HL Deb 02 June 1948 vol 156 cc78-101

2.6 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART rose to move to resolve, That this House regrets that, notwithstanding the Motion which was unanimously adopted by this House on January 22, His Majesty's Government have not yet been able to take any effective action in respect of the continued detention by the Soviet Government of Soviet-born wives of British subjects. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this may represent the last chance of happiness for a number of our fellow-beings, I trust that the House will understand my raising the question again, and also that I should speak extremely frankly. I wish to make my position clear from the start. I am hanged if I can see why we should be beaten by this combination of sadism and nationalism run mad, which is what this case really is. Moreover, it would have been quite easy for me to let the matter drop, having done what man can to suffer what man must—that is, failure. But this question is only part of a much greater and graver problem, and only firm handling at every point can prevent it from degenerating into disaster.

I will not go over the old ground again—we are all at one on the moral issue. I assume that that was shown by our debate on January 22. I will start from that. On that day, we unanimously agreed in this House to a Resolution that appropriate and effective action should be taken in this matter. I even re-drafted the Motion in the course of the debate to suit the general convenience, and in replying to the discussion I pointed out that the emphasis was on the word "effective." Nobody challenged that. What happened afterwards? Why, nothing. After a long interval the Secretary of State in another place said, in effect, that he could take no action in the matter because no action was likely to be effective. The answer to that is, clearly: "How do you know until you try?" I have the impression of walking along a river bank with a friend, and seeing a woman drowning. My friend says to me: "Do not try to rescue her—you would not be effective. The current against you is very strong." I hope to be able to demonstrate to-day that there is also a considerable current of opinion for me, for after all I am asking for nothing unreasonable. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State should expose himself to any further snubs and rebuffs from the curmudgeons of the Kremlin. No British Foreign Secretary ought to be put into that position. Mr. Bevin has quite enough on his hands already.

I may observe, parenthetically, that in the whole course of my experience I have never known any Minister for Foreign Affairs in this country, or any other country for the matter of that, who has had to put up with quite so much alien-inspired malice as he has had to bear, even from some members of his own Party. I would not willingly add to that. I would say only that in all that he has my sympathy, and indeed he has my support in most matters except this—and all the more so since this malice and venom have now been extended to the United States, with reckless and half-witted disregard for Anglo-American relations.

After that there was another silence, then the Minister of State came along and found quite a different reason for doing nothing. He said, in effect, on March 9 or 10, in another place, that it was no good trying to do anything because anything done might do more harm than good to the sufferers. Again, I find myself on the river bank; and this time my friend says to me: "Do not try to pull the woman out—you might pull her hair." I suggest that neither of these reasons for inaction is tenable. Throughout my life, I have noted that the most convincing reasons that human beings invent for themselves are those for doing nothing; I say so again to-day.

Now let us see how far this particular argument is valid. One of these unhappy wives lives a very long way from Moscow, and the senseless rigours of Soviet censorship have effectively prevented her from having any communication of any sort or kind with her husband. She is very young and very much in love: and so, in sheer despair, she came to Moscow, hoping to get into communication with him through the Embassy. But, as your Lordships probably know, in the "workers' paradise" nobody is allowed to move a foot without police permission; and she had no permit. So the Secret Police notified her that, unless she returned forthwith whence she came, she would be arrested. She then turned to our Embassy for help, but the Embassy said, "Well, you see, while we claim you for a British subject, the Russians claim you for a Russian subject. What is a poor fellow to do?" In consequence, she has been arrested; or, at any rate, she has completely disappeared for the past month. I ask your Lordships whether, if we had done something, that could possibly have produced any worse effect than doing nothing. I think the answer is an obvious negative.

In this connection, I should like to read you part of a letter from one of the wives in Moscow. Here it is: We are all very much concerned with the inactivity of the Embassy. We cannot help having the impression they would be glad to get rid of us. In this case they have not even engaged an advocate and, after all, this is vital. What has happened in this case is what will happen to us all unless action is taken. Of course, if any of us wives applied now for a divorce, much would be forgiven and much would be forgotten, but I do not think such wives will now be found amongst us. I cannot help thinking that this is rather a sorry performance. If our new officialdom is to tie itself into such knots, need the tape be quite so red?

That, I think, disposes of the case put forward in another place by the Minister of State. But I should, in fairness, quote something else that he said at the same time. I am giving his exact words because I am going to try and hold the Government to them. The Minister of State said at the same time: His Majesty's Government will continue to be concerned with this subject, and will be ready to examine any proposition offered from any part of the House, if it is equitable, reasonable and likely to be effective. I propose now to put forward several suggestions which answer to that description and to ask that that undertaking should be implemented.

