HL Deb 26 April 1949 vol 162 cc36-42

4.46 p.m.

Debate resumed.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, we on these Benches would also wish to express our extreme admiration for the valour and fortitude shown by the officers and men of the four ships of His Majesty's Navy which have recently been engaged in these troubles on the Yangtse. We would also wish to express our deepest sympathy with the relatives of those who have fallen, doing their duty, as the Navy always does. I very much hope that we shall not have a debate on this subject this afternoon; I do not think we have sufficient information. I do not wish to enter into controversy with the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, although there are some things he said which I cannot possibly accept. To-day I would like to confine myself to two questions which I think are legitimate. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will not think I am entering into a debate. The noble Viscount the First Lord in his statement said that in the light of certain known facts a decision was made for the "Amethyst" to sail. I would like to ask him by whom that decision was taken. I think that is a legitimate point to make. The noble Viscount said that, in his view, the decision was a correct one. I do not think we are in a position to-day to judge whether it was correct or not. It is for that purpose that I would ask him whether he will not consent to publish a short White Paper giving the exchange of views and information between what I may call the regional authorities—namely, His Majesty's Ambassador and the Commander-in-Chief of the Station—and His Majesty's Government, so that we can arrive at our own conclusion as to where the ultimate responsibility lies. Having obtained that information, we could then proceed to hold a full debate.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I could not agree more with what has just fallen from the lips of the noble Earl. The whole of this procedure is grossly disorderly. The statement made by my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is subject to questions, like any other Parliamentary statement, but we have embarked on what are really the beginnings of a full-dress debate. I thought the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was not only out of order but thoroughly mischievous. I want to say that as plainly as I can. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, we are not in possession of the whole facts my noble friend the First Lord is not in possession of the whole facts; nobody can be. It is a most confused and delicate situation out there. At least, we should have reserved judgment until we had the whole facts before us.

I do want to say this, however, disorderly though I may be. Our warships have been sailing the Yangtse Kiang for generations. I have myself sailed through Chunking on more than one occasion. Our warships have flown the White Ensign on the Yangtse Kiang for the preservation of order and the succour of our nationals in need for over fifty years. It is perfectly true that, by recent arrange-merits, we always notify the appropriate authorities when our ships are sailing up there. This apparently was done, and H.M.S. "Amethyst" had every right to proceed to Nanking, and every right to come back again when she had done her work, as had the other warships. This act of firing upon His Majesty's ships was either a confusion or a mistake—as I hope was the case, because they may have thought she was a Nationalist warship flying other colours which is always possible in war—or it was deliberate. If it was deliberate, a most serious situation arises. We cannot afford to have our Flag affronted and our seamen murdered in this way, especially in Asia, without taking the most serious notice of it and doing our utmost to obtain redress, which I am confident His Majesty's Government will do.

In those circumstances, this is not the time for sniping at His Majesty's Government, as the acting Leader of the Opposition has done to-day, and asking stupid questions, if he will allow me to say so, about air cover. If he knows the merest facts about the situation, he knows perfectly well that air cover is not only not available—

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Why not?

LORD STRABOLGI

Is it suggested that we should send a punitive expedition up the river? That is what it amounts to.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My suggestion was that as we knew that this situation was likely to develop three months ago, we ought to have had aircraft in support.

LORD STRABOLGI

That, indeed, is a case of being wise after the event! The strength of the "Amethyst's" position was that she was proceeding legitimately on her proper occasions on a peaceful mission, and to have sent air cover would have been provocative and asking for trouble. Naturally, one side or the other might suppose that it was a hostile expedition aiding their enemies. We would have put ourselves out of court at once. The whole idea is utterly fantastic. This is a part of the river where the banks narrow and which has always been known as highly dangerous. We had a similar decision to take nearly fifty years ago at the time of the Boxer Rebellion. We did not know the attitude of the Imperial troops and Government up river, but we had to send warships to protect our people at Nanking and Hankow, and we sent them up at the risk of being fired upon. I was on the station at the time, and I remember the difficult decisions which had to be taken. The ships were not fired upon, and they carried out their mission. They undoubtedly saved a great deal of suffering by their presence. No doubt if the "Amethyst" had got through she would have saved a great deal of the confusion and trouble which has since taken place at Nanking with the fall of the city.

In view of the most intricate situation that has arisen on the Yangtse Kiang, with a recognised Government on the one bank and an unrecognised Government on the other, with whom we have, with the best will in the world, been unable to reach an understanding, His Majesty's Government desires a little support and sympathy, and I had hoped to hear a little more support and sympathy also for the Flag Officer on the Station. He had to make difficult decisions, and I prefer to trust his judgment rather than what I believe are the unpremeditated criticisms of the noble Viscount. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, we must of course await the full facts; but, whatever comes of this, there has been a grievous loss of life. We all sympathise with the relatives of the officers and men who have suffered. The Navy has carried out its very ancient and honourable traditions in this matter and deserves every support. Whatever happens in the end, we must demand full redress for this outrage—for there is no other word to describe it—for the insult to our Flag and to our warships.

