Sitting of 29 July 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGES FROM THE KING

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Captain SNOW) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:
  I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Government of the United States of America of the Convention set out in Part I and the Protocol set out in Part II of the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (U.S.A.) Order, 1946, a Copy of which was presented on 4th July, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft in lieu of the Order in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament on 28th January.
  I will comply with your request.

BURMA (GOVERNOR'S LEAVE AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES), BURMA (BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS) AND BURMA (LEGISLATURE)
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:
I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of Burma (House of Representatives) (Amendment) Order, 1946; the Government of Burma (Governor's Leave and Travelling Allowances) Order, 1946; and the India and Burma (Burma Monetary Arrangements) (Second Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the respective Drafts laid before Parliament.
I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
HIGH WYCOMBE CORPORATION BILL
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PRIVATE BILLS
Ordered:
"That Standing Order 208, relating to Private Bills, be suspended until the Summer Adjournment."
Ordered:
"That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such amendments (if Unopposed) shall be considered on the day following the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords,"
Ordered:
"That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if Opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chair, man of Ways and Means may determine."
Ordered:
"That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  INDIA (FOOD SITUATION)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Undersecretary of State for India if he is in a position to make a general statement on the food situation in India.
  The Under-Secrctary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Gammans: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the general position regarding food is as serious as it was a few months ago, and whether he anticipates that there will be widespread famine during the coming months?
  Mr. Henderson: I said on 24th June that the food position continued to be precarious, and that remains the position today.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt aware, there is wide interest in this subject in all parts of the House, and would he consider the advisability of keeping the country informed every few weeks of the situation during the Recess? It is a most vital question.
  Mr. Henderson: I will look into that suggestion.
  Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether the circulated answer will contain anything about rice from Siam—how much was got out, and how much was got for India, and whether he alludes in it to the fact that people in South India are now beginning to die from starvation?
  Mr. Henderson: No, Sir, there is no reference in the reply to the importation of rice from Siam, but if the hon. Member puts down a Question I will give him the information.
  Following is the statement:
  Food distribution in India is still being maintained. In recent months there has been some improvement in procurement particularly in United Provinces. But stocks held by Provincial and State Governments in Southern India are low. The Government of India report that their ability to hold the situation depends on avoidance of large scale strikes or civil disorder, the continuance of internal procurement on anticipated scale with no serious additional demand on Government controlled stocks and in addition upon an increased flow of imports during the period August to October. In some deficit
  488
  districts in Bengal there was a sharp rise in the price of rice. This has been due to local apprehension based on knowledge of the seriousness of the food situation in India and the world generally and to reports that the aus rice crop in Bengal will be below normal. This crop is harvested in September and represents about one-fifth of Bengal's annual rice production. The latest information is that taken as a whole the crop should be about normal. The situation is being closely watched by the Governments of India and Bengal and in some affected areas a fall in prices has already been reported. It is too early yet to assess the effect of the current monsoon. There have been floods this month in Assam and East Bengal and some damage to crops there. But the all-India food position should not be materially affected by these local disasters. Energetic relief measures have been taken by the Government of Bengal. Inadequacy of rains in July in the Deccan areas of Bombay and Madras is causing some anxiety, but there have been some showers during the week ending 24th July. A statement of shipments of food-grains to India has been placed in the library of the House and it is proposed to bring this statement up-to-date at the beginning of each month. Shipments have been running at a higher level since April but are less than the Government of India's estimate of their requirements.

  BURMA (DR. BAW MAW)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Undersecretary of State for Burma whether Dr. Baw Maw has now been brought from Tokio to Burma; and whether it is intended to detain him indefinitely.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter at present, but hope to be able to do so shortly.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is it possible to give a little more precise answer to the latter part of the Question?
  Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. I would prefer the hon. Member to await the reply.
  Major Guy Lloyd: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman search out more Maws to be detained indefinitely?

  PASSPORTS AND VISAS
  Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if arrangements will now be made to dispense with birth certificates when making application for a passport.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Under the regulations governing the issue of passports to British-born subjects, the production of a birth certificate is a requirement with which it is not possible, in general, to dispense. The requirement may be waived in individual cases, if satisfactory alternative evidence of British nationality is produced. Time and trouble would, however, be saved if persons who are applying for passports for the first time would remember to submit their birth certificates, or, in the case of married women, their husband's birth certificate and their certificate of marriage.
  Mr. Macpherson: Having regard to the Foreign Secretary's well known views regarding the future of passports generally, will my right hon. Friend say whether or not arrangements can be made for passport offices to be content with the production of the applicant's identity card instead of birth certificate as at present?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will consider that suggestion, but I am afraid that this is a matter in which gradualness is inevitable.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the conditions at the British visa office in Paris leave much to be desired and impose unnecessary discomfort and delay on French applicants for visas; and whether he will take steps to improve the position.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware that conditions in the British Visa Office in Paris have not been satisfactory, but more staff and more accommodation have now been provided, and I have asked His Majesty's Ambassador to let me know whether any further measures are needed.
  Mr. Maclay: Is the Minister aware that similar bad conditions and delays prevail in almost every visa office belonging to Britain and other nations, and will he urge his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to call an international conference as soon as possible, to try to
  490
  minimise the appalling difficulties which passport and visa requirements put in the way of legitimate travellers of every nationality?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations have decided to propose to the Assembly that such a Conference should be called at the earliest date, and His Majesty's Government hope that it may meet in the autumn of this year
  Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to make a further statement regarding the congestion and other unsatisfactory conditions at the Passport Office, to which his attention has been called.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Considerable improvements have recently been made in the accommodation and staffing of the Passport Office in London. The Alien Visa Section has been moved to Prince's Gate; the Postal Department has, in consequence, more room for its work, and its output has greatly increased. The further imrovements which are planned require structural alterations in the buildings, and some time may, therefore, elapse before their full benefit is felt.
  Mr. Stewart: In the meantime, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that really effective steps will be taken, in view of the fact that, for example, mothers with their children go there day after day and no provision is made for them, and some of them have to stand for six or seven hours? Would not that matter be capable of improvement at once?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I think there have been very great difficulties, but I hope they will be much less in future.
  Sir Ronald Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it still takes three weeks to get an identity document to go to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adopting a system of postal communication so that people do not come up from the country and wait for hours, and then go back unsatisfied?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that postal communications are most desirable. That is why it is gratifying that the facilities for the postal department are much greater than they were.
  Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents has tried three times to get a reply from the Passport Office and cannot get one?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: There are great difficulties about staffing. We are getting more staff and I hope that soon we shall get all that we need.
  Major Haughtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to enlarge the offices and increase the staff to relieve the congestion at the London, Liverpool and Glasgow Passport Offices.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Additional accommodation has been obtained for all the Passport Offices in London, Liverpool and Glasgow. Some experienced officers . have been recalled, and other staff have been recruited. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate more detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Major Haughton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the steps so far taken seem to have brought no relief at all, and that the congestion in these three offices is really appalling, and could not some temporary measures be introduced, either postal or otherwise, to relieve the position?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As the steps have been taken, so has the holiday pressure increased; but I hope we shall be able to do more in the near future.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people are being frustrated and are losing the chance of having the holidays for which they are waiting, and will he consider distributing offices among some of the smaller towns?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will look into that matter.
  Sir R. Ross: Can the Minister say what is the average time it takes? I believe it is three weeks or a month.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I think it varies greatly from case to case.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Organisation and Methods Department of the Treasury to look into this problem in order that some recommendations may
  492
  be made on office machinery and planning?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course, we are in touch with the Treasury about staff.
  Following is the information:
  Accommodation in London has been improved by the acquisition of temporary premises at 28, Princes Gate, to which the section of the Passport Office dealing with foreign nationals has been moved. Efforts are being made to secure the rooms in the present Passport Office occupied by the Military Permit Office and a section of the Paymaster General's staff, and the Minister of Works is being pressed to effect some structural alterations which will considerably improve the facilities for callers. As regards the staff, some experienced officers are being recalled and more temporary staff have been recruited. The premises at Liverpool are unsuitable and overcrowded, but after persistent efforts additional accommodation has been obtained near the present offices, and will be occupied within the next few days. In addition, negotiations are well advanced for securing a permanent office in some premises well situated and with ample room for expansion. Sufficient staff has been recruited and when the additional accommodation has been occupied the output will be considerably increased. Additional temporary accommodation has been secured and occupied, and efforts are being made to obtain suitable premises for a permanent office.

  INTERNMENT CAMPS (INSPECTION)
  Mr. Michael Astorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent disclosures about conditions in certain prisoner-of-war and civilian internment camps, the British Government will arrange for the regular inspection of all camps in all Allied territories by the International Red Cross, or some other international body.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to the hon. Member, the International Red Cross have themselves proposed to limit their visits to camps in the United Kingdom to cases where requests are made by the British authorities, by the camp leaders, or by the prisoners of war through the medium of their camp leaders. As I

  493
  am sure the hon. Member will understand, inquiries into camps on Allied territory are a matter for direct arrangement between the International Red Cross and the Governments of the Allied nations concerned.
  Mr. Astor: Will His Majesty's Government give a lead in this respect, in view of the fact that the Peace Conference is starting, and matters of this kind will come up for review? Would the right hon. Gentleman instigate a regular, routine inquiry to include all nations?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: His Majesty's Government give every possible facility to the Red Cross, for which they ask, and I feel sure that the International Red Cross Committee are not backward in making demands if they think there is a case for inquiry.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in this matter, in which the good name of this country is at stake in some degree, some further investigation or statement might be helpful?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have said that we have never refused, and will never refuse, any request by the International Red Cross Committee to make an inquiry.
  Mr. Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more people are detained now than in any previous period since time began? Will not the Government take a lead in this question, and not just sit back?

  EGYPT

    Mufti of Jerusalem
    Mr. Wilkesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what conditions and surveillance the ex-Mufti, who is classified as a war criminal, is today living in Egypt.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In answer to the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) on 2nd July, the Prime Minister said that negotiations about the Mufti were proceeding with the Egyptian Government. I regret that I cannot yet add anything to that reply. My right hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that the ex-Mufti is classified as a war criminal, since, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
    494
    Affairs explained in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) on 15th April, he is not an enemy national, nor a person who served in the enemy forces.
    Mr. Wilkes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ex-Mufti has been officially listed as a war criminal by the Yugoslav Government, and that in a speech made to the Egyptian Senate, on 15th July, which was fully reported in "The Times" on 16th July, the Egyptian Premier stated that no restrictions were to be placed either on the political activities or movements of the Mufti in Egypt? Has my right hon. Friend seen that speech, and has he taken any action?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Negotiations with the Egyptian Government are going on, and I cannot add to what I have said, except that our grievances against the ex-Mufti are more serious than those of Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Pickthorn: In the vocabulary of the Foreign Office, is anybody a war or other kind of criminal before he has been tried? Could I have an answer to that?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that in everybody's vocabulary certain people are listed as war criminals, and are then brought up for trial.
    Mr. Orbach: Is there any truth in Press reports this morning to the effect that the ex-Mufti has been invited by the Palestine Administration to Palestine?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There is no truth in it whatever.
    Mr. John Lewis: Is it not a fact that the ex-Mufti did organise Arab deserters into an S.S. Waffen Korps, to fight against this country during the war?
    Mr. Stokes: What about "Uncle Joe"?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There is no doubt the Mufti did what he could during the war to damage British interests.