While more than four flowing months have passed here without anything being done, life has not been quite so easy in the "workers' paradise." Quite apart from the case that I have just quoted to your Lordships, several more of these marriages have been broken, since I last spoke to you in this House, by Soviet pressure at the other end, while at our end also we have not been too comforting or helpful. Thus, on April 12, the Solicitor-General, speaking in another place—and I am glad it was another place—said, in effect, that though these unhappy husbands should never see their wives again, they would still be prosecuted if they ever endeavoured to re-make any family life. That is very sweet and jolly, is it not? I do not know whether hard cases make bad law, but I do know that hard cases make hard hearts. And they will have to be pretty hard if they are not at all affected by another letter I have here, written by one of these non-Russian wives to her husband. She says: I worry very much. I fear that something bad is going to happen very soon. I know it, and I am afraid of it. Every day I am afraid of being stopped in the street and arrested. They hate you, and me too. They will never forget or forgive us. They cannot do any harm to you, but they can do it easily to me. Nobody will care about me and nobody will protect me. If it goes on much longer this way, I will go mad. We are still here under their laws. If they want they can always find a reason to arrest me. They will just do it. I have never been so frightened in my life before as I am now. One of the American wives was arrested recently. People say she was a good truthful wife. Then some of the girls who have been meeting Americans have disappeared too. That is really hard reading, is it not?

I still believe that there is something to be done. Four months ago I proposed the application of the principles of parity and reciprocity. I pointed out that there are in this country—leaving aside, of course, the staffs of the Embassy and Consulate—over 100 Soviet women, and a number of Soviet children, who enjoy to the full all the amenities and facilities for family life which the Kremlin denies to our people when it can. If modern Pharaoh refuses to let the people go—and the policy did not pay his reactionary prototype—we can send upon him no Biblical plagues, no visitations of flies, locusts and "lice in all their quarters." But we can reduce the number of Soviet women and children in this country—leaving aside the Embassy and Consulate—to strict parity with the number of British women and children in Moscow. That means, in effect, that they will lose all but about ten. I firmly believe that had that principle been applied when I first suggested it, it world have been, in our own words, both appropriate and effective. Ii it is applied even now, it will still be appropriate; and I still think there is a chance of its being effective. But even if it is not—I told your Lordships at the start that I would speak frankly—what then? We should at least have reduced in some measure these greatly inflated unofficial Soviet missions in this country; and, apart from fie legitimate purposes which they fulfil, they are also notoriously used for other purposes. I do not believe that anyone in this House or in this country is naive enough to think that the Canadian case stands alone. Of course it does not. It was just an ordinary routine matter, the only difference being that there they were caught. I maintain that, in any case, we should be well advised to reduce potential fifth columns in this country, in view of the ominous international situation.

I beg your Lordships to look at the picture again. On the one hand, you still have the prospect of a victory for humanity and justice—which I hope still means something to us; on the other hand, you have the certain of an added measure of security. What more can you want? But if you do want something more, I will provide it. You would have taught a salutary and long overdue lesson to this terrible totalitarian habit, under which a weary world has groaned ever since 1933, of riding roughshod over all that millions of mortals hold dear and sacred. When a choice at once so advantageous and so righteous is rejected in favour of inaction, it is very natural, and indeed necessary, to seek the causes. The cause most frequently put forward—although I do not necessarily agree with it—is that His Majesty's Government are reluctant to quarrel with the Soviet Government on what they regard as a minor issue. I think that is an unworthy fear. But it is very prevalent, quite outside official circles, and its fullest expression is in a letter from the Bishop of Birmingham to one of the husbands who has five times besought his aid. Here is the letter:

"DEAR SIR,

The Bishop of Birmingham desires me to acknowledge your letter of November, 1947, and the enclosure which came with it. He will merely say that he earnestly desires the increase of good will between the Soviet Government and ourselves.

Yours faithfully,

N. M. V. OWEN,

Private Secretary."

That is a very interesting letter. But the interesting part of it is not on this typewritten side, which I have just read out to your Lordships; it is on the back, which to your Lordships' naked eyes appears to be blank. It is not really blank, for on it is written—perhaps in invisible ink—the sequel to one of the most famous and moving stories in our literature. Your Lordships all know the beginning of it by heart: A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves. Your Lordships will remember that they beat him up very badly, and left him half dead, and that first a Priest and then a Levite came by, had a good look at the unsightly mess and passed by on the other side. But suppose that the story does not end there. Suppose that a little later the Priest and the Levite had qualms, and that they wrote a letter to the victim in hospital. This is how it might run:

"DEAR SIR,

You may have wondered that we did not stop to help you in that unfortunate little affair the other day. We would merely observe that we earnestly desire the increase of good will between ourselves and the aggressors."

That is the fine flower of appeasement. You simply cannot appease totalitarian régimes. No matter which of the three labels they bear round their necks, they are all hostile to democracy. The proofs of that are now so abundant and so ever-whelming that I hesitate to take even a portion of your Lordships' time by quoting any of them; but merely to round off my theme, I will quote two.

