§ 3.56 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I think it may be convenient, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, if I intervene now to read to the House the statement which the Prime Minister has made this afternoon in another place. It is in these words:
"On the afternoon of May 9 the French Ambassador informed the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the French Government had prepared a proposal for the pooling of the French, German and other European coal and steel production and that a public statement would be issued by the French Government on this subject in the course of the day.
His Majesty's Government appreciate that there were good reasons for seeking to achieve the greatest possible impact for this new departure in Franco-German relations, and the method was justified by the enthusiastic welcome which the statement received on the German side.
586 It is not my intention on this occasion to give a detailed account of the exchanges of view which subsequently took place between His Majesty's Government and the French Government. His Majesty's Government have thought it appropriate, in view of the high importance of the matter, to publish the relevant documents without delay. The agreement of the French Government has been obtained and a White Paper is being laid before the House to-day. I only wish now to make one or two comments.
It became perfectly clear in the course of informal discussions between. M. Monnet, the Chief Planning Officer of the French Government, and British officials that while the French Government had not worked out how their proposal would be applied in practice, their views on the procedure for negotiations were definite. They were that Governments should accept at the outset the principles of the pooling of resources and of a high authority whose decisions would be binding on Governments, and the next step should be the conclusion of a treaty in which these principles would be embodied. Shortly thereafter the French Government secured the agreement of the German Government to the proposed basis on which the negotiations should proceed. This fact naturally determined the, course of the subsequent exchanges of view between the two Governments and made difficult the achievement of His Majesty's Government's desire to play an active part in the discussion of the French proposal, but without commitment to the acceptance of its principles in advance. His Majesty's Government fully appreciate the reasons for the procedure adopted by the French Government, and this has not affected in any way His Majesty's Government's attitude of approval and support for the French initiative.
The consequences, as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, were stated in the communiqué which they issued on June 3 and from which I quote the following passage:
`His Majesty's Government do not feel able to accept in advance, nor do they wish to reject in advance, the 'principles underlying the French proposal.They consider that a detailed discussion, which would throw light in the nature of 587 the scheme and its full political and economic consequences, is a normal and, indeed, essential preliminary to the con-elusion of a Treaty. They feel that there is a substantial difference of approach between the two Governments as to the basis on which the negotiations should be opened. An unhappy situation would arise if, having bound themselves to certain principles without knowing how they would work out in practice, they were to find themselves, as a result of the discussion, compelled to withdraw from their undertakings. They have accordingly, to their regret, found it impossible, in view of their responsibility to Parliament and people, to associate themselves with the negotiations on the terms proposed by the French Government.'The position is, therefore, clear. His Majesty's Government will be kept regularly informed of the course of the negotiations which will open on June 20 between the French, German and other Governments. They themselves had initiated studies of the French proposal immediately it was put forward and these studies will continue. But there is no question of putting forward any alternative British proposal at the present time. It would not be right to take any step which might be regarded as a diversion or as an attempt to modify the course which the French and other Governments have decided to take. His Majesty's Government desire to help and not to hinder in this matter, and the manner in which they can best do so will only appear after the negotiations have begun. I am sure that the whole House will hope that the practical working out of the scheme will show ways by which the United Kingdom may be able to associate itself with this valuable piece of European co-operation.I conclude with two points. In its attitude to a proposal of this kind His Majesty's Government must have in mind the basic economic needs and security of the country and the necessity to ensure that the United Kingdom is in a position to discharge its responsibilities in every part of the world. Secondly the discussion of the French proposal has naturally tended to obscure from view the steady progress which is being made towards greater unity of action among the democracies in the political, strategic and economic fields. In European and other international organisations there is a continual process, supported and, indeed, 588 often led by United Kingdom representatives, by which Governments are increasingly merging their interests and restricting their individual freedom of action. Throughout the last three years a continuous effort has been made to build up and consolidate by every means the strength and solidity of the West. Now, as a result of the recent conferences in London we are, I believe, about to enter a formative and decisive phase in the organisation of the Atlantic Community. This will require, by a more effective pooling of resources, the surrender in an unprecedented degree by each country of the ability to do as it pleases. His Majesty's Government will be in the forefront of this great endeavour."
§ 4.5 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for having made that full statement to us. It would be impossible just now, and indeed inappropriate, to enter upon any discussion of the statement, but we shall, of course, have an opportunity of full discussion in the Foreign Affairs debate which is to take place in a week or so.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONIt may well be so, but I understand there is already on the Order Paper a Motion on Foreign Affairs, which is to come on very shortly, and it will probably be the earliest occasion on which it will be possible to have a debate on this subject. But I should like to make one or two immediate observations, in view of the great importance of the statement that the Leader of the House has made. As I followed it, it seemed to me that there were three points to which it is right to draw attention: first, the statement that the Government approve and support the French initiative; secondly, the emphatic desire expressed in the statement to help and not to hinder, and thirdly, the desire that the result of these discussions and negotiations should be that this country will be actively and fruitfully associated with the plan. The noble Viscount went on to say that the Government certainly would not hesitate to merge their interests or to subordinate, as we have done in the 589 Atlantic Pact, individual freedom of action. Well, I must say that the view has already been expressed that this initiative should receive a warm welcome; and certainly what has been said in the statement is, if not a particularly warm welcome, at any rate, an expression of strong willingness and desire to do all that is possible to associate this country with the plan.
