, and it is no doubt my fault if I did not make it plain on the last occasion. As I told your Lordships, the Ministry has two halves—one concerned with the administration of the blockade, and the other, the Enemy Branch, with all this economic intelligence. The administration of the blockade in Europe is a very different matter from the administration of the blockade against Japan—primarily for this reason, and I apologize to noble Lords if I did not make this clear: that Japan is an island and Germany is not.

What are the principal tasks of the Ministry of Economic Warfare in administering the blockade against Germany? Negotiations with Spain and Portugal about wolfram, negotiations with Turkey about chrome, negotiations with Sweden about baa-bearings, and with Switzerland about precision tools; the endless negotiations about a hundred and one different materials and commodities which neutral countries contiguous to Germany are in a position to supply to Germany and which we, as Germany's enemies, have got by the means open to us to induce these neutral countries not to supply to Germany. That is the blockade problem in Europe in a nutshell. That problem really dose not arise, or hardly arises, in the case of Japan. It is an infinitely simpler problem. It is the Fleet that is blockading Japan. Lord Strabolgi took exception to the reference I made to the American Fleet, bur that was merely a reference to the fact that the great bulk of the American Fleet throughout this war has been in the Pacific, and that the American Fleet in the Pacific is at the present time stronger than the British Fleet in the Pacific. I was merely alluding to that fact, of which everybody is well aware. Everybody knows, of course, that the moment the war in Europe is over the entire British Fleet will be alongside the American Fleet in continuing the war against Japan. I am sure the noble Lord would not like to suggest I had said anything to the contrary. Therefore the question is simply, is the continuance—and that was the only point I was discussing last week—of a separate Ministry necessary to conduct the blockade against Japan? In my view it is not. I do not think there is work for a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary and a separate Ministry for that.

Here I venture to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who, being a good Socialist, would no doubt like to see more Ministries controlling the whole population of these islands from the cradle to the grave and seeing that they behave themselves every moment of their lives. I am one of those people who believe in the liberty of the subject and I think the number of Government Departments should be the minimum compatible with efficiency. You do not necessarily get greater efficiency by having more Government Departments. It is quite easy to manufacture work and if you put enough able people to do it, they can keep themselves well occupied, and a great many other people also, by writing letters to each other. That is a danger which, I suggest, it is incumbent on all Governments to guard against, and if the work can be done efficiently by a smaller number of Departments then that change should be made. That is my view and that is the view I submit with great respect to your Lordships' House. I do not think we should be justified in spending the taxpayers' money on maintaining a Ministry that was not absolutely necessary.

If, then, the Ministry of Economic Warfare has to be shut down, the question arises whether it should all be shut down. I said to your Lordships last week that indeed it ought not, because of the Enemy Branch which is concerned in the collection, classification, arrangement and appraisement of economic information. That work in my view would be of permanent value to the governmental machine. I announced therefore that it had been arranged that control of that branch should be transferred to the Foreign Office. The noble Viscount who moved this Motion very strongly disagreed with two features of that decision. In the first place he took exception to the statement which he quoted from my speech that matters which this branch deals with should be the business of the Foreign Office—economic disarmament and economic control of Germany; reparations, the economic effects of frontier rectification, the rehabilitation of occupied territories, the development of economic sources of supply to allow Europe to recuperate. I said those were matters on which the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers will need expert advice in the months immediately succeeding the Armistice. Does the noble Viscount think that the Peace Treaty can be well drafted if these considerations are not borne in mind and if the people who draft the treaties have not good advice on these subjects?

The reason why the Enemy Branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare has now become the Enemy Branch of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Economic Warfare is that the Foreign Secretary is, quite rightly, even now considering the lines on which the various Peace Treaties that we shall have to make after the defeat of our enemies, will have to be drawn up, and in considering those matters these questions all have to be regarded. I never said that the Foreign Office was going to administer any particular one of those subjects. What I said was that the Foreign Secretary would need expert advice upon them, and he will need expert advice upon them because it falls to the Foreign Secretary, with our Allies, to negotiate the treaties of peace and to dictate them to the enemy.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

May I interrupt my noble friend just for a moment? Who will administer them? If the Foreign Office is only to be advised upon them, who are to be administrators of those very important matters?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

There my noble friend is considerably widening the scope of the debate. I was endeavouring last week to deal with the future of the Ministry of Economic Warfare, and I explained to your Lordships some reasons why the Enemy Branch was being transferred to the Foreign Office. One reason is that the Foreign Secretary has decided that he requires expert advice on these economic matters and we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, very strong support for that view. The second point to which my noble friend Lord Elibank takes great exception is what he has conceived to be an attack on the Department of Overseas Trade. I never mentioned the Department of Overseas Trade and nothing I have said has had any reference to the Department of Overseas Trade. If I may say so, I should like to endorse what he said in regard to the splendid work that has been done by the Department of Overseas Trade. But the announcement that I was authorized to make last week had nothing to do with the Department of Overseas Trade and nothing that has been decided in any way affects the responsibilities of the Board of Trade or the Department of Overseas Trade. All that has been decided is that certain functions of the Ministry of Economic Warfare which are likely to survive the Ministry shall be allocated to the Foreign Secretary.