I think the Stalin-Hitler correspondence between 1939 and 1941 should be compulsory reading for everybody in this country. In it you will find Stalin continually assuring Hitler that he never could or would get on with the British; and then the two expansionists fall to carving up the world in general, and the British Commonwealth in particular. Or take again the attitude of every Communazi the world over towards European recovery. Every single one of them has made it abundantly clear that they would gladly set the world alight again to roast their own pig. There are scores of passages in the works of Lenin, Marx and Stalin in which they proclaim their hostility to democracy, and perhaps particularly to social democracy. Are we going to ignore all that? Yet such ignorance leads only to the pursuit of the will-o'-the-wisp of Communazi cooperation, without the safeguard of the regard for human rights and prospects. Look at the bog into which we have been led by the first false step taken in the betrayal of Poland. There is only one safe course for democracy, and that is a firm stand on firm ground; and this case is part of that principle.

I warned the House of this on January 22. I said that this case possesses an importance far above its superficial appearance. I said that we can render no greater disservice to peace than to create the impression that we can always be flouted and trampled upon. I said that in that atmosphere greater conflicts are born. That warning has been ignored. Yet it has been amply fulfilled—as usual. We took up a brave attitude on January 22, and since then seem to have receded. Forthwith came the attempt to squeeze us out of Berlin. We met that attempt with mildness and restraint, and the squeeze extended to Vienna. We met that also with mildness and restraint; and look at the way the Soviet Government have been behaving ever since. At this present moment, they are threatening to liquidate British officers who are exercising no more than their right and duty as liaison officers at Berlin Police Headquarters.

Appeasement always leads to "one dam' thing after another." Earth has no earthly chance of settling down unless and until bullies are told that they can go too far. Believe me, in that also I am no false prophet. On this subject of appeasement, there is something further that I am bound to say, though only to discard it. The other reason which has frequently been put forward for the inaction of the Government is that they are comprehensibly both to complicate their already extremely difficult task, both at home and abroad, by further friction with the appeasers of the extreme Left. I do not accept that suggestion, because some of these extremists have gone to such lengths of servility towards their Moscow idol that it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish their words and deeds from those of ordinary Cominform propagandists. I do not for a moment accept the suggestion that His Majesty's Government are animated by any consideration for these coadjutors of cruelty. That would indeed be stroking the Trojan Horse.

If none of these reasons is the right one, what other reason is there? There must be a reason, and it must be a good one, because it has pushed the Government into a course that I cannot help regretting. I accuse no one of ill-faith—God forbid—but I do say that their unmotivated reversal of a Resolution unanimously agreed to is a most grievous disappointment. Therefore, not only on the merits of this case—its human, moral, Christian merits—but because it is in effect a test case, fraught with all the grave consequences already foretold and fulfilled, I beg the Government most earnestly to reconsider their inaction. I know that I shall be told that this is a relatively small matter. Lots of people have already said to me: "Why do you stick to it like this?" Well, my Lords, where do we stand? Do we hate tyranny and injustice, or do we not? Where does humanity begin? Does it begin with one, or with ten, or with a million? Humanity must have a figure and there is only one safe figure. If it is not one it is nought. So before the sure weapons of time and despair have done their deadly work on these poor people, in Cromwell's words: I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

This doctrine of parity is not the only proposal I have to make. There are at least three others which are deserving of your Lordships' attention. If the Soviet Government will not allow these wives to rejoin their husbands, why should not at least some of the husbands be sent to rejoin their wives? They have a good knowledge of Russian affairs, and surely some post could be found for them—or at least for some of them—there. There is another point. While we have been booted round and round the block like this, incredible as it may seem, believe it or not, millions of pounds are still leaving this country under the Aid for Russia Fund, and millions more are yet to go. Why should not the Government say that they will allow no more of that help until we receive satisfaction? Surely that is, to use the words of the Minister of State, "equitable and reasonable"? To go on with this one-sided contribution is wholly unreasonable and, I think, a little humiliating.

There is yet another thing which the Government can do, or at least consider. There has been a report—I think I saw it in the Daily Herald—that Chile—which is in the same position as we are, though the figures are much less numerous—has decided to refer this to U.N.O. Why should we also not send our case to U.N.O. or, if anybody prefers, to the Court of International Justice? Why not do that? Surely, if the Government still will not take the step that I really thought would be effective—adopt the principle of parity—here are three other points which should all be considered. I would like them to be combined, but at least let us take one of them. I want the Government to show energy, and to share my determination that we will not be beaten in this. I am in the evening of life, and often in the lengthening shadows I recognise the ghosts of wasted opportunities; but at least I have always done what I could to stand up to cruel people. I am sincerely anxious to say the same of the Government. Will they make it possible? To-day will show. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That this House regrets that, notwithstanding the Motion which was unanimously adopted by this House on January 22, His Majesty s Government have not yet been able to take any effective action in respect of the continued detention by the Soviet Government of Soviet-born wives of British subjects.—(Lord Vansittart.)