    Riots, Alexandria (British Casualties)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the death of two military policemen at the hands of a mob in Alexandria on 14th July.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The facts are as follows: On 13th July, at 9.15 p.m., a number of British military police were walking along a street at Alexandria, when two grenades were thrown. A crowd of Egyptians gathered, who were apparently misled into thinking that the British troops were responsible for the explosion. The military police, when they saw the crowd collecting, made towards a police station, in which, when they reached it, they took refuge. Seven of them were injured by the crowd; one of them was stabbed and he has, I regret to say, since died as a result of his wounds. As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware from a statement issued by the Foreign Office on 24th July, His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo has made a most energetic protest about this and other outrages which have occurred. The Egyptian authorities have now informed us that, as a result of the action they have taken, a number of persons believed to be responsible for these crimes have been arrested. The Egyptian Prime Minister has sent my right hon. Friend a personal letter, in which he deplores these crimes and expresses his deep sympathy with the victims.
    Colonel Hutchison: In view of the relatively unprotected position of British nationals in Egypt, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Egyptian Government realise their responsibility to protect them?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I think the Egyptian Government realise that very fully, and have taken very vigorous and satisfactory action in the matter.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether compensation has been asked for in respect of these outrages?

  BROADCASTING

    B.B.C. (Overseas Service)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the paramount need of establishing and extending understanding and goodwill towards this country among European, Soviet and Middle East peoples, he will consider the improvement of the present Overseas Broadcast Service, particularly in relation to the unsatis-
    496
    factory grouping of countries in the B.B.C. organisation and the checking of actual broadcasts made, so that their accuracy and tact may be assured.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: His Majesty's Government agree with the hon. Member in thinking that broadcasting is an important instrument in promoting understanding and goodwill towards this country. This has been clearly shown both in the White Paper on Broadcasting Policy and in the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in the Debate in the Committee of Supply, on 16th July. But, for the reasons given in the White Paper and by my right hon. Friend, it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to control the output of the B.B.C., or to dictate the details of its internal organisation.
    Mr. Stewart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the precise criticism which I offered of this particular service, and that I addressed a series of precise points to the Lord President of the Council on this question? As the right hon. Gentleman himself has chosen to reply to me, is he not prepared to pay the slightest attention to the criticisms which I made in the recent Debate, which were not answered?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I will certainly pay full attention to the hon. Gentleman's criticisms and proposals, but I do not think that I could usefully add, at Question time, to what my right hon. Friend the Lord President said.

    Foreign Commercial Broadcasts
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Lord President of the Council what further broadcasting stations on the European Continent he proposes to try to acquire or otherwise prevent from broadcasting to this country; and with which foreign Governments he is now negotiating or intends to negotiate for the suppression of broadcasts which may be heard here.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): At present, none, Sir. I would take this opportunity of making clear that a primary object of our negotiations with the Luxembourg Government is to obtain the use of Radio Luxembourg jointly with the French Government for broadcasts to Germany and Austria.
    Mr. Stewart: Is there any truth in the statement, made over the weekend, that Luxembourg are to undertake this programme and have now invited artists to go there?
    Mr. Morrison: I should not like to pronounce without notice upon statements that are made over the weekend, because all sorts of statements are made over the weekend.

  TANGIER STATUTE (REVISION)
  Mr. David Ecclesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the negotiations for a revision of the Tangier Statute.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In the spring of this year, in accordance with the Final Act of the Conference held in Paris last summer, the French Government inquired of the Governments of the United States of America, Soviet Union and the United Kingdom whether they desired to hold a new conference to consider the revision of the Statute of Tangier. All the Governments agreed that, for the time being, the conference should not be called.
  Mr. Eccles: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the discreditable features of the pre-civil war régime are coming back, and that it would be in the interests of the inhabitants of Tangier to revise this Statute?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think that anybody denies the desirability of ultimate revision, but Governments have a good deal to do at the moment and perhaps it would be better to deal with this later on.

  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS (FRENCH NATIONALS)
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many King's Medals for gallantry and King's Medals for service have now been awarded to French nationals who helped British personnel during the occupation.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in answer to the hon. and gallant Member on 20th May, awards are submitted for
  498
  His Majesty's approval, as and when the concurrence of the French Government is obtained; but any attempt to give the numbers would be both misleading and contrary to public policy.
  Colonel Hutchison: Does this mean that, although two years have elapsed since the decorations were initiated, none has been given?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: It does not mean that. As a matter of general policy, the numbers are not revealed.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: Surely, we must press for an answer to this Question. Is there any reason why we should not be given the information whether there are 100, 200 or 500 cases of this nature in which these decorations have been awarded? Is not this a matter on which many people feel deeply?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As my hon. Friend said on 20th May, it has always been a matter of public policy not to give the numbers.
  Mr. Lindsay: May we be told why?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: This involves relations between us and a foreign Government, and it is for that reason.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Will the Minister make it clear that there has been no delay on this side and that nothing is being done that would make us less loved by our very sensitive and civilised Allies?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have every reason to believe that there has been no delay on our side.
  Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the French Government whether they have any objection to the figures being published?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will do more than that; I will reconsider the whole question of publication.

  GERMANY

    Economic Unity
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the announce-by General McNarney, the Military Governor of the U.S. zone in Germany, that the proposed plan for economic unity

    499
    between the British and U.S. zones would mean the U.S.A. having a 50 per cent. share of the Ruhr coal production and supplying coal and steel to industries in the U.S. zone; that U.S. business men would visit Germany to offer raw material for processing and export in the form of finished goods; and if he will give an assurance that no agreement will be entered into which helps German-U.S. manufacturers to compete with British exports.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in considering any U.S. proposals for the economic unification of the British and U.S. zones of Germany, he will safeguard the right of His Majesty's Government to promote or encourage the reconstruction of the British zone on the basis of public ownership of key industries and services and public control of external trade.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the important issues which they have raised, I would ask my hon. Friends to await the statement on future economic policy in the British zone in Germany which I will make in the Debate this afternoon.
    Mr. Warbey: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no decision will be taken which will prejudice the possibility of carrying out a Socialist policy in the British zone of Germany?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I am very glad to give that assurance.

    Ruhr Industries (Control)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has made to the French, Soviet, U.S. and other interested Governments for their joint participation with His Majesty's Government in the ownership and control of the coal, iron and steel industries of the Ruhr.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: His Majesty's Government have made no definite proposals concerning the international ownership and control of the industries of the Ruhr. There have, however, been some informal discussions between officials of His Majesty's Government and other Governments, but His Majesty's Government do not desire to take part in more definite negotiations if they are restricted to the
    500
    control of the Ruhr industries alone. They consider that that question should not be treated in isolation, but only as part of the general question of Germany's economic and political future and on a basis of strict reciprocity.

    Compassionate Visits
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is now in a position to grant facilities, in extreme compassionate cases, for people in Great Britain to visit relatives in the British zone of Germany.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Yes, Sir. Short visits, justified on extreme compassionate grounds, can now be permitted although the number has to be severely restricted in view of present conditions in Germany.

    GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will prepare and announce a release and repatriation scheme for German prisoners of war classified as anti-Nazi or non-Nazi.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The repatriation of German prisoners of war is mentioned in paragraph 45 of the Report of the Select Committee on the Estimates for the Control Office for Germany and Austria which is to be discussed this afternoon. With my hon. Friend's consent, I will ask him to await the statement which I will make on the subject in the course of the Debate.

  POLAND

    Financial Agreement
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the text of the British-Polish financial agreement contained a clause conditioning its ratification to the keeping of the Yalta or Potsdam agreements.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, but the intentions of His Majesty's Government were conveyed to the Polish Ambassador in an official note.
    Mr. Hynd: If there was no specific clause in the agreement, are the Government really justified in withholding ratification of the agreement?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I have explained before why we desire to withhold ratification until we feel sure that the Yalta Agreement is to be carried out.

    Elections
    Mr. John McKayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any date has been fixed for free elections in Poland; what authority exists under the Yalta Agreement for the British Government and the U.S. Government to supervise such elections and so to arrange that the votes are counted correctly; and if there has been any consultation with the Polish Provisional Government on this matter of procedure and the counting of votes.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In a note addressed to His Majesty's Ambassador on 29th April, the Polish Provisional Government informed His Majesty's Government that elections would be held during the autumn of this year. The terms of the Crimea and Potsdam Agreements do not provide for foreign supervision of the elections, and there have been no discussions with the Polish Provisional Government on the subject.
    Mr. McKay: Does my right hon. Friend consider, taking into account the conditions that exist in Poland, that the various parties have had a fair opportunity of expressing their opinions, and does he think that, if there is no proper supervision by our Government in this matter, the voting can be a reverse to the Provisional Government?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: We have no right under any existing agreement to propose international supervision. If the Polish Government or the parties in Poland asked for it, that would be a different matter.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the declaration of Yalta that the Polish elections should be free and unfettered, His Majesty's Government will make it perfectly clear to the Polish Government that if they are not free and unfettered His Majesty's Government will not be best pleased?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: We have done that many times already.
    Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: Have His Majesty's Government received
    502
    any sort of assurance at all from the Polish Government?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, we have received assurances.

    SUDAN (FLOGGING)
    Mr. Wilkesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the figures for the number of persons in the Sudan punished by flogging during 1945 and the preceding years from the outbreak of war and the number of civilians and members of the Sudan Defence Force who were subject to flogging during these years, with the types of offence for which this punishment was ordered.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such detailed information as I have available about flogging in the Sudan for the years 1939 to 1945. I have asked for further information and will communicate with my hon. Friend when it is received.
    Mr. Wilkes: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the worrying thing about such figures as have been published is that there has been a very rapid rise in floggings, from 25,000 in 1937 to 35,000 in 1944? What is the reason for this rapid increase?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: It is precisely that kind of figure about which I want to make further inquiry, and that is why I have asked for a report. Of course, my hon. Friend will recognise that there has been, unfortunately, a very great increase of crime during the war, and a shortage of prison accommodation which could not be remedied.
    Following is the information:
    The following information regarding the number of persons punished by flogging in the Sudan in. the years 1939–45 has been supplied by the Governor-General of the Sudan:
    (a) Number of persons aged 20 years or over punished by flogging under the Sudan Penal Code:

    1939

    …

    …

    …

    269

    1940

    …

    …

    …

    366

    1941

    …

    …

    …

    509

    1942

    …

    …

    …

    774

    1943

    …

    …

    …

    680

    1944

    …

    …

    …

    1,034

    (b) Number of persons of under 20 years of age punished by flogging or whipping under the Sudan Penal Code:

    1939

    …

    …

    …

    1,005

    1940

    …

    …

    …

    825

    1941

    …

    …

    …

    1,220

    1942

    …

    …

    …

    1,633

    1943

    …

    …

    …

    1,464

    1944

    …

    …

    …

    1,274

    (c) Cases of punishment by flogging in the Sudan Defence Force:

    October 1942—September 1943

    798

    October 1943—September 1944

    691

    October 1944—September 1945

    689

    (d) Cases of whipping of boys in the Sudan Defence Force:

    October 1942—September 1943

    288

    October 1943—September 1944

    277

    October 1944—September 1945

    269

    It is not possible to provide figures for the Sudan Defence Force from the outbreak of war up to October, 1942, owing to the rapid expansion and repeated reorganisation of the units during this period of active warfare. In the Sudan Defence Force flogging is normally awarded for offences connected with sex, perversion, violence, insubordination, theft and burglary, etc., or for looting and kindred offences on service. The figures given in (c) and (d) above are for offences classed as violence, theft and indiscipline. The word "indiscipline" is used as a compendious term for offences of an insubordinate nature, e.g., insolence to a superior, refusal to obey orders, striking a superior, also petty or attempted theft or creating a disturbance. Indiscipline, per se, is not an offence under the civil code. Flogging of civilians is governed by Article 76 of the Sudan Penal Code, which is as follows:
    "A sentence of flogging not exceeding 25 lashes may be passed by the Court of a Magistrate of the First or Second Class trying a case summarily on an adult male offender in lieu of any term of imprisonment to which he might be sentenced under this code."