The noble Viscount pressed for publication of a White Paper. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, pointed out, a White Paper already has been published in regard to future developments of the Foreign Office and has been discussed by your Lordships' House. The change that I announced last week is really in conformity with the policy there approved. I cannot answer the noble Viscount's question about the Department of Overseas Trade. I have no official knowledge on that subject at all. If he wishes to raise the question that should be raised as a separate matter. I cannot say whether any re-arrangement of Government offices is going to he proposed after the war other than that which I have already mentioned concerning my own Department. That is a separate matter which the noble Viscount can raise as a separate issue. All that I have endeavoured to inform your Lordships is that in the view of His Majesty's Government the continuance of the Ministry of Economic Warfare for long after the Armistice with Germany will be unnecessary and directly its continuance is found to be unnecessary it will be wound up. The Enemy Branch will continue to serve the Foreign Office.

The noble Viscount said these things should not be done without Parliamentary authority. I entirely agree with him and it is for that reason that the matter has been brought before Parliament in your Lordships' House at the earliest possible opportunity. If either House of Parliament strongly dissented from the policy then no doubt that would cause His Majesty's Government to reconsider the subject, but I do not think that is likely. I hope your Lordships will be satisfied with the explanation I have given. I do not think there is really in this particular point material for a further White Paper. If larger issues become ripe for discussion or decision that is beyond anything I mentioned the other day.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

What are the larger issues to which the noble Earl refers?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

For instance, whether the Department of Over- seas Trade should be continued or not. I have no knowledge on that—it is not my Department—but the noble Viscount spoke about lit. I say that is a different issue and if he wants any information on that subject I suggest that he should put down a question about it at the appropriate time. I was concerned to point out that the decision I announced was really very limited in scope' and I think my noble friend has read a good deal more into it than really exists.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, whilst I agree that my noble friend in his reply has tried to make the best case possible I remain very dissatisfied. In this debate four noble Lords have spoken. One of them, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, supported the Minister and the other three, Lord Vansittart, Lord Strabolgi and myself, spoke in favour of the desire expressed in the Motion that a White Paper should be published in order that we should have full opportunity to consider these matters and have a full debate upon them. I do not think that anything the noble Earl has said to-day has in any way altered the position with regard to the necessity for a White Paper. He has not answered a number of questions which were put to him. He said it would widen the scope of the debate to say who should control all these matters with regard to Germany about which he spoke in his former speech. But widening the scope of the debate was the noble Earl's own first action. The Motion upon which this whole question arose, placed on the Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, contained nothing whatever about the future of the noble Earl's Department. I came to listen to the debate, which I expected would show great praise of the noble Earl's Department and of the way he conducted its operations. I had no intention of speaking until suddenly out of the blue the noble Earl made a disclosure about the future closing down of his Department. If that is not a broadening of the debate I cannot think what is. Therefore I do not think it is fair to ask your Lordships to accept a sort of semi-explanation of what these proposals involve.

My noble friend Lord Vansittart talked about the maintenance of the Department of Economic Warfare for certain objects which he described and which were really similar objects to those mentioned by my noble friend. He did not mean—obviously he could not have meant—that the blockade should continue when the war was over. What he had in view was obviously the maintenance of the pressure that would be necessary on Germany and other countries in order to carry out these objects. Yet we are told that the Ministry of Economic Warfare which has done all these things through its Economic Intelligence Branch is to be closed and the branch handed over to the Foreign Office only as expert advisers to the Foreign Office. In my experience expert advisers to a Department assume that that Department is going to carry out the functions, but the noble Earl suggested by implication that the Department would not carry out the functions. If that is so, why hand *over a very expert section of the Ministry of Economic Warfare to a Department which is not going to carry out the functions instead of to a Department which should carry out the functions?

The noble Earl suggested that I was quite wrong in my assumption that the Government had not approved of these proposals, because he said—and he re—ferred to a passage which I had nut noticed particularly because I thought it was not worth noticing very much—that an Inter-Departmental Committee had considered these proposals, and they were being adopted. Here we come to a point which raises a great issue. It has been suggested only recently, by a member of the War Cabinet, that the day may come when we may be governed by Orders in Council, because of the congestion of business in another place. This afternoon we are told—and in view of my knowledge of the noble Earl's political record and actions, I am surprised that he should have suggested this—that because an Inter-Departmental Committee has approved of these things we here in this House, and presumably those in the House of Commons, must adhere to them too. I object very strongly to that theory, and I feel so dissatisfied with the reply that we have received this afternoon that I will not withdraw my Motion.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)

Do I understand that the noble Lord is ready to agree that his Motion should be negatived by voices?

VISCOUNT EUBANK

Oh, certainly. I am not withdrawing my Motion.

On Question, Motion negatived.