2.37 p.m.

LORD MOYNIHAN

My Lords, it would be impertinent for me to congratulate the great statesman upon the speech he has made this afternoon. All I can say is that I very much admire his Lordship's great tenacity in once more bringing before us this afternoon this vital question. I am happy to support this Resolution, although after the Resolution we had a few months ago, it is regrettable that another debate is necessary to-day. Having spoken, as I have done, to some of these husbands, I may tell your Lordships that they were much, encouraged by the Resolution which was passed in January of this year. It gave them new heart to carry on in their almost impossible position. I sincerely hope that they will not be disappointed to-day, as they were after the last debate. When your Lordships last discussed this matter you showed a very sincere hope and determination that active steps should be taken. To-day, there is that same determination, not only in this House but throughout the country, and particularly with the women of this country, who realise how miserable is the plight of these young girls in Russia who are separated from their husbands. It is a determination that immediate and active steps can be taken. Mere appeals have now proved useless. It is now necessary to show the Russians, by these active measures, that in this country at any rate, even if not in their own, marriage still has a meaning, and that we abhor the separation of man and wife as much as they apparently abhor the freedom of the individual.

So far as this country is concerned, the freedom which allows husband and wife to live together where they may is an essential part of our belief. We cannot understand a system where it is not permitted. The Russians knew this perfectly well when these people were married, yet they raised no difficulties in order to stop the marriages. They gave no indication then to show that, after the marriages, they would be viewed with displeasure; and not only that, but that the Russian authorities would work actively against any happy solution that could be found. They did that with the full knowledge of what the separation would mean for these people in this country, and now apparently they are determined that that separation shall continue. His Majesty's Government cannot suggest any satisfactory solution—and by this I do not mean merely reprisals because, in my opinion, reprisals of this kind are, quite ineffective against a totalitarian State. I strongly support the noble Lord's suggestion that some, at least, of these men should be allowed to go to the Embassy in Moscow. I think they would go there in any capacity whatsoever, and if necessary in a far more menial position than they would accept in this country—provided, of course, that they kept their British nationality.

But that is the weak way. The strong way is for His Majesty's Government to take action which would result in the liberation of the wives. In any case, I do not believe that weakness is a good policy, particularly against the Russians. They do not seem to understand the delicacy with which this Government have tried to deal with the subject. They seem to think, because of the way we have acted, that we are not unduly perturbed about the position. I think we have a very serious task: the task of seeing that immediate action is taken by this Government, a task that affects many hundreds of thousands of people in this country. We have a great opportunity, and I sincerely hope that the Government will not let these husbands down.

2.42 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

My Lords, I wish to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in the briefest terms. Nobody who has received, as I have, many letters from these British subjects can fail to be moved by the plight of these men and of their wives, and by their loyal and strong determination to maintain the marriage bond at all costs. This is a dishonour to the marriage bond that the State ought not to tolerate, whatever the nationality of the man or woman lawfully united in marriage. Words have proved vain; appeasement is futile; action is called for. The nature of that action has been indicated in various forms by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion; the precise form that action should take is a matter which the Government must undoubtedly decide. But in my opinion it is impossible for the country, as well as for the husbands themselves, or for any Christian men and women, to be content with no action, or a simple "No" coming from the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State in another place.

I would reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has said. It is a question not only of mercy, but of justice. The battle of Europe is being fought in Berlin. It is also being fought, from a Christian point of view, in the case of these Russian-born wives; and I earnestly appeal to the Government to act.

2.45 p.m.

LORD CROMWELL

My Lords, speaking from the Conservative Benches in support of this Motion, I should like to make it quite clear to His Majesty's Government that I do this not in any Party spirit, but in order that the Government may demonstrate to the outside world, and to Russia in particular, that we mean what we say. The debate may help to strengthen our Ministers responsible for dealing with this very difficult subject. I may add that on this occasion I speak as a representative of the British Legion, being its national Treasurer. The British Legion is well known to every one of your Lordships as a non-Party organisation. It is in fact the only national body which looks after the interests of ex-Service men and women, whether they be members of the organisation or not.

I appreciate—as, no doubt, do all noble Lords here to-day—that it takes two to make a bargain; that having made a bargain, it is important that both sides should be assured that each means the same thing, in the terms laid down in that bargain; and, what is even more important, if there is a quid pro quo—which there must be in all bargains—that the other side intends honourably to keep to its undertakings. Having said that, may I urge upon His Majesty's Government not to take "No" too easily. As one knows, "No" seems to be Russia's only answer to every question. May I, however, stress this point? If His Majesty's Government think they have done all they can to assist in getting these wives back to England, will they not make quite clear to everyone concerned what they have done? As is well known, it is equally important to appear to do justice as to do justice. The individuals concerned naturally find it difficult to appreciate the finer diplomatic points which arise between one nation and another; they do not understand any complications which may arise in the matter of national dignity and all the rest of it.