    MALAY UNION (LORD KILLEARN'S STAFF)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the annual cost of Lord Killearn's organisation in Malaya.
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the size of the European and Asiatic staff
    504
    working for Lord Killearn in Malaya; what is the annual estimated cost; and if any part of it falls on the exchequers of the Malayan Governments.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Lord Killearn has 101 Europeans and 103 Asiatics on his staff. The estimated annual cost is about £150,000, but this figure does not include the cost of board and lodging and transport, which is provided for most of the European staff at the expense of His Majesty's Government. I am inquiring about this cost, and will communicate with the hon. Members. No part of the expenditure falls on the Malayan Governments.
    Mr. Gammans: How long is this arrangement likely to continue, and will the right hon. Gentleman issue some sort of White Paper showing what are the functions of Lord Killearn, and what would justify this enormous number of staff?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I think my right hon. Friend has explained the purpose of this organisation set up by my right hon. Friend under Lord Killearn, and in view of the really remarkable results which Lord Killearn has already obtained in increasing the supply of food in places where there was great danger of death by famine in the Far East, I think the result has fully justified his action.
    Sir W. Smithers: Why should the whole of the very heavy expense of this extravagant establishment be borne by the British taxpayers?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I think it was a contribution which we were able to make, and glad to make, towards the solution of an extremely difficult problem.

  GREECE

    Plebiscite
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement in reference to the recent visit to this country of the Greek Prime Minister, particularly as affecting the forthcoming plebiscite.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The communiqué which was issued at the end of the Greek Prime Minister's visit fully covered the conversations which took place, and I have nothing to add to its terms. The

    505
    occasion was taken to impress on Monsieur Tsaldaris the urgent hope of His Majesty's Government that the forthcoming plebiscite will be held in conditions of law and order which will enable the electors of all parties to cast their votes with a sense of freedom and security, and he was warned of the lamentable impression which would be created abroad if there appeared to be grounds for thinking that the result did not properly express the will of the Greek people.
    Mr. Chamberlain: As a result of these conversations, is there any prospect of the very oppressive Public Security Acts being modified, particularly as the Undersecretary of State indicated on 1st July that he was making suggestions to that end?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is quite a different question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put another Question on the Paper.

    Public Order
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Greek Government have agreed to make any changes in the new Extraordinary Measures for Public Order Act as a result of the advice given by the British Ambassador.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The law concerning Extraordinary Measures for Public Order was proposed by the Greek Government to their Parliament, and was adopted by that Parliament after certain amendments had been made to meet the objections of the Opposition. The Greek Government and Parliament are, therefore, solely responsible for the Law, and I have no statement to make.
    Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed me a week or two ago that we were giving certain advice to the Greek Government in respect of this law, and can he say what advice has been given and what response has been received?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: My right hon. Friend is not here, so I cannot consult him about this. I do not think I want to add to what I have said already.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is more important or less important in Greece or in
    506
    Poland that elections should be free and unfettered?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: We have debated this matter and I think it is agreed that the report of the Allied Commission shows that the elections in Greece, broadly speaking, were free and represented the will of those who voted.

    YUGOSLAVIA (DETAINED BRITISH SUBJECTS)
    Mr. Pickthornasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British subjects are held by the Yugoslav Government; and for what reason.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: According to the information at my disposal there are five British subjects belonging to Canada, one belonging to Australia and two belonging to the United Kingdom. I do not think it would be in the public interest to add anything further.
    Mr. Pickthorn: While not wishing to press any question and possibly do harm to these people, but remembering that we are about to separate for 11 or 12 weeks, may I have an assurance that information will be sought quickly and communicated to those who are most interested?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I will take the earliest opportunity of letting the hon. Member know all the facts that I can gather.

    EUROPEAN COAL ORGANISATION (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) to how many British subjects, normally resident in the United Kingdom, it is intended to grant privileges and immunities under S.R. & O. 895 of 1946 and by orders made thereunder;
    (2) to how many persons, other than British subjects normally resident in the United Kingdom, it is intended to grant privileges and immunities under S.R. & O. 895 of 1946 and by orders made thereunder.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am informed that the European Coal Organisation intend to ask for privileges and immunities under

    507
    Statutory Rules and Orders 895 of 1946 to be granted to 17 British subjects normally resident in the United Kingdom and to 20 persons other than British subjects normally resident in the United Kingdom. I will communicate the details of the privileges and immunities which are granted to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that it is necessary for the efficient working of this organisation that this very substantial number of people should be so privileged?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I think it is; 11 of them are representatives of foreign Governments, the British—all of them—only receive the minimum immunity from legal suit in respect of their official actions; and I think only two of the officials, both foreigners, receive the wider diplomatic immunity.

    SIAM (GERMAN EX-MINISTER, TRANSPORT)
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why special facilities of luxury travel and food were afforded to Herr E. Wendler, ex-German Minister to Siam and his family on the "Empress of Australia"; why special instructions were issued by the Home and Foreign Offices to attempt to ensure secrecy regarding his transport; and if he is aware that deep resentment is felt by Service personnel who travelled on the same boat at the privileges extended to an ex-Nazi.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: According to my information no special facilities were afforded to the former German Minister to Siam, and no instructions were issued to keep his movements secret. On His Majesty's Troopship "Empress of Australia," it was found expedient, for reasons which my hon. Friend will readily appreciate, to keep the surrendered German personnel in separate accommodation by themselves. This may have aroused the suspicion that they were receiving preferential treatment, but, in fact, neither the former German Minister and his family, nor the remainder of the German surrendered personnel who travelled with him, were accorded special privileges of any kind.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is quite contrary to the information given by people who sailed on the ship in question?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like to assure my hon. Friend that this is official information from those who provided the accommodation and those who commanded the ship.

  ROADS

    Driving Licences
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange for the issue of five-yearly driving licences for motorists.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): No, Sir. I attach considerable importance to the annual declaration of physical fitness. In addition, there is some advantage in the licence bearing the current address of the holder.

    Bus Fares, London
    Mrs. Ayrton Gouldasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that if housewives and old people can carry home their shopping baskets by omnibus. they are saved a great deal of fatigue; and if he will take steps to provide short-stage 1d. omnibus fares to facilitate shopping conditions.
    Mr. Barnes: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to omnibuses in the London area. As she is probably aware, the Charges Consultative Committee have conducted a public inquiry, which ended on 18th July, for the purpose of advising me as to the best method of adjusting the Board's fares. I must therefore defer consideration of the second part of the Question until I have received their report.
    Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Will my right hon. Friend remember that in these days there are a great many old and infirm people who have no alternative but to go and buy and carry home their rations and other things with great difficulty, added to which the ordinary housewife's burden is a very heavy one, so that if she has long distances to walk, carrying a heavy basket, it makes her very much more tired?
    Hon. Members: Answer.

  RAILWAYS

    Goods Service, Glasgow—London
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Transport what is the average time taken for a consignment of goods to come by goods train from Glasgow to London via the L.N.E.R. service.
    Mr. Barnes: Three days, Sir.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that the average time is found by private traders to be nearer three weeks, and in many cases a month, and will he look into the services?
    Mr. Barnes: Certainly.

    Electrification (Scotland)
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Transport if he will indicate plans for the initiation of electrification of railways in Scotland, especially in Edinburgh, Glasgow and in the Highlands.
    Mr. Barnes: No schemes for the electrification of railways in Scotland are before me at present.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Will the Minister try electrifying his own Department to get on with this matter?

    L.N.E.R. Ticket Collector (Prosecution)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Minister of Transport under what authority Arthur Chaplin, L.N.E.R. ticket collector, was dismissed by the L.N.E.R. following upon his conviction for an offence in connection with clothes rationing at Old Street court on 18th July.
    Mr. Barnes: Mr. Arthur Chaplin has not been dismissed by the L.N.E.R. The statement made by the company's legal representative during the prosecution that he would be dismissed was due to a misunderstanding, and was incorrect.

    Breakdown, Ravenscourt Park (Closed Doors)
    Mrs. Ayrton Gouldasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a crowded train on the Piccadilly Railway broke down in Ravenscourt Park Station at about 5.50 on 18th July and that the conductor refused to allow the passengers to alight for 22 minutes; and if he will see that in future conductors are
    510
    instructed to open the doors of a train that breaks down in a station even if it is not scheduled to stop at that station in the ordinary way.
    Mr. Barnes: I am informed that the train in question was held by signal at Ravenscourt Park Station because another train ahead had developed a defect. I am informed that there was a delay of seven, not 22, minutes, before the doors were opened. The London Passenger Transport Board regret that on this occasion their standing regulation as to the opening of the doors was not carried out more promptly.

    Liverpool—Todmorden
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Transport if increased accommodation will be provided for passengers on the 5.53 a.m. train from Exchange Station, Liverpool, to Todmorden, owing to the acute congestion between Blackburn and Accrington.
    Mr. Barnes: I understand that it is on the 6.45 a.m. train from Preston to Todmorden, with which the 5.53 a.m. train from Liverpool to Blackpool connects, that congestion sometimes occurs. Since 3rd July, whenever rolling stock permits, this train has been strengthened by an extra coach, which meets the requirements of the traffic.

  SHIPPING

    Cargo (Diversion)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport how many cargoes originally intended for Aberdeen have been diverted to other East coast of Scotland ports during the last four weeks; to what other ports they were so diverted; how many of these cargoes so diverted have then been sent by rail to Aberdeen and how many to other centres; and why this was done.
    Mr. Barnes: I am not aware of any ships being diverted from Aberdeen during the last four weeks. Just previous to that period, however, a ship carrying 3,700 tons of phosphates was due to arrive at Aberdeen during a period of neap tides. In order to avoid a delay of 12 days to the ship the Fertiliser Control arranged to discharge the cargo at Leith for local consumption.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister look into this again in order to ascertain whether the implication in the Question is accurate; axe not the railways in North East Scotland, in fact, being made more congested thereby; have not the Ministry of Fuel and Power sought to relieve this congestion by diverting coal traffic from rail to ship, and will the Minister ask that this be discontinued?
    Mr. Barnes: That seems to me to raise many points which are not in the Question.

    Great Britain and Ireland
    Sir R. Rossasked the Minister of Transport what percentage of the tonnage in actual use for taking Service personnel on leave from the Continent has been requisitioned from cross-channel services between Great Britain and Ireland.
    Mr. Barnes: Three vessels formerly engaged on cross-channel services between Great Britain and Ireland prior to requisitioning are now engaged on Service personnel movement to and from the Continent, and represent 14.06 per cent. of the present total tonnage so employed.
    Sir R. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of the fortunate people who have managed to circumvent the obstructions of the Passport Office in going to Ireland are not able to cross, and have had to cancel their holidays, because there are not sufficient boats? May I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. Barnes: It is a question which appears to concern the Passport Office.
    Sir R. Ross: Is not the Minister aware that people who got through the Passport Office are still unfortunate, because they cannot get sailing tickets?
    Mr. Barnes: I have told the hon. Member on more than one occasion that this service has not suffered adversely, compared with similar services.
    Sir R. Rossasked the Minister of Transport why work on the reconditioning of the s.s. "Lady Connaught" is held up, in view of the need for cross-channel ships to Ireland.
    Mr. Barnes: This vessel was redelivered to her owners on 2nd January this year, and the arrangements for reconditioning
    512
    are in their hands. They have informed me that the work is proceeding satisfactorily.