But I am bound to say that it is quite extraordinary that this statement should be made to-day in both Houses of Parliament by the Prime Minister and the Leader of this House respectively, and that at the same time the extraordinary document which appeared in the Press this morning should have appeared—a document which has caused surprise and, I think I shall not go too far if I say, consternation, in France. The statement was issued by the National Executive of the Labour Party of which, I understand, the Prime Minister himself is a member. The juxtaposition of these two statements seems to me to show a most fumbling way of handling a delicate situation. I say nothing of the extraordinary comments which were made by the ebullient Dr. Dalton on the subject, and which are obviously in direct conflict with all that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister have said in their statements. It would be more appropriate to refer to this and clear up what is the real policy of the Government when we come to the debate. Perhaps it would be possible for the Leader of the House, either in his political or in his professional capacity, to advise us whether this is another case of schizophrenia in the Labour Party.
§ 4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTHMy Lords, I should like to associate myself fully with the remarks which have fallen from the acting Leader of the Opposition. It is obvious that a statement of such importance should not be discussed until we have had full time to study both it and the White Paper. As has been pointed out, we shall have an opportunity towards the end of this month to debate the whole problem and discuss the various points. I would add only this now. I cannot say that I am altogether happy about the way in which this question has been handled by the Government. Here was a very great gesture made by the French, welcomed by the Germans and 590 supported by Mr. Acheson. The Prime Minister certainly gave it a moderate blessing, but we want something more. The Government ought to show a little more enthusiasm. It is so easy to damp down feelings abroad. We really ought to stimulate, and not to put on a wet blanket. I beg the Government to realise that one thing which is essential for European unity is reconciliation between France and Germany. I am glad to note that the Government will do their utmost. I would beg of them to be as generous as they possibly can.
§ 4.12 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I venture to speak only with great diffidence on the question of the arrangement of Business, but we all have our rights in this House. I apologise for interrupting the noble Viscount the acting Leader of the Opposition, but I feel that this matter is of such tremendous importance, and on that I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken. It raises such crucial issues that it should not be interlaid and interwoven with a general Foreign Affairs debate in which all kinds of questions come up, such as the relations between Eastern and Western Europe, which are not directly concerned here, questions of the Far and Middle East, and so on. I can imagine the importance of this debate being overladen in a general foreign affairs debate. I therefore hope that those great people who organise these matters, those mighty Lords, will consider having a separate day for the consideration of the Schuman Plan.
With regard to the Plan itself, though this of course is not an occasion for a debate, I venture to point out that we have had a great deal upon which to go. There was the original Plan issued. There were all kinds of comments and exchanges of comments upon it, and the newspapers, quite rightly, have accorded great importance to this matter. There have been all kinds of official and unofficial statements on the Schuman Plan. Therefore, this most important statement made by the Leader of the House does not come to us like a bolt from the blue. We knew more or less what was coming. We have been able to study the details of this matter as they have so far been disclosed. Upon those hypotheses, I am bound to take this opportunity of saying 591 that, while I do not share one criticism that has been made and agree that there was a lack of warmth on the part of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House—for they are not given to extravagant phrases and elated utterances—we have had a hard and businesslike statement. Behind it I see an opening for further consideration and, indeed, further participation.
What I do agree upon is this—and I must stress this point made by the noble Earl: if this project can be brought to success, if by the free exchange of iron and steel, coke, ore and coal, between these great protagonists, between these hereditary enemies, you can once and for all remove the spectre of war between France and Germany which has bedevilled Europe for centuries, that result alone is equal to winning a major war. Its importance cannot be exaggerated from that aspect. Starting from that point of departure, looking at the goal and not at the obstacles in between, I believe that it is not beyond the genius of the members of the present Cabinet to safeguard British interests, to safeguard our rights, to safeguard wages and to deal with all the other difficulties which will spring up and are always exaggerated by small men, which small men I am sure do not influence my noble friend, still less the Prime Minister or his colleagues in the Cabinet.
The obstacles appear large, but the goal is enormous and golden. If we can reach it we shall have done a service to humanity, the importance of which cannot be exaggerated. I hope my noble friend will not mind my making these remarks. He and I have knowledge of the great importance of this matter to our people and to the whole of Europe. I look forward to further developments with confidence and with hope.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I thank noble Lords for what they have said. I am sure they will not expect any detailed comments from me to-day. I shall be only too happy to enter into discussions with the Parties in this House in order to establish the most convenient way of having the matter thoroughly discussed. I will not venture at this short notice to make a diagnosis, as I am invited to do.