I know your Lordships do not welcome personal reminiscences but perhaps I may be allowed to say, speaking as one of the many prisoners of war who were badly wounded and came under the category of a grand blessé, and therefore eligible to be repatriated to this country in 1941, that the action of the Government of the day contributed to the spending by that section of our community of two extra years in Germany. I am not concerned with what Party was responsible for that. But I do saw that those of us who were in Germany, and unable to get the news and to appreciate these niceties of diplomatic exchanges, did feel we were retained there for the extra two years because of the failure to appreciate the difference between principle and pride. If the British Government then had accepted the head-for-head exchange upon which the Germans insisted, they would have saved a great deal of the suffering which was inflicted upon those who were very badly wounded, having lost two, three or four limbs in some cases, and who were being kept under conditions very much worse than those of the German prisoners of war over here. In the end, having argued for two years, we had to give way to the Germany insistence that the exchange was made on a head-for-head basis. And that was the end of the story. Cannot we adopt the principle which is suggested here today? I know, because I have a knowledge of the Minister who intends to reply, that we shall receive a very sympathetic reply; but I hope that when the noble Lord reports this debate to the Cabinet sympathy will be turned into action. Before I sit down, may I take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord on replying to a debate for the first time as Minister of Civil Aviation? I would urge the noble Lord to use those wings which I can already see sprouting from his shoulders to hurry and ensure that these Russian-born British wives are united with their husbands in this country.

2.52 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I rise merely to say, quite briefly but most sincerely, how deeply I sympathise with the views that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and those who have supported him, as to the intolerable treatment that has been meted out by the Soviet Government to the husbands of these Soviet wives and to the wives themselves. We owe the noble Lord a very real debt for raising this matter again. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, said that this was no minor issue. I would agree with him. It is indeed one of the most monstrous examples, of limited tyranny that I can recall during my parliamentary life. Moreover, it is one that directly affects the rights and principles of British citizens. We shall hear more about this in a moment, but I understand that it is the view of the Government that they have taken all steps that it is practicable for them to take to obtain justice for these people. Of course, only the Government can judge what they think is practicable, though I cannot but feel that a firmer attitude in the first place might well have produced rather better results.

The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has pointed out to-day that upon the last occasion, the Government did actually agree that they would take whatever action might be most effective. I do not know what they have done. I am looking forward with a lively expectation, as I expect are most of your Lordships, to what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has to tell us on this subject. At present, I have seen no evidence of any action, either effective or otherwise, since we last discussed this question. I do not know—he did not say so in his speech—whether the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, will in the circumstances think that he is likely to achieve the object which we all have in view by dividing the House on this occasion. The noble Lord did not tell us. I expect that it is in his mind, as it is in the minds of all of us, that it depends upon what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is to say to us. If the noble Lord gives us an assurance that the Government will consider Lord Vansittart's new proposals for action, and not only consider them but consider them with a very real desire to do something practical, then the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, may wish to give the Government the opportunity of so doing. But if the noble Lord decides to divide the House, I personally shall support him, not only as an indication of the indignation which most of us feel about the inhuman treatment of these unhappy people by the Soviet authorities but also as an indication to the Government that we in this House, at least, are willing to do what we can to protect the rights and interests of British citizens in foreign lands throughout the world.

2.56 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM)

My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his all too generous references to my position. I would proceed at once to say on behalf of the Government that we are in entire agreement with the general feeling of the House in relation to this most unhappy matter. I am not quite sure what the noble Marquess who spoke just now with his usual great effect had in mind when he said that we might have acted more firmly at an earlier stage, because, as he is well aware, representations have been made repeatedly from very early days. I do not know that I need take your Lordships through all the approaches that were made and which I described on the last occasion. There were eighteen approaches to the Russian Government, and I think that the House is aware, from the discussion on that occasion, that we have lost no opportunity of informing the Russians in very clear terms of the most unfavourable impression which their attitude has created in this country.

The question has occupied a considerable amount of time, both in this House and in another place. The Press and the general public have taken the keenest and most proper interest in it. I myself have no doubt whatever that the Russians are fully aware of the strong feeling of indignation that there is in this country because of the treatment of these unfortunate husbands and wives. However, lest there be any doubt of any kind remaining in any quarter, I should like to repeat once again in the clearest possible terms that His Majesty's Government deeply deplore the attitude of the Soviet Government in the whole matter. We regard their attitude as quite indefensible by any standard of civilisation or by any principle of common humanity. Having given clear evidence that I share the indignation which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has so forcibly expressed, I must take leave to explain to the noble Lord, if I can do so, why it is that his speech jarred on many of us who sit on these Benches. I pass over the allegation made about certain members of my own Party because I do not regard this as a Party issue. I think that on reflection the noble Lord would probably be glad to leave it at that.