    PARLIAMENTARY BILLS AND ORDERS (DRAFTING)
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Prime Minister if he will propose the appointment of a Select Committee of this House with the intention of devising means whereby Bills and Orders may be so prepared that their intention is expressed in simpler language.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. Those responsible for the drafting of Bills and Orders are well aware of the necessity for expressing their intention in the simplest language that the subject matter permits, but the draftsman's duty to make himself as readily intelligible as possible must always be related to the important duty of making sure that what he writes cannot be misconstrued by the ingenuity of those who may wish to take advantage of any loophole. In short, the draftsman has a double duty—to be understood and also not to be misunderstood.
    Sir C. MacAndrew: Why, therefore, do the draftsmen put an Explanatory Note, in simple language which can be understood, while the main body of the Order is unintelligible?
    Mr. Morrison: The Explanatory Note was put in at the urgent request of the House in order to oblige hon. Members.
    Sir C. MacAndrew: Why cannot it be embodied in the main Order?
    Mr. Morrison: Because the language has to be interpreted in the courts, and argued by counsel on both sides. It must stand legal construction, in the light of legal experience.
    Sir W. Darling: Why is it more important that Bills should be intelligible to courts than to people?
    Mr. Morrison: Both are equally necessary, but as the courts have to make decisions, that aspect of the matter is equally important, as I should have thought the hon. Member would understand, from his experience of public administration.
    Sir W. Smithers: Cannot it become the general practice for all Bills and Orders to have attached to them a Memorandum which will be comprehended by the ordinary citizen?
    Mr. Morrison: Indeed, with regard to Orders, that is what we have done. We must be careful how far we go about Explanatory Notes, or the courts will object that the Executive are trying to interpret the law. which is the business of the courts.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the courts would have no objection at all if Ministers said "scarce" instead of "in short supply"?

  AGRICULTURE

    Tree Planting (Industrial Waste Land)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture what research or experiments are now being carried out in connection with the problem of planting trees on industrial waste land such as that surrounding disused coal, iron, stone and other workings.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): Although the Forestry Commission has no land of this type in its ownership and does not carry out research or experiments into the problem of planting trees on industrial waste land, it has assisted private owners with technical advice on the problems that arise, and I understand that considerable planting, largely of an experimental nature, has been carried out by the owners concerned in recent years.
    Mr. Vane: Does that answer mean that the Forestry Commission are not contemplating planting in rather grim districts, such as parts of County Durham, on lands which are no good for agriculture but might yield a good crop of timber?
    Mr. Collick: I do not think that is the special province of the Forestry Commission under the powers in the Act of 1919. The answer I have given to the hon. Gentleman indicates that they have been of some assistance.
    Colonel Clarke: Have the Ministry's advisers conducted any research into the natural regeneration of vegetation on screes and landslips where a good many
    514
    useful lessons are to be learned from land such as that we are now talking about?
    Mr. Collick: The question raises a rather different point, so perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let us see it on the Paper.

    Field Drains (Cutting Machinery)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture what research is now being carried out into the improvement of machinery for cutting field drains.
    Mr. Collick: My Department is actively cooperating with manufacturers in the development of new machinery and the improvement of existing machines for cutting field drains. The working of the machinery in the field is kept under close observation and the results made available to the manufacturers.
    Mr. Vane: Is the Minister aware that there is practically no machinery at the moment capable of doing this work? Is he also aware that traditional methods of cutting these drains are prohibited by reason of high cost? Is it not a fact that if he can improve this machinery he will at the same time achieve a great improvement in food production from marginal land?
    Mr. Collick: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the Agricultural Machinery Development Research Board have had this matter under review from time to time and have been, as the hon. Member doubtless also knows, of considerable assistance.

    Warble Fly Order (Reimposition)
    Mr. J. Lewisasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now reimpose the Warble Fly (Dressing of Cattle) Order, 1936, suspended during the war.
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are to be taken before 1947 to deal with the labour shortage which has prevented the reimposition of the Warble Fly Order; and whether he will reintroduce the Order as soon as the labour shortage has been disposed of.
    Mr. Collick: The operation of the Order which required all cattle visibly infested with warble fly maggots to be treated with prescribed dressing during mid-March to end of June, was is spended in 1942

    515
    chiefly because of the impossibility of obtaining supplies of derris and in a lesser degree to shortage of labour. I hope that it may be possible to reimpose the Order next spring.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of a number of Questions which have been put down on the constant procrastination in regard to this matter, why do we have to wait until next spring before this Order is reim-posed? Hides are being ruined, the yield of milk and meat is suffering, and £130,000 per annum is being lost by the Ministry of Food in regard to these hides.
    Mr. Collick: Because it is in spring that the warble fly does its damage.
    Hon. Members: Oh, does it?
    Sir W. Smithers: Like the Socialists.

    Prisoner-of-War Labour
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture why farmers are made to pay the same rates for prisoners of war who are under 21 years of age as for those who are over that age.
    Mr. Collick: It is not practicable to fix charges for prisoner labour differing according to the age and qualifications of individual prisoners. I understand that the number of German prisoners under 21 is less than one per cent. of the total.
    Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of making farmers pay the same for these men under 21 as is paid for those over 21 is that many German prisoners are being charged to the farmers at a higher rate than British workers of the same age? Is he aware, moreover, that many farmers estimate that at least one-eighth of the German prisoners working on farms are under 21?
    Mr. Collick: As the original answer indicated, our information is that the total number of any such persons is less than one per cent of the whole, and we therefore take the view that, administratively, it would be exceedingly difficult to make any variation. Moreover, if one were to follow that course, there is the further point to be borne in mind that there are German prisoners who have special qualifications, and no additional charge is made for those additional qualifications.
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the provision that farmers who employ
    516
    prisoners of war for overtime work during the harvest must pay for their transport to and from work, will result in such farmers paying more for prisoner of war labour than they will be paying for British workers whose work is more valuable; and whether he will relieve farmers of the obligation to pay for such transport.
    Mr. Collick: There is no general rule of the kind to which the hon. Member refers. Prisoners of war are normally transported to and from work by W.A.E.Cs. free of cost to the farmer, exceptionally in cases involving the provision of transport for a few men at irregular hours, the farmer makes arrangements for transport. I will gladly look into any particular case which the hon. Member cares to put to me.
    Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the further circumstances which are the subject of this Question provide another example of farmers being made to pay more for prisoners than for British labour? Will he give the matter his closest attention?
    Mr. Walkden: Is it not also true to say that if the farmer does incur such expenditure, he charges it against the Income Tax reliefs, and thereby the Treasury pays, and not the farmer at all, in nine cases out of ten?
    Major Wiseasked the Minister of Agriculture upon whose authority the Norfolk W.A.E.C. has been charging £4 13s. 1d. for unskilled German prisoner of war labour for chopping out and scoring sugar beet per acre in West Norfolk whereas the district rate for British labour is £3 18s. per acre; and, as such charge is above the rate for the job, if he will give instructions that refunds are to be made to those farmers who have already been overcharged by the W.A.E.C.
    Mr. Collick: In the absence of agreements between the two sides of the industry in Norfolk as to piece-work rates for chopping out and scoring sugar beet, the W.A.E.C. has arranged for contract work for this operation to be done at a price which they estimate is the average of the rates ruling in the county. My information does not support the figure quoted by my hon. Friend as the district rate, but my right hon. Friend is going into the matter with the Committee and will communicate further with him.
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps have been taken to improve the morale of, and to obtain better work from, German prisoners of war by explaining to them that their production efforts in this country will have a beneficial effect upon the food situation in Germany.
    Mr. Collick: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, with whom my right hon. Friend has been in consultation in this matter, has instructed the appropriate military authorities to impress on prisoners working in agriculture the paramount importance of the successful gathering of the harvest, in the interests of their own country as well as of ours. The Secretary of State for War, on 9th July, gave particulars of the measures that are being taken to provide incentives to better output from prisoners. These include payment for all hours worked, cigarette bonus scheme and improvements in food rations.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Estimates which recently visited Germany has reported that the retention of German prisoners of war in this country is having a bad effect on German morale and retarding the recovery of their economy? Would it not be better to inform them that they will be sent home as soon as possible?
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence that the steps which are being taken are meeting with any success, because there is no evidence of it in Sussex, and if not, will he try something else?
    Mr. Collick: I think, from reports which are coming in, there has been some success and improvement. I am afraid I am unable to give any definite reply to the question raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). I am familiar with the extract to which he refers.

    County Committees (Staffs)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of the staffs which will be employed by the new agricultural committees in the counties, apart from the 1,500 technical officers to be employed by his Department in the national agricultural advisory service; and
    518
    the name by which the new committees are to be known.
    Mr. Collick: The total number of staff which will be employed by the new agricultural committees in the counties will, for the time being, be approximately 10,000. The name War Agricultural Executive Committee will be retained until new committees are established by Statute.
    Sir W. Smithers: Would not these 10,000 people be much better employed doing manual labour on a farm?

    Extra Fruit Acreage (Planting Advice)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any advice TO give about planting up extra small fruit acreages this coming autumn.
    Mr. Collick: I am anxious to see an expansion of the acreages under fruit of all kinds, but the limiting factor at the moment is the supply of good quality and healthy stocks, without which it would be imprudent to make new plan lings. Subject to this, technical advice is available from the county horticultural officers, and assistance from this source can be obtained on application to the offices of the county council or the county war agriculture committee.

    Training Scheme (Applicants' Subsistence)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make arrangements for applicants who appear before county training committees under the training scheme to be paid a subsistence allowance when called for interview.
    Mr. Collick: County war agricultural executive committees are already authorised to pay subsistence allowance to applicants (and their wives) attending selection boards in connection with agricultural or horticultural training under the Vocational Training Scheme.
    Mr. Watkins: May I have the number of the particular circular; and does it use the words "subsistence allowance"?
    Mr. Collick: The arthority for these payments goes back as far as July, 1945. I should be most pleased to give the information that my hon. Friend requires.

    Forest Holdings, Brecon and Radnor
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent the 45 forest holdings to be erected in Brecon and Radnor will be for occupation only by men engaged in forestry.
    Mr. Collick: All the holdings referred to will be for occupation by men engaged in forestry.
    Mr. Baldwin: Does that mean that when a man leaves his job with the Forestry Commission, he also leaves his cottage?
    Mr. Collick: The hon. Gentleman is very familiar with that particular matter. I would not like to be categorical about the point.

    Wages and Prices
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the extra sum which farmers are now paying in wages is met by the increase in farm produce prices which he has announced.
    Mr. Collick: The aggregate increase in farmers' returns for the United Kingdom as a whole resulting in a full year from the price increases on products covered by the price review procedure represents 93 per cent. of the aggregate cost to farmers of the extra wage payments, making no allowance for possible economies in labour. No account has been taken in this calculation of the proposed additional payments to producers of milk, pigs and eggs in respect of loss of feeding-stuffs.
    Mr. Hurd: How does the Minister reconcile the reply that 93 per cent. of the cost of the better wages is being met by the new prices with the statement being made by responsible farmers, both small and large, that in their own cases only 14s. out of every £ extra paid in wages is met by the new prices? Will the Minister have a look at the figures again?
    Mr. Collick: I am not unfamiliar with the point which the hon. Gentleman has made, but I do not think the figure I have given will be disputed—that it is 93 per cent. of the actual costs which the industry has to pay for hired wage labour that we are recouping by additional prices.
    Mr. M. Philips Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in those figures no allowance is made for the labour of the working family of the farmers?
    Mr. Collick: I was answering the Question about the proportion of the extra sum which farmers are now paying in wages, and the point the hon. Gentleman has raised is rather different.
    Mr. York: How much of the 93 per cent. which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned is being paid to farmers who do not employ any labour at all?
    Mr. Collick: That is a rather different point. I have given the precise information for the overall position. If the hon. Gentleman wants that subdivided in some particular way, I think he should give me exact notice of that, so that one can be absolutely precise in the reply one makes on what is a tremendously important matter.
    Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the percentage varies very much in different parts of the country? In the North of England it is far less than 90 per cent.—somewhere in the region of 50 per cent. or 60 per cent.
    Mr. Collick: It is just because I was so aware that I was unwilling to be committed by the question raised.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a farmer's working costs per ton have increased very much this season? Is he also aware that the vast majority of the farming community view the sort of statement just made as more or less nonsense?
    Mr. Vane: On the question of subdivision, can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the whole of this cost is being borne by subsidy, or in part being borne by the consumer?
    Mr. Collick: I think the hon. Gentleman will perhaps do better by giving notice of that exact question.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the hon. Gentleman say, since these are United Kingdom figures, and in view of the fact that Scotland has been given different treatment from England, whether he still agrees that it is the same all over, namely, 93 per cent.?
    Mr. Collick: The figure of 93 per cent. is the average covering Scotland and ourselves. I am aware that there may be something in the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned about the peculiarities of Scotland.
    Mr. Baldwin: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether cutting out all trimmings, the real answer is that out of £25 million, which the industry is charged with in respect of extra wages, it is only being allowed £17 million back in increased prices?
    Mr. Collick: No, Sir, I could not agree to that at all. The position has been fairly stated in my original answer, namely, 93 per cent. of the cost to which the industry is put in the actual payment of wage-labour which is hired by farmers.
    Mr. Dc la Bère: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is thoroughly unsatisfactory?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make about Business today and tomorrow?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We propose to postpone consideration of the Lords Amendments to the National Insurance Bill until tomorrow. They were originally announced for consideration today.
Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when it is proposed to take the Central Electricity Board (Increase of Borrowing Powers) Special Order?
Mr. H. Morrison: It is proposed to take that Order on Wednesday, after the consideration of the Highway Code.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Douglas Patrick Thomas Jay, esquire, for the Borough of Battersea (North Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered:
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered and Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 25th July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock, by paragraph (7) of
Standing Order No. 14, as modified by the Order made upon 12th April.— [Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 90.