4.55 p.m.

EARL BEATTY

My Lords, I do not wish to say anything at any great length, but I should like to ask the First Lord one question. In view of the fact that one of the greatest lessons of the war was that a fleet, to be effective, had to be a composite fleet—which includes aircraft carriers as well as cruisers and destroyers—when was the decision made that an aircraft carrier should be withdrawn from what is quite an important fleet, the Far Eastern Fleet, and why was that decision ever taken? Does the noble Viscount not consider that, if an aircraft carrier had been on the spot, it might have been easier to extricate the "Amethyst" from the position she was in? It is all very well for the noble Lord to say it would be punitive to do it, but we did send some ships to attempt to rescue them, and if we had had aircraft I feel that the task could have been accomplished more easily than by placing our ships in that dangerous position. If the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, agrees with that assumption, why are we not now taking steps to send an aircraft carrier out there, in case any future incident should arise, perhaps around Hong Kong? Let us try to look ahead and get an aircraft carrier there, rather than send a cruiser, which I understand from the Press is being sent to reinforce the Fleet.

4.57 p.m.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, as there is no Motion before the House, I must ask leave of your Lordships to reply to some of the questions which have been put, although I am not going to follow the very bad example of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in debating this matter. Indeed, a debate on the statement was never visualised, and it would be entirely at variance with whatever Standing Orders there may be, or, if not Standing Orders, with the tradition of the House. Indeed, the noble Viscount himself in his opening remarks said that we must have a debate at a later stage. He then went on to initiate a debate. I am not going to be drawn, but I would like to reply to some of the questions which he has put. In the first place, he mentioned in his speech that the statement did not contain any policy of His Majesty's Government, only the policy of the Minister of Defence and the First Lord of the Admiralty.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

With great respect, may I say that if the noble Viscount reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will find that I said the statement contains what was done by the Flag Officer on the spot, but no statement of what was the policy of His Majesty's Government, the Minister of Defence or the First Lord of the Admiralty.

VISCOUNT HALL

That makes little difference to what I am going to say, because it is evident that the noble Viscount did not read even the second paragraph of my statement. Indeed, he could not have listened very attentively to what I said. In the statement I said—and the House will pardon my quoting it again— In view of the considerable British interests in China and of the presence of large British communities, His Majesty's Government decided some months ago that His Majesty's Ambassador and His Majesty's consular officers in China should remain at their posts, and this was announced by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place on December 9. We were not alone in the decision.… That was the policy which was laid down by His Majesty's Government: that even if Nanking were taken by the Communists, His Majesty's Ambassador should remain, as he is remaining, and that the consular officers should also remain where they have been, and still are, in parts of the territory which have been taken by the Communists. One would imagine from the speech of the noble Viscount that we were at war with the Communists in China. We are not at war with them.

In reply to the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, I would say that had "Amethyst" reached Nanking she would have been there to relieve the "Consort" and would have stayed at Nanking. That was the policy of His Majesty's Government. In reply to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as to who took the decision to which I referred in my statement, I may say that consultations were held between His Majesty's Ambassador at Nanking and the Flag Officer Second in Command, and their decision was based upon the policy of His Majesty's Government, and upon instructions that ships were to proceed, as they had been proceeding from Shanghai to Nanking during this difficult period without being molested. As one noble Lord rightly said, we have not the whole of the facts before us. There are certain facts that have been brought to our notice today, concerning which further investigation will have to take place. We ought not to make things more difficult than they are at the present time, when the interests of thousands of British people still in China have to be considered. These people, or a large number of them, are in places which are under the control of the Communist Government; and speeches such as that made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, are liable to make the position of these people more difficult than it is at present.

THE EARL OF PERTH

I hope the noble Viscount does not think that I have been guilty of that.

VISCOUNT HALL

No, I should like to express appreciation of the most helpful remarks of the noble Earl, made as they are out of experience and knowledge which he has of situations perhaps not always as difficult as this but still difficult. We appreciate the noble Earl's wise counsel. The situation in China is at present most fluid and as I mentioned in the course of my statement, this matter will be the occasion of a debate if necessary; but at the present Lime sufficient facts are not in the hands of His Majesty's Government.

I wish to conclude by expressing deepest sympathy with the families and relatives of the men who have lost their lives, and with the wounded and their relatives. I wish also to acknowledge the helpful remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and to thank them for not making a difficult situation more difficult than it is at present.