LORD VANSITTART

I have already said that I do not believe that. I merely informed the noble Lord that the allegation is sometimes made, but I expressly said that I did not share it myself.

LORD PAKENHAM

I understood the noble Lord to say that certain members of the Labour Party were inspired by aliens with unpatriotic malice.

LORD VANSITTART

I am afraid we are speaking of different things.

LORD PAKENHAM

That is what I am referring to.

LORD VANSITTART

I said that I did not believe that the Government, in not acting in this matter were in any way inspired with a desire to consult any of the extreme appeasers. I maintain every word I said in regard to that fact. I can give many chapters and many verses for the opposition that has been manifested towards the Secretary of State, and I have expressed my indignation about it. I should have thought that the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench would have been rather pleased with my remark. I am sorry that he has taken it amiss.

LORD PAKENHAM

The noble Lord can hardly be speaking seriously, because he knows perfectly well that it was an allegation about the Labour Party, which was quite out of place in this debate and quite unfounded.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO, No.

LORD PAKENHAM

I said that it was out of place in a debate of this kind, quite unfounded and rightly resented on these Benches. That is my opinion. The noble Lord likes frank speaking and he must accept a little frank speaking in turn. The noble Lord also announced that, without making any charge of bad faith—as a preface to an imputation it is not very far removed from the same thing—he regretted this motivated reversal of a unanimous resolution. I suppose the word "motivated" does not impute——

LORD VANSITTART

I precisely said "unmotivated." We have never had any explanation, and I think "unmotivated" is a very legitimate epithet, which was certainly intended in no offensive way. And when I said I imputed no bad faith to anyone, I meant every single word of it.

LORD PAKENHAM

I apologise for my faulty hearing but I still repudiate the suggestion that there has been any reversal, motivated or unmotivated, of a unanimous Resolution. In fact, I am afraid the noble Lord's allegation on that point is what I would now call a motivated reversal of what in fact has occurred, and I make no charge of ill-feeling against the noble Lord in saying that. The noble Lord is perfectly well aware that on the last occasion of this debate I was able to hold out no hope, but I promised him that I would look very carefully into the suggestions that he made. It may be that I struck too optimistic a note at the end of that debate. If so, I express regret, and I will not make the same mistake again. I almost invariably make mistakes but very seldom make exactly the same mistake twice within a short space of time, and I do not intend to-day to hold out anything which might afterwards be regarded as a hope, and about which the noble Lord would say the Government have disappointed him. I am afraid that I must issue a fair warning to these unfortunate husbands that their chances of seeing their wives are very slender. I must in fairness (because, like other noble Lords, I would rather see the Government beaten in a Division than raise any suspicion of misleading the House) say that the chances of these husbands seeing their wives are very slight indeed. I deplore that very much and I feel just as strongly about it as any noble Lord in this House, but it is only right that they should know of that fact so that there should be no possible misunderstanding again, if there was a misunderstanding on the last occasion.

The noble Lord asked what has been done in the meanwhile since our last debate. Since the matter was last discussed by your Lordships, Sir Maurice Peterson, our Ambassador in Moscow, has again taken up the matter. On April 20 he raised it both personally in a conversation with Mr. Vishinsky and in the form of an official note to the Soviet Government. The conversation, through no fault of Sir Maurice, was most unhelpful and the reply to the note was completely negative. The Russians do not regard these wives as British nationals and they insist on regarding them as their own. As the noble Lord is aware, they have also shown a tendency lately to indulge in a campaign of petty humiliation and discouragement. Two or three of the wives have been hauled up for interrogation and one of them has been ordered to go back to her home in Archangel and has been arrested, it seems, for an alleged attempt to elude that fate. Our Embassy in Moscow have been authorised to provide legal assistance if necessary. I think the noble Lord was in some doubt over that point. Over here the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given careful study to the legal position of the husbands whose marriages have been ruined by the attitude of the Soviet authorities, and who may feel obliged to seek a dissolution. I will not attempt to take the House through all the difficulties to-day but that matter is being studied. I do not want to raise any hopes whatever and I would again rather strike a pessimistic note than an optimistic note.

The Government have also studied and will continue to study every possible action that might be taken on behalf of these unfortunate people, including the proposals put forward by the noble Lord. He was good enough to mention three new proposals to me this morning, and therefore I have been able to obtain some kind of preliminary reaction, but in the circumstances I would rather inform the noble Lord that I have not studied them sufficiently to pronounce a final opinion upon them. With regard to two of his proposals, though, I am bound once again to speak in discouraging terms, although I have not had very long to consider them—nor, indeed, have the Foreign Office. One of them was brought to me a day or two earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. That was the suggestion that some at least of the husbands should be allowed to go back to Russia and to their wives. It would apparently be impossible for them to go back unless they went back to the Embassy, and in fact it seems out of the question at the moment to find them any suitable work at the Embassy. There are various security issues involved which I will not trouble the House with, but which will readily occur to most members. If pressed, I will certainly go into them, but I really do not think that on reflection, most noble Lords would consider the proposal one which it is very easy or indeed practical to carry out. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, also suggested that the money going to Russia under the Aid to Russia Fund should be stopped. I have not been able to ascertain whether his figures are correct. He said that millions of pounds had gone and more was to go. I cannot check those figures——

LORD VANSITTART

My information, for which I cannot vouch, is that there is something like £3,500,000 still to go. I believe it is something of that nature, but I would not swear to it.