Division No. 273.]

AYES.

[3.38 p.m.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Moyle, A.

Allighan, Garry

Gilzean, A.

Nally, W.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Naylor, T. E.

Attewell, H. C.

Goodrich, H. E.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Austin, H. L.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Baird, Capt. J.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Balfour, A.

Grenfell, D. R.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Barstow, P. G.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Oldfield, W. H.

Barton, C.

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Orr, Sir J. Boyd

Battley, J. R.

Guy, W. H.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Parker, J.

Benson, G.

Harrison, J.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Berry, H.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Bing, G. H. C.

Haworth, J.

Pearson, A.

Blyton, W. R.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Boardman, H.

Herbison, Miss M.

Perrins, W.

Bottomley, A. G.

Hicks, G.

Piratin, P.

Bowen, R.

Hobson, C. R.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Holman, P.

Price, M. Philips

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Pritt, D. N.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Horabin, T. L.

Proctor, W. T.

Bramall, E. A.

House, G.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hoy, J.

Randall, H. E.

Brown, George (Belper)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Ranger, J.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Rankin, J.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Reeves, J.

Burden, T. W.

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Burke, W. A.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Rhodes, H.

Byers, Frank F.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Robens, A.

Callaghan, James

Irving, W. J.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Chamberlain, R. A.

Jay, D. P. T.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

Kendall, W. D.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Kenyon, C.

Royle, C.

Clus, W. S.

Kinley, J.

Scollan, T.

Cobb, F. A.

Kirby, B. V.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Cocks, F. S.

Lang, G.

Segal, Dr. S.

Collick, P.

Leslie, J. R.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Collindridge, F.

Levy, B. W.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Lowis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Skeffington, A. M.

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Skinnard, F. W.

Corvedale, Viscount

Lyne, A. W.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Crawley, A.

McAdam, W.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Daggar, G.

McEntee, V. La T.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Daines, P.

McGhee, H. G.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Mack, J. P.

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Sparks, J. A.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Stamford, W.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McLeavy, F.

Steele, T.

Diamond, J.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Stephen, C.

Dodds, N. N.

Macpherson T. (Romford)

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Stokes, R. R.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marquand, H. A.

Stross, Dr. B.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Mayhew, C. P.

Stubbs, A. E.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Messer, F.

Swingler, S.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Forman, J. C.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Watkins, T. E.

Wilson, J. H.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Wise, Major F. J.

Thurtle, E.

West, D. G.

Woodburn, A.

Tiffany, S.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Woods, G. S.

Titterington, M. F.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Wyatt, Maj. W.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Yates, V. F.

Usborne, Henry

Wilkes, L.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Viant, S. P.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Zilliacus, K.

Walkden, E.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Williamson, T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Willis, E.

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.

Warbey, W. N.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nicholson, G.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Pickthorn, K.

Birch, Nigel

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Raikes, H. V.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hurd, A.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Butcher, H. W.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Renton, D.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Joynson-Hicks, Lt-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Challen, C.

Keeling, E. H.

Ross, Sir R.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Scott, Lord W.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Smithers, Sir W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Snadden, W. M.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Spearman, A. C. M.

De la Bère, R.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Spence, H. R.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Drewe, C.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Duthie, W. S.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Sutcliffe, H.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Macdonald, Capt, Sir P. (I of Wight)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

Fletcher W. (Bury)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Touche, G. C.

Gammans, L. D.

Macpharson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Turton, R. H.

Glyn, Sir R.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Vane, W. M. F.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Grimston, R. V.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Harris, H. Wilson

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

York, C.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Mellor, Sir J.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Haughton, S. G.

Molson, A. H. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Head, Brig. A. H.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Mr. Studholme and

Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Major Conant.

Resolutions agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [2OTH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [25th July]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1946; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1945
  CLASS X
  CONTROL OFFICE FOR GERMANY AND AUSTRIA
  Resolution reported:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £52,554,310, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Control Office for Germany and Austria and the Control Commissions for Germany and
  526
  Austria, including certain supplies and services essential to the Occupation."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

  GERMANY AND AUSTRIA
  3.46 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton Mr. Oliver Lyttelton (Aldershot) rose—
  Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. Before the Debate starts, may I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Will it be in Order today to discuss the continued detention of prisoners of war, and their use in this country? If the answer is "No," will there be any possibility of discussing that subject on the Adjournment, as many hon. Members have been trying to raise it for some time?
  Mr. Speaker: The answer to that question is, I think, in the negative. As this

  527
  Vote applies to Germany, and not to Germans in this country, I would be bound to Rule it put of Order in this Debate. As to what subjects can be raised on the Adjournment, we must wait and see.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would it be out of Order to ask if the continued absence from Germany of millions of people had some effect on the recovery of that country?
  Mr. Speaker: That may be said, but there could not be debate on what those absentees were doing in this country. Therefore, it would be a very limited point.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: As reference is made in the Report to the effects on certain industries in Germany of the retention of Germans in this country, in so far as that was mentioned, would that be in Order?
  Mr. Speaker: That could be mentioned, but one could not go on to discuss what Germans are doing in this country.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: I was given a reply to a Question today which indicated that the Minister would make a statement. I hope, Mr. Speaker, your Ruling will not make that impracticable.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I had assumed that to speak of prisoners of war would be in Order as the Select Committee had made a recommendation on the matter, in paragraph 45 of their Report.
  Mr. Speaker: I had not seen it, but that does not seem to me to come within the Vote.
  Mr. Eden: Is it the case that it is in Order to discuss prisoners of war in relation to Germany, but not in Order to discuss what is taking place in this country?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has stated the matter quite accurately.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The Committee say in their Report, on the broadest general grounds, that it would facilitate our administration in Germany, and raise the morale of the German people, if more prisoners were sent back from this
  528
  country. I intended to deal with that aspect of the matter Would that be in Order?
  Mr. Speaker: It would be correct, but what I think the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is concerned with is to discuss how the Germans here are employed. He says it is slave labour. That would be out of Order.
  Mr. Stokes: With great respect, Sir, the wording is "both the use of, and further continued detention of." If I might draw attention to the answer given to Question 15 today, the Government are apparently to make an announcement on the release and repatriation of German prisoners of war. Will that be in Order in this Debate?
  Mr. Speaker: That, I think, will be in Order so far as it deals with the labour supply in Germany itself.
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I hope that the decision of the Opposition to devote the 20th Supply Day to the subject of the Control Commission in Germany will be welcomed in all quarters of the House. It is a matter which goes far beyond the concern of this country alone. I will do my best to deal with it on broad lines, and not to descend into detail, and I will be as brief as possible. I do not think any one underrates either the size or the difficulty of the task which confronts His Majesty's Government in the great problem of Germany, and its occupation by the Allies. But it is undeniable that no clear-cut policy by His Majesty's Government has so far emerged or been enunciated, whatever the excuse may be. No one today could give more than the vaguest and most general reply to this sort of question: Is our occupation of Germany likely to last for a decade or a generation? Is Germany to become an industrial nation again? Is our policy punitive or constructive? The Report of the Select Committee—and the thanks of the whole House are due to the Committee for a very illuminating and succinct document, and I place nearly as much emphasis on the second adjective as on the first—reinforces this criticism, because on page 17 of the Report, we find these words:
  "the lack of a clear definition of Allied policy in Germany as a whole, as well as in the North West German Zone."

  529
  etc., I make so bold as to say that in this as in so many human affairs which are complex and obscure, there is all the more reason for a bold and incisive and sharply defined policy. We hope to have this enunciated soon, but we cannot escape the conclusion that it has been over long delayed.
  I propose, first, to say something about the organisation in Whitehall as it affects the British zone in Germany, and its administration. There are some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both side of the House who have had some experience in' the war, and in office, of the task of coordinating two or three great Departments of State. The best way, in fact, the only way, to secure a coherent and coordinated policy is either for the Prime Minister himself to take charge of it, or for some other senior Minister to be charged with the task. Even then it is not an easy task, because the coordinating Minister soon finds himself faced by the difficulty that the responsibility of individual Ministers for their own Department in this House naturally arises, and this coordination is apt to lead to friction, friction to delay and delay to compromise, and all these three are the enemies of good administration. But the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a junior Minister, with a sinecure office in the first instance. Yet ho is charged with directing the activities of the Allied Control Commission for Germany, which is partly a military concern —in the first instance it is a military concern, merging very quickly into the responsibilities and policy of the Foreign Office. This junior Minister has, in some way, to hold a balance between the conflicting interests in Whitehall. There are other Departments of State, notably the Treasury, which must intrude into the picture at a very early stage. Their interests in these matters are hardly less deep than those of the other two Departments I have mentioned.
  The actual administration itself—I am not for a moment saying that it is unnecessary or undesirable—is hybrid; it is partly civil and partly military. There are several regional commissioners, five, I think, appointed by the hon Gentleman, who are responsible to the Com-mander-in-Chief, and the Commander-in-Chief is responsible to the War Office, and yet his conduct of this difficult task is today probably more the concern of
  530
  the Foreign Office than of the War Office. If ever there was a need for a true coordinating hand in these matters, it is here. I do not think that this task should have been entrusted to a junior Minister. The hon. Gentleman must, I am sure, have something of the sensations of a minnow floating about amongst the whales. I sympathise with him. I should like to see in the higher administration more of the hand of senior Ministers, such as the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, whose indisposition we all regret, and whose worst enemy would never describe him as a minnow.
  Mr. Messer: Minnows are not salt-water fish.
  Mr. Lyttclton: I do not pretend to be the hon. Gentleman's equal as an ichthyologist. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman assume much more direct control over the Allied Control Commission.
  I turn to some of the financial aspects, about which some discussion has taken place in this House. The Report of the Select Committee uses strong language, but hardly strong enough, about the great paradox of a victorious nation subsidising its conquered enemy to the tune of £80 million a year, more than a year after victory has been won. The Committee describe the situation as probably without parallel in history. That seems to be one of those characteristics and rather engaging understatements in which the British like to indulge. The late Lord Keynes, in his famous book, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace," after the first world war, threw a blinding new light on the subject of the effect of the exaction by victors of reparations from the vanquished, a book which caused something like revolution in the thought of the world on this subject of reparations. But Lord Keynes, with all his far-seeing lucidity, devoted not a line in that book to a discussion of the effect upon the victors of paying reparations to the vanquished. Not even his penetrating brain imagined that great paradox.
  I do not think we got into that situation as a result of a plan, although we get into many funny situations as the result of a plan. I think we have got into this as a result of delays in facing realities, and I urge that the time has now come when we should face up to the position fairly

  531
  and squarely. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as long ago as 9th April, used very much the same language as I am now using. He said:
  "the British taxpayers cannot, and should not, much longer be expected to go on paying, on this scale, what are, in effect, reparations to Germany."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 1818.]
  A long time has elapsed since 9th April, yet nothing has been said, and as far as I know, nothing has been done to reverse, or to attempt to reverse, this intolerable situation, because that is what it is. I think that the best way to describe the nature of the great paradox is to say that this country is now spending a little under £2 per head of the population per annum on the direct support of the German people who fought against it with such ferocity and such cruelty, and a little over 5s. per head of the population per annum on the support of its Colonial Empire and the Colonial subjects of the Crown, who fought for us during the war. The com parison is striking.
  At this point, let me say a few words on the subject of the zones. The Potsdam Agreement provided the only practicable system, which was that the several zones should work in concert. This has never been tried out. I think that any criticisms of our present difficulties, which ascribe them to the nature of the Potsdam Agreement, are largely irrelevant. It has not been tried. Any agreement on paper must be unworkable if the signatories cannot work in harmony, to some extent, to a common end, and are not willing to make some personal sacrifices to achieve that end. It has surely been made quite clear that the Potsdam Agreement was not to be carried out by the Russians, and that at the present moment—I emphasise those words "at the present moment"—there is no possibility of Germany being treated as a whole, because of the Russian attitude.
  I do not see how in the organisation of our own zone, any attempt to bring that zone into economic balance, or any arrangement we can make for cooperation with the other Western zones, would make ultimate settlement with the Russians more difficult. I cannot see that. I think it should make it easier. We have delayed too long in tackling this trouble, out of a mistaken idea that it would make our task with the Russians
  532
  easier. I think it will make it more difficult if we do not begin now. The longer we go on thinking that something which, manifestly, is not going to happen at once, is going to happen at once, the longer and heavier will be the burden which the hard-pressed British taxpayer will have to bear. The fact that the Russian zone is isolated and insulated from the others, of course, greatly increases the difficulties of the whole German problem. This aspect is so well-known that I will not dwell upon it for long.
  The dense industrial population of the Rhineland and the Ruhr were fed in peace-time by the agricultural surpluses of those countries which are now in Russian occupation. I was very glad to see that the Select Committee, I think for the first time, have given authoritative although admittedly not complete figures on this subject. They are given on page 12 of the Report and I must quote the words:
  "It is known that in 1936 Eastern Germany exported 2, 100,000 metric tons of 'bread grains,' and that 1,800,000 metric tons were imported into North-West Germany."
  It goes on to give the comparable figures for potatoes and sugar, and it ends with these words:
  "Thus Eastern Germany could in normal times have supplied the import requirements of these foodstuffs for North-West Germany. Today the food movement from East to West is virtually non-existent."
  In the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, "We have the mouths, and the Russians have the food." Having touched upon the difficulties of the subject—I think they do not require over-emphasis—and having said that the burden on the British taxpayer is intolerable, I feel the argument would be futile, unless I make some attempt to suggest how the situation could be remedied. I would like to carry the House with me in stating some conclusions to which our reason appears to direct us. First, I do not believe that we have the correct concept of how Germany should be administered, and I think this is partly due to hesitancy and muddle or faulty organisation at the top. This is brought out very clearly in the Report itself. Reading between the lines, I think we are trying to do too much with too many people in Germany.

  533
  I will make a comparison between our present concept of the administration of Germany and our one-time concept of the administration of India. I think it will illustrate what I mean. When we really governed India, the British element in the Indian Civil Service amounted to about 1,500. There were, in addition, a few police officers and personnel in the Forestry Department, and so forth. At the time of which I am speaking, India had a population of about 300 million, speaking over 300 different languages, and spread over a vast area; whereas the area which we are now attempting to administer in Germany is only a little bigger than Great Britain and the population we have to deal with is about 22 million. We have 26,000 administrators doing this job. I believe firmly that if we had the right concept of how we are to administer Germany, it should be possible to administer our zone with a maximum of 3,000 British personnel instead of the present 26,000. We are trying to do too much, and we are assuming unnecessary burdens and undertaking unnecessary tasks. If my information is correct, there are several hundred British officers engaged at this moment in the Forestry Commission in Germany. Presumably, they are employed in training the Germans how to grow trees but, as German forestry methods were about two generations in front of our own before the last war, this would hardly seem to be necessary. All that is required is to tell the Germans how many trees to grow, where to grow them and, perhaps, what to do with them. It does not require a great staff to do that.
  There are 5,000 or more officers in the trade and industry division. Again, it is surely quite unnecessary to teach the Germans how to run factories. I have sometimes thought they run them rather too well. That is an unnecessarily large number of officers to deal with that subject. I think our attitude upon certain cultural matters verges on the hubristic. It is hardly necessary to teach the Germans how to love Beethoven, but we have that kind of thing going on as well. In all these matters, I do not consider that more than the top level administration should be necessary. It is quite sufficient for the administrative authority to run the policy. They should not try to supervise every detail and look into every grievance brought to their ears. The Select Com-
  534
  mittee make these arguments. More than once in the Report, reference is made to the need for quality rather than quantity in our administrative staff. I have tried to cross the t's on this matter.
  I suppose objection could be levelled against an attempt to admininster Germany with such a small number as I suggest. It could be said that it would be much easier for the Germans, if there was only a small number of officers, to sabotage the efforts of the occupying Powers, particularly the efforts to demilitarise Germany. It should be emphasised that Germany has been largely demilitarised already by the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force, and that the Germans are not such complete fools as to wish to sabotage the administrative efforts of the occupying Powers when every German knows that his country is living on the brink of starvation. During the next 10 years the problem will be quite different. The struggle of German industry will be to exchange goods for the things needed by its people. In this period, in my opinion, it will not be difficult to prevent any steps being taken towards rearmament. Naturally, if Germany is to be administered by this much smaller number of officers it will involve a much more audacious and a much quicker use of Germans in local and central government. Instead of waiting until German exports are large enough to pay for this large number of British administrators, I suggest that the sooner the details of the government of Germany is left to Germans, who can be paid in marks, the better for everyone.
  Another salutary effect of an audacious policy of devolution on the Germans will be to induce a sense of responsibility for their own affairs with a corresponding increase in the morale of the German people. At present, the effect of our over-administration is to delay the formation of responsible public opinion in Germany. I hope the Committee do not think I am underrating the risks inherent in such a policy. They are there, but in my opinion they must be accepted. We should not forget that whatever we do there are risks. Few of us are ignorant of the fact that the Social Democratic Government, after the first world war, broke every single clause of the Peace Treaty right under our noses. In those days we were not in occupation. If that

  535
  happened now, as a result of a farseeing and audacious policy, then such breaches could be visited with condign punishment on those who attempted them. I think that our attitude to the subject of the devolution to Germans is again too hesitant and too timid.
  While I am touching on this subject, I would like to say something about the cognate problem of what we are pleased to call the de-Nazification of Germany—the purge of Nazi elements. No one, I suppose, will deny that our objective is clear and unexceptionable. It is to build up a democratic Germany with a respect for democratic institutions and the democratic system of Government. In pursuit of this aim, we have, according to the Select Committee, no less than 40,000 persons in concentration camps, none of whom have been subjected to any process of legal trial.
  Mr. Stokes: Regulation 18B again.
  Mr. Lyttelton: It is, I think, apparent that, in attempting to spread and foster democratic institutions in Germany, we are slipping into the use of one of the most odious features of the Nazi rule. No one would deny that some such measures were necessary at the beginning, but what I am saying is that the time is long past when the guilty should be brought to trial, and those who are not dangerous, or who are nearly innocent, should be released. It seems to me to be a far from happy way of fostering democratic institutions in Germany to tear up every provision of Magna Charta and Habeas Corpus and rub them in the noses of 22,000,000 people; and I cannot think that that situation should be allowed to continue any longer. My argument is that we should reduce the number, and, consequently the expense, of those administering Germany, and devolve, much more rapidly than we are doing, many of those tasks upon German shoulders, whatever the risks attendant upon that policy may be.
  I turn to the economic and industrial aspect of the subject. The Potsdam Agreement states that one of the purposes of the occupation was the complete disarmament and demilitarisation of Germany, and the eliminiation of control of all German industry that could be used for military production. If we are to
  536
  avoid Germany being a bottomless liability for the British taxpayer, these words must not be construed in a slavish way. We can adopt methods which will fulfil that objective completely, but, frankly, I do not know what the policy of the Government is in regard to German industry. All we do know is that the production now attained in Germany is short of the level permissible under the Allied agreement which, I believe, is 55 per cent. of the 1938 volume. I suggest to the House that it is abundantly clear that, with regard to German industry, a highly selective policy of destruction is the only sensible course to pursue. Nearly all industries in a modern state have some elements of a war potential in them, and if an indiscriminate and non-selective policy of destruction of industry is to take place—and I think it has been taking place—the burden on the British taxpayer will not be removed, but will be increased.
  May I ask a question? Is it a fact that, all through last year and even up to quite recently, machinery has been removed from the Western Zone and exported to Russia? I know that machinery has been destroyed, and I think it has also been taken from the Western Zone and exported to Russia. If that has been done, it is a very serious mistake. It is what, in the jargon of our century, we call a unilateral sacrifice. Whether that question is answered in the affirmative or not, I do not believe that a selective policy of dealing with Germany's war potential has been followed. I read in the Select Committee's Report some endorsement of what I have been saying. Paragraph 40 of the Report states:
  "The citizen of Hamburg, where employment has centred on the port, sees gantries being blown and docks dismantled; the inhabitant of Essen, where employment has centred on Krupps, witnesses rolling mills being dismantled and the manufacture of railway engines, for which the whole of Europe is crying out, prohibited. And neither has any idea what is to take the place of what he sees being destroyed."
  That quotation has particular significance in regard to what I have been saying. Let me turn to the financial aspect in order to illustrate the point. The amount of money which aid to Germany is now estimated to cost is £130 million, out of which £50 million, it is estimated, will be recouped from the proceeds of German exports. Therefore, if the equation is to balance, or, rather, if the two sides of