LORD PAKENHAM

I repeat, I have not had long enough time to look into that proposal, but I am bound to say that the first reactions I have obtained are unfavourable. The money has been collected on a certain understanding. It is collected for a Fund, the Committee of which is presided over by a private lady of the highest repute, and I think it might be regarded as quite intolerable interference by our Government with private citizens if we interfere with the money going there.

Several NOBLE LORDS: Oh, Oh!

LORD PAKENHAM

I will convey the feelings of noble Lords opposite, but I am bound to tell the noble Lord that, when first studied, the proposal did not appeal at all to the Government.

A NOBLE LORD: It is Red Cross money.

LORD PAKENHAM

Perhaps the noble Lord will discuss it with me afterwards and study what I said in Hansard; but I am bound to say that at first sight it does not appeal to us. It appears to us to interfere in private individuals' affairs here in a way which we do not do, but of which we are occasionally accused by some noble Lords. The Secretary of State has also studied a number of other suggestions, including, of course, the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, made last time, that we should expel a given number of Russian wives from this country. The noble Lord calls that reciprocity. He makes great play of that. I do not want to quibble over that word, but it does not seem like reciprocity to me. It is not the same thing. The same thing would be detaining over here the British-born wives of Soviet nationals.

LORD VANSITTART

I would prefer the word "parity." I did use both.

LORD PAKENHAM

I do not want to bandy words because the matter is far too serious. I do not think, even if it is called reciprocity or parity, or it is decided that it is neither reciprocity nor parity, that the issue is very much affected. I have talked to a great number of noble Lords since the last debate, and there is no doubt of the great feeling in this House; but I have not found a single member outside the Chamber of this House who has supported the particular proposal that the noble Lord made last time as likely to produce a result. That, at any rate, has been my experience. It may not be universal, but I shall be very much surprised if any noble Lord here rises in his place to say that he believes that it is likely that the proposal to expel a similar number of Russian wives would affect Stalin in the way suggested. It might, of course, express our indignation, but I do not think that anyone believes that Stalin would feel in any way inconvenienced by the removal of these wives and by the sending of them back to Russia. I do not believe that Stalin would feel inconvenienced to such an extent that his whole policy would be affected by reason of loss of face—

LORD GIFFORD

Since the noble Lord issues that challenge, I would like to say that I, for one, do feel that if this proposal were carried into effect it would be likely to have some effect on Stalin.

LORD PAKENHAM

I know that the noble Lord is most objective. In view of his intervention I will correct what I was going to say, and say that of about twenty-one people to whom I have spoken, twenty believed that the proposal would be likely to be ineffective.

LORD SCHUSTER

Let me add my word in support of the proposal. I, too, think it might have some effect.

LORD CROMWELL

I am not one who would support the particular action to which Lord Pakenham has just alluded, but I rather thought that Lord Vansittart had in mind some Russian officials other than Embassy officials—possibly members of some economic misson, or something of that sort. I would certainly support action in regard to that.

LORD PAKENHAM

The proposal made by Lord Vansittart last time and, as I understood, made to-day, was that wives should be expelled. I have no reason to suppose that the Russians particularly like having these wives here and that they would be greatly inconvenienced by our sending them back. In view of the interventions of the three noble Lords who have just spoken, I see that the proportion now apparently must be revised. It would seem to be twenty against the proposal and at least three in favour. Clearly in my inquiries I have not taken what is called a representative sample

There are various other forms of unilateral retaliation—for that is what it comes to—which can be suggested. The trouble about that, in dialing with a very powerful country like Russia, is that if the unilateral retaliation is small it will not influence the Russian Government on a point over which they have dug their heels in. If, however, the retaliation were on a large scale, that would mean that we should be running very close to the brink. If any noble Lord will suggest some measure, other than those which have already been put forward, which seems large enough to be likely to bring about the effect which we desire without the risk of causing a world-wide conflagration, we will certainly consider it. There is no question of our shutting the door after this debate. If any suggestions are put forward at any time we will consider them. The Secretary of State has received the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and they had, I believe, an amicable discussion about these matters. We on these Benches are always ready to discuss this issue, but, as I have indicated, so far nothing has emerged from our discussions which seems likely to produce the result we desire.