  537
  the account are to balance, we should have the objective of building up German exports to £130 million, which cannot possibly be achieved if the indiscriminate destruction of German industry is taking place.
  Mr. Stokes: Why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman back the Morgenthau plan?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I never backed the Morgenthau plan; the answer to that question is very simple There are certain key industries—and I always held this line of thought in the Coalition Government — which should be completely destroyed, and I assert with the utmost conviction that, if we do this and if some proper account is taken of the present state of Germany, the chances of rearmament can be completely dismissed from our thoughts. That does not mean, with regard to other industries, that we might not have to maintain a system of inspection. I am only saying that, with reasonable inspection and the destruction of certain key industries, the possibility of rearmament can be dismissed from our minds. The selection of these industries is a subject which I need not go into—the ball-bearing industry, the high pressure fixation processes and the aircraft industry will readily occur to the minds of hon. Members — but there is one industry which brings out the point which I have been making rather sharply, namely, that concerned with the production of oil from coal. It is, broadly, true to say that oil derived from coal will always be more expensive than the natural product I am quite aware that the plants are now destroyed, and I am now discussing the question whether that is an industry which ought to be allowed to revive in Germany, I say "No," because oil from coal will always be more expensive than the natural product, and, provided that Germany has the means of getting foreign exchange, then the production of oil by one of the two processes will not add to the economic strength of Germany but will detract from it. It seems to me, therefore, that this is one of the industries which we ought to prohibit.
  There is a much wider issue involved in this subject. I think that the thoughts of the English-speaking world change very rapidly as the memories of war recede,
  538
  and I say that, if we are selective and eliminate three or four key industries from Germany, on which military potential, in the main, depends, we should have the opinion of the United States and the United Kingdom behind us perhaps permanently, but, if we go further and look ahead up to five or ten years hence, when some of the scars of war are healed, we shall not be able to enforce supervision of Germany industry as a whole and a policy of indiscriminate prohibition will appear to us like a Carthaginian peace or a measure of Thracian severity. In short, I believe that public opinion would endorse the prohibition of the manufacture of aircraft in Germany, or the fixation of nitrogen beyond a certain quantity, but I do not believe it would understand or support a policy of removing a knitting mill. It is absolutely necessary to get into a much more selective frame of mind and not to go splashing about as we are now doing. If Germany has enough foreign exchange, why should she produce, and add to her own economy, oil from coal? There is only one answer—war—and I think that people will understand that 20 years hence.
  I must devote a few words to Germany's foreign exchange position because that is the root of the whole subject which we are discussing this afternoon. If we destroy her industries and she cannot export, Germany will become our permanent pensioner. Therefore, I am glad to see that the Select Committee puts in the forefront of its recommendations a drive to revive German exports so that she may become self-sufficient. I know that a raising of German exports may give rise to fears and anxieties in the Board of Trade. They are very natural. We all feel that we may be building up competitors for our export industry, but one cannot get a better line on these anxieties than by looking at it from a quantitative point of view. I imagine that life in the Western zones of Germany would be tolerable on exports of, say, £200 million. Adjusted to today's prices, German exports before the war would amount to £700 million, so that, on examination, if those figures are correct, our anxieties need not be too intense.
  Then there is the matter of coal. The production of the Ruhr and the Saar amounted to over 150,000,000 tons a year, and it is not too much to say that

  539
  this production represented the motive force—the prime mover—of the whole of the industries of Western Europe. If my memory serves me aright, I think that that production had fallen just after the Armistice to a rate equivalent to 6,000,000 tons a year. The problem of restoring this production is an immensely difficult one. We should congratulate the North-Western German Coal Control on the job they have done, although the production is not enough for the needs of the world or Europe. The Select Committee refer to the vicious circle—insufficient coal, no foreign exchange with which to buy food, insufficient food and a falling coal production. I am more than glad to see the recommendations which they make. The only way to break out of the circle is by retaining more of the German coal inside the frontiers of Germany. If we do that, it will pay a handsome dividend, but, at the moment, it requires a certain far-sighted forbearance on the part of the people now receiving that coal. That recommendation is one which deserves being tried out to the full.
  I have tried to describe in critical, but I hope not unconstructive, terms the broad aspects of the problem which the report of the Select Committee discusses. I will conclude by saying that if some clear-cut decisions are made many of the difficulties will disappear. If, for example, it is decided that we are to occupy Germany and supervise her administration for a long time, it would be possible to make the job of an officer in the Control Commission into a career and to give him some security of tenure. At present, neither of these elements is there, and the quality of the officers whom we employ is declining. Moreover, the recruiting system, which I think is the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, beats in slowness almost any other process of Government, and that is saying something. The fact that the quality of these officers is declining is bad from all points of view, because the prestige of the occupying Powers is of prime concern. Above all, it is necessary to come to a decision, and to announce that decision, upon the policy for industry in Germany. I urge that it should be ruthless with regard to a handful of activities and products, and not, as I believe it to be now, rather severe for a great many, and not very well-selected industries.
  540
  If the British taxpayer is to be relieved of this burden, which is intolerable, Germany must export in order to import her deficiencies. Again, if it is our policy to promote democracy in Germany, it cannot be based on our destruction of Germany as an economic unit; it must be based upon her education and regeneration. If we continue our present line of action, we shall be in great danger of putting into the mouths of the Germans, the same words which Tacitus put into the mouths of the Gauls. He said:
  "Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant."
  —where they make a wilderness, they call it a peace. It would be disastrous if the Pax Britannica were so described.
  4.27 p.m.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I understand that it is thought to be to the convenience of the House that the Government should, at this stage in the Debate, say something about the Report which has been presented by the Select Committee. I would start by offering a very warm expression of gratitude to the Committee for the work they have done, thus joining myself with the words used by the right hon. Member for Alder-shot (Mr. Lyttelton) who opened the Debate. We welcome the Report, and I venture to think that it is an admirable example of the efficacy of our free Parliamentary institutions. It is the result of free and untrammelled inquiry by a committee of independent Members of Parliament into the Government's conduct in one of the most important, most difficult and most momentous tasks with which they have been charged. If I may say so, with respect, it seems to me that the Committee has fulfilled its duties, not only with energy and assiduity, but with imagination and qualities of heart and mind which reflect great credit on its members. I am certain that the Report will be of the utmost use in forming public opinion in this country and throughout the world. It will not only furnish this House with the basic facts and with a coherent and intelligible body of thought about a most difficult subject, but it will be useful, in a high degree, to the Government, and to all those in this country and in Germany concerned in the administration with which it deals. Both Parliament and, I think, the administration will receive a valuable stimulus from

  541
  the Report in the exercise of the grave responsibilities with which they are charged.
  The main purpose of the Committee in their journey was to consider, not the whole problem of German policy, but the cost of the British administration to the taxpayer in this country, why there is so great a gap between the expenditure and the revenue, and what can be done to make that gap smaller. Its purpose was, largely, to throw a searchlight on the figures which form the basic problem which we faced. The figures, already recalled by the right hon. Member for Aldershot, represent a total cost to our Exchequer of £130 million. Of that sum, £100 million represent essential imports for the German population. Revenue from exports amounts only to £50 million, leaving a net deficit in the current year of £80 million. In considering these figures, the Committee were led into examining the general work of our administration They had to make an estimate of what we are getting for our money, what has been done, what results have been attained and whether they were worth while or not.
  Nobody who has read their Report will fail to echo their tribute to the work accomplished by the British Army and by the Services which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy now controls. They define the task as that of bringing order out of chaos. They say that it is an astonishing thing that we should now have to do that. We conquered Germany. We met furious, insane resistance from the Nazis. To break that resistance, we had to smash the production and transport systems of Germany as no country has ever been smashed before. The administration of the nation completely collapsed. It fell into chaos. And now, as the Select Committee say, we have to bring order back to the conquered people. It is a striking proof of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for whose absence from this Debate, and from the Conference in Paris, we all grieve. I am glad to tell the House that today he is getting on much better; I hope he may make a speedy and complete recovery and be able to take up his duties again in the early future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think the Committee's Report and the language they used is a striking illustration of what my right hon. Friend said the other night
  542
  when discussing the South Tyrol and Trieste. He said that everybody still talks loosely about the independence of nations, while, in the modern world, the fundamental fact of international life is their inter-dependence. The Committee say that we had to bring order out of chaos; and we have to, because it is our national interest to do so—our plain, national interest which no one, least of all the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), would now deny.
  I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), in what I then thought and still think a very remarkable speech, said somewhere about 1941—I think it was in a speech at the Mansion House, but it may have been another—the right hon. Gentleman said that we could not in the future afford to have Germany in a state of economic misery and depression, as a running, festering sore in the body of Europe. It is not our tenderness for the German people; it is not that we forget the crimes which Hitler and others committed with their support. It is because it is our interest and the interest of the world that Germany should make her proper contribution to the wealth which the whole world must share.
  This Report shows, in a narrower and more immediate sense, what we have got out of the process of restoring order to the German people. I was sent last September to Germany by the Cabinet to consider, with the administration in the British zone, what measures could be taken to prevent the spread from Germany of epidemic disease which might cost us and the world a great price if it were not stopped. When I went on that journey I did not forget the work in which I was engaged after the last war in trying to combat the epidemics which then happened. Everybody remembers the influenza which carried off 13 million people against the 10 million who were killed in the bloody conflict. Fewer people remember that, in the Soviet Union alone, there were 30 million cases of typhus. If we had had disease on that scale, or on a smaller scale, spreading from Germany to other countries and eventually here, it would have been a colossal setback to the process of reconstruction. When I got to Germany I found that, in fact, there were, so to speak, endemic cases constantly recurring—not only typhus but typhoid and diphtheria on a serious scale.

  543
  I found the administration facing the facts of which the Committee speak in their Report—the fact that 92 per cent. of the railway traffic was out of action, that the housing situation in our zone was almost desperate—3½ million houses out of 5½ million were either totally destroyed or badly damaged—and no fuel for cooking or heating for old or young through the winter months.
  I found that already in September the military authorities were desperately anxious about the shortage of food. The generals in charge at that time were making herculean efforts to secure some kind of shelter for everybody in the British zone. They were organising great gangs of German workers to cut their forests to provide timber for shelter and fuel for their households; they were organising the health services, both Allied and German. They were beginning to carry through the immense campaign of inoculation against epidemic disease, of which the Report speaks, and which has given so magnificent a result. They were already beginning to make every effort to increase food supplies, to stamp out an incipient black market and to call the attention of our Government and of other governments to the urgent need for more imported food which would inevitably come. I think, looking back to that journey last September, that we have got something very real for this country by the expenditure which has been made. By avoiding epidemic disease, and by avoiding all that would have happened if we had had a collapse of organised administration in Germany, we have obtained for this nation something very well worth while.
  I would now like to say one or two words about the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot, leaving most of them to be dealt with more fully by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he replies tonight. I begin with what he said about the arrangements in this country for the control of the administration. He spoke about a Minister of junior rank. My hon. Friend is a Minister of Cabinet rank. He has, I am quite confident, no sensation of being a minnow, when he attends the Cabinet to discuss these subjects, and I am certain that the rest of the Cabinet have no such sensation about him. There
  544
  is no salmon about waiting to swallow him alive. On the contrary, he has the fullest help and support of the Foreign Office, the War Office and the Cabinet as a whole. I think it has been of immense advantage that, holding an office which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is a sinecure, he should have been able to give the whole of his time and efforts to this matter. I think that has been of inestimable advantage and, if I may say so in his presence, I think he has shown an industry and ability to which the whole of this Report is, in fact, a tribute.
  I am not going to deal in detail with the staff which my hon. Friend now controls in Germany—the 26,000 of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke. I will leave that to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am quite certain that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to hear the facts, he will not think it is so easy to generalise. I notice that in their Report the Committee were extremely cautious about what they said on the subject of reducing the existing staff. They said, in general terms, "Our purpose should be to cut the numbers and improve the quality." With that, no one could agree more heartily than the Government and, more particularly, the Chancellor. But on the particular example which the right hon. Gentleman gave of the forestry officers who are working in our zone, I would point out that they are not teaching the Germans how to grow trees. On the contrary, they are organising workers, who do not know how, to cut down German trees for the benefit of Germany and of other people. I will not say more than a few words about the right hon. Gentleman's general remarks concerning administration in Germany. We agree with him that we must aim at developing as quickly as we can, a responsible public opinion in Germany. I do not suppose that I would find myself in complete accord with the right hon. Gentleman on the whole history of the Weimar Republic. I have never believed that the Weimar Republic was destined to fail before it was born, as some people did.
  I have never believed that the members of the Government of the Weimar Republic were all traitors and liars who were saying one thing to us, and doing another thing behind our backs. However, I venture to think- that the Weimar