There is, of course, the suggestion of international action. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, had that in mind at one time. He suggested the possibility of a concerted approach. I do not rule out the possibility of a concerted approach being effective in the future, but I am bound to say that our efforts in that direction have not met with any successful result hitherto. Therefore, again, I think it is necessary to be extremely pessimistic in this connection. There remains approach through the United Nations. The noble Lord has only just made his suggestion in that connection and we have not had time to study his proposal in all its implications. We will look into that with all possible care and discuss it with him in all its aspects. I am bound to inform the House, however, that we have already looked into various forms of approach to the United Nations and have felt bound to reject them as leading nowhere. The most likely possibility would seem to occur under the Bill of Rights which is being drafted; but whereas Article 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man would secure for the individual the right to leave his country, the Soviet version puts forward a supplementary phrase reading as follows: Individuals have the right to leave their country in accordance with the laws of their respective countries. That of course would nullify the effect of any progress under the Article, and so we should not be likely to get very far.

Even if we could find a suitable approach, focus attention and canvass opinion upon this matter, we should still be a long way from getting these wives back. Undoubtedly, tremendous indignation and a great feeling of frustration exists upon this matter. We share those feelings fully. But we have looked into this matter from every possible angle and we repudiate any suggestion that we do not care as much about these wives as anyone in this House or in the country. But I should be deceiving the House very seriously if, in saying that we will consider further proposals, I gave the impression that we feel there is much likelihood of further proposals producing the result which we all have at heart. Therefore, I am bound to repeat that I shall be extremely sorry if the noble Lord, who has such a great record as a public servant, presses his Motion to a Division. I do not think that it will serve the purpose which he has at heart. If he wishes to express his indignation he can easily find a formula for doing so without appearing to censure the Government. If he insists on pressing this Motion, which clearly casts a reflection on the Government—well, I was almost saying something unparliamentary. But if he feels that way, let us see what ultimately comes of it.

3.17 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART

My Lords, may I begin by thanking very warmly, and from the bottom of my heart, those who have been good enough to support me in what has so long appeared to be a lost cause. I still hope that the cause has not been thoroughly lost, and I am deeply grateful to those noble Lords for what they have done to-day. I am also most regretful that some of my remarks should have caused some noble Lords on my left to take umbrage. All I was intending to say was something which I have said at least twice before in this House without giving offence—that is, that I have been a more loyal supporter of Mr. Bevin's foreign policy than some of his own nominal supporters. All I was trying to say to-day was that I continued to support it in everything except this. No doubt I expressed it undiplomatically. Obviously, I have been extremely badly trained in diplomacy, because I have never played any of those guessing games at Stoke D'Abernon. I hope that what I have said will mollify noble Lords on my left. If it does not—well I am an Independent, and it is just too bad.

I find myself now in a real quandary. I need hardly tell your Lordships that I did not come here to-day just to make a speech. This is a matter which I have very greatly at heart, and I am deeply grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition for his promise to support me if we go to a Division. I say quite frankly that when I came here that was my intention. But, of course, also, the last thing I desire to do is to embarrass—for any personal end—the Government in the course of their conduct of their foreign policy and merely to score a barren triumph in this House—because I believe that the majority of your Lordships would support this Resolution on a Division. I do not want that kind of success. I want to try to get these wives and husbands together again. While listening to the noble Lord who has just spoken, I have been thinking, and I am inclined now to the conclusion that a Division would rather close the question. I do not want to do that. I still believe that there is a fighting chance, for I am not quite such a pessimist as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham.

I have put forward a number of different suggestions. He has not vetoed any of them, as far as I can understand. He tells us that he will at least look into them. More especially—if I do not misinterpret him—he has undertaken to consider seriously a reference of this whole matter to the United Nations. I hope that he will not exclude my other suggestions either from the purview of his thoughts. I must say that I attach some importance to the matter of the Aid to Russia Fund. I appreciate the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has alluded, but I should have thought that it would be possible to notify subscribers that their subscriptions would not be transmitted at the present time until we get some satisfaction on this particular issue, and that at present further subscriptions could not be received. At present it is an entirely one-sided affair. It is all "give" on our side, and all "take" on the Russian side. And that really is monstrous in the long run. On mature reflection, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing I can do in the interest of these wives and husbands, which is what really matters to me and nothing else, is to hold my hand now and wait to see what progress is made in the investigation undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham.

I would like to say this, however, in order to make my position perfectly clear, because I said at the beginning that I would be perfectly frank. I give notice that if in the meanwhile any further unnecessary concessions are made to the Soviet Government in any matter, great or small, without our receiving satisfaction in this matter, I shall reserve the liberty to return to the charge, even at the risk of trespassing on your Lordships' patience further than I have done to-day. With that, and with my renewed thanks to those who have spoken to-day and for the great patience with which the House has listened, in spite of the unintentional offence I gave upon my left, which I again regret, I beg leave for the time being to withdraw my Motion. I hope that the Government will communicate with me about their progress in investigating the practical suggestions that I have made, even if they will not accept my original one.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.