  545
  Republic and its history have much to teach us. Among other things which it must teach us is this, that we must not repeat the mistakes we made over Germany last time; mistakes of many kinds, of being too harsh in some directions and too lenient in others. I am certain the Chancellor of the Duchy will be able to show the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot that, in fact, he has a very clear and realistic conception of the task in front of him, in defining which we agree with the right hon. Gentleman, namely, of bringing the German people to the point at which they can really govern themselves by democratic methods without becoming a menace to the rest of the world.
  I now wish to deal, at not too great length, with five of the major recommendations made in the Report. I take first one mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in opening the Debate, namely, the number of Germans who are still held in detention camps in the British zone— 40,000. These men, who were members of the S.S., the S.D., the Gestapo and other organs of the Nazi Party, which enslaved Germany and nearly destroyed the world—
  Mr. Paget: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether they include children from 15 to 18 years of age in considerable numbers?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The Chancellor of the Duchy assures me that is not so. He will, of course, deal with that and other points which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) may raise in the Debate. The Chancellor of the Duchy will deal with it in greater detail later. He assures me that is not true.
  Mr. Paget: I have got signed statements from two commandants to that effect.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will leave that to my hon. Friend when he replies. Broadly speaking, these men were members of the organisations which enslaved Germany. Those organisations are about to be put on trial in Nuremburg in a few days' time. If we were to release them now, we might have to rearrest them after a short period. I venture to think that if the policy had been to let them loose, they might have been a great danger to the lives and security of German democrats and to the re-establishment of a stable German administration, and that
  546
  it was certainly wiser to keep them under detention until the major trial of the organisations has taken place. When that trial is over, these men will get trial. They will have fair trials; they will be able to put up anything they ought to be allowed to put up in their defence—that they acted under orders, or under compulsion, any line of defence which they or their agents may choose to plead. I do not think—and I say it as one who has less animosity against the German nation than some people, because I lived in the Germany of pre-1914 days—that 40,000 is a very great number to be held in detention, in view of the fact that those organisations ruled 67 million people, and were able to make the German nation the spearhead of aggression against Europe and the world. With all respect to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), I think that to keep them under detention was an elementary precaution, which can be defended on any ground.
  Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question, which is referred to in the Report? Is he aware it is stated that some of these people are detained on denunciation, without examination; and in view of our own experience under Regulation 18(B) does he consider that, satisfactory?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that there is in Germany, in effect, an 18(B) situation. We are not yet through the danger. I am assured by the Chancellor of the Duchy that it is, in fact, not true to say that the men are held without examination.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: Would the right hon. Gentleman make one point clear? He referred to the figure of 40,000, and its percentage of 67 million. Will he make it clear that the 40,000 are only those in the British zone? Presumably there are other concentration camps in other zones.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, it refers only to the British zone. Of course, in the British zone we have something like one-third of the population of Germany. I say again, in view of the vast membership of these organisations and their stupendous, their unchallenged power in Germany, I do not think it is a very large number.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at least on

  547
  this side of the House, and I think on both sides of the House, there is every support for the policy of putting into concentration camps members of the S.S. and other organisations? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If any hon. Members feel sympathy for them let them say so. In consequence, is anything being done to try to re-educate some of these people? Is anything being done to try to change their minds?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Referring to what can be done to the 40,000 in Germany, I expect, as potential subjects for re-education, they are pretty tough. If the Chancellor of the Duchy has time, no doubt he will deal with that tonight. In view of what Mr. Speaker ruled a little while ago, I think it would not be in Order for me to describe what is being done about the reeducation of Nazis there, and some Nazis in this country. If it were in Order, I could tell my hon. Friend a good deal.
  I now wish to deal with Paragraph 45 of the Report, which refers to the repatriation of prisoners of war from this country. I hope, within the rules of Order, I will be able to say a number of useful things. I do not think I can follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, though I would very much like to, into the question of the Geneva Convention. I think I could show him we were all right on the letter, and that even on the spirit of the Geneva Convention we have a pretty good case. In any case, I think it is certain that since the Geneva Convention was made, there has never been any war in which such enormous numbers of people were taken by one belligerent state virtually as slaves to work on its territory for many years while the war continued. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that when the war is over some prisoners of war may be held for a certain time longer than the Convention might have contemplated originally, as some form of reparation. Certainly there has never been a war in which there has been a such great physical destruction on the territories of other countries, for which reparation was required.
  Moreover, there are other considerations which are particularly relevant, and particularly important, in the administration of our zone. We have a great shortage of food in the British zone of Germany. We have been making sacrifices in this country in order to send food there by the hundreds of thousands of tons. These prisoners of war are producing food in the United
  548
  Kingdom for the Minister of Agriculture. If they continue to do that, it is not unfair to say that they are, in reality, producing food for Germany itself. I suggest to my hon. Friend that many of these men, if they had been sent home, and thrown back into the conditions of Germany after the war, would not have been rendering useful services to our nation and to their own nation, but would have been leading miserable lives, with far less food to eat, with far less adequate shelter, and with their clothes rapidly going into rags. In general, they would have a far worse fate at home during this last winter, than they have had in this country.
  Mr. Stokes Mr. Stokes rose—
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will just say this to my hon. Friend, and then I will give way if he wishes. If we had indiscriminately sent home all German prisoners we might have been sending home a considerable number of most dangerous Nazis, who would have made our task of administration there very much more difficult than it has been.
  Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend, in the first part of his argument about the Geneva Convention, seeking to get this House to accept that, so far as our enemies break the Geneva Convention, it is an argument in favour of our doing so, even if only slightly, because that reminds me of the old story of the housemaid? Secondly, when my right hon. Friend says that it is necessary for these people to stay here for our own agricultural economy, would it not have been more just to explain that to them, and ask them to express their willingness to do so?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As for explanations, I think it has been explained to the prisoners who are here. I have explained it to them myself in more than one camp, and I am told that what is said in one camp spreads to others. As for the Geneva Convention, I cannot follow my hon. Friend. Hitler was not breaking the Geneva Convention at all when he took civilians to work in Germany; he was simply committing a grave crime against humanity, and I do not think, even on the spirit of the Geneva Convention, that my hon. Friend would be able to show that we are acting out of accord with that spirit at the present time. I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that.

  549
  before we started a large-scale repatriation, it was essential to do what we could to sort out the prisoners, to sort them into anti-Nazis, Nazis, and those non-political persons who were neither—into the classes which are roughly called white, black and grey. We have been doing that, and also, though it is perhaps not in Order for me to say so, we have been doing a great deal to re-educate the whites and the greys who are here.
  Perhaps I might add, because it does affect the view which the Committee express that it would raise the morale of the German people if they knew what was to happen about prisoners of war in general, that the Government do not disagree. Indeed, we go further; we think the prisoners have a right to know within a measurable future, what lies ahead. We want them to know; we have already said —I have said it at Question time and my right hon. Friend has said it—that there is no question of keeping them as slaves for an indefinite future, as Hitler kept the displaced persons in Germany. There is no question of that, and the prisoners know it is true. We are now pressing on as fast as we can with the screening and retraining of the whites and greys, and it is not an easy matter. We have begun to send the whites back to Germany. My hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in a Debate on 20th May that we had then already sent more than 1,000. In this month of July, more than 2,000 have gone back. There is a slackening of the rate, because we are keeping them for the harvest, in order to ensure that we get the maximum amount of food available for this country and for Germany, but a few hundreds will leave in August.
  Mr. Stokes: It will take 17 years at that rate.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In September the rate will be restored to over 2,000 a month, and as my right hon. Friend said, the time is coming soon when the rate of repatriation will have to be very greatly increased. Of course we recognise that; but I do not want to make any statement which would mislead the German prisoners or the German people. There are still very important decisions to be taken; the situation has not enabled us to take those decisions yet; and I cannot, therefore, add a fuller statement to what I have said,
  550
  but I do hope that my hon. Friend, and certainly the prisoners of war themselves, will think that what I have said is better than nothing at all.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Would my right hon. Friend clarify that just a little? Does he mean that, broadly speaking, the policy of His Majesty's Government is that all German prisoners are not to be kept here indefinitely as slaves and will be repatriated in what may be called a reasonable period?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, I think I could accept that.
  Mr. Paget: With regard to the blacks, does it mean that the blacks are to be imprisoned indefinitely for their political opinions?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I did not say that, any more than I said that the 40,000 now held in the British zone will be imprisoned indefinitely for their political opinions, but we shall have to see how many of them fall into the category of those who ought to be kept in detention because they are a menace to society.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The Debate is tending to become extremely ragged by so many questions and interruptions. The Minister has been very generous in the way he has submitted to questions, and may I now suggest that hon. Members who want to ask questions should try to catch the Speaker's eye?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I pass on, with gratitude to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the third question raised in the Report, namely that we must somehow increase the quantity of food available in the zone. There, again, I shall leave the main answer to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. I must say that he recognised immediately he. took office that this for him was problem No. 1, and from the very first week when he took over his present task, he sought means of increasing the food supplies for Germany. He played a very great part, through the international institutions of the United Nations—the Assembly, U.N.R.R.A., the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and the others which have been involved in the general campaign for food for the starving parts of the world—in putting that machinery

  551
  into motion, and in achieving the very important results that have been achieved. He was asked the other day whether he was planning production for next year. He was and is planning; in fact this year, in the crop which will be reaped, he hopes to have 100,000 more tons of grain stuffs than there were in Germany last year. If I have got the figure right—he will correct me later if I am wrong—next year, if all goes well, he will not only have a bigger acreage under cultivation than there was in 1938, but will have a larger output of food, and we ought to remember that, in 1938, Hitler was using every effort in his power to maximise the amount of food produced in all parts of Germany.
  I come now to the fourth major issue raised in the Report, that of coal. The proposal which the Committee make, namely, that there should be a temporary reduction of exports, is of course one which has been made before, which can be defended on very strong technical grounds, which, in itself, may seem so reasonable as to be almost inevitable, but which, if I may so phrase it, from the Foreign Office point of view is not only difficult but almost impossible to accept. We must look at this with the eyes of the French, the Belgians, the Dutch and others who are receiving some of the coal exported from the Ruhr. For years, their coalmines were ruthlessly exploited by the Germans, and they have terrible devastation to make good. Their reconstruction—ask any Frenchman who knows the facts about the life of his nation—depends upon coal now more than it does upon all the other economic factors put together. France is already back to something like 82 per cent. of industrial output, as compared with 1938. France has made a magnificent effort in the restoration of her transport system, an effort which reflects the highest possible credit on her Ministry, and upon the Minister who has been in charge. France has made a great effort in the last six-months in the domain of national finance. France can certainly reach a state of true social and economic stability if she can secure enough coal, but to lose even 50,000 tons of coal at this moment, or in the next few months, as next winter comes along, would not only mean a loss of foodstuffs for the French people, but might be a tremendous blow at all the
  552
  efforts which the French are making to restore their shattered economy.
  The same is true of the Belgians, the Dutch, and the other peoples; and I put it to the House, that the reconstruction of these nations, the restoration of the stability of these European countries, is a major British interest. I suggest, therefore, to the Select Committee, and to the right hon. Gentleman, who also quoted this, that the right course is not to diminish exports, but, by other means, to increase production. I am not at all certain that we are at the end of our resources—the Chancellor of the Duchy, I am sure, will say more—but I am not at all sure that we are at the end of our resources, by the increase of manpower, by the obtaining of steel requirements from outside Germany—and it may well be possible on a barter basis to get them— and in other ways, we can come nearer to reaching the target of 300,000 tons a day.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry to interrupt, but the right hon. Gentleman is scarcely doing justice to the point. My point was that by forgoing some coal now, the countries that are receiving it would get more. The right hon. Gentleman is rather making me suggest that they should permanently get less. If they want more, they ought, I think, to get it.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I do understand the point, and if I did not make that plain, I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand it fully; but I think, with great respect, that it would at present be politically impossible to persuade these Governments and their nations of that point, and I think that, looked at from their point of view, even the temporary diminution of their coal supplies would have such grave economic and social results that it would not be worth while, and that we must, therefore, try to face the matter in another way—I believe we can—and increase the total supplies which we obtain from the Ruhr and, thereby, the exports we can make.
  I pass to the most urgent issue dealt with in the Report, and the most important subject with which I have to deal, namely, the economic position of the zones of Germany and the necessity to reintegrate the zones into a single economic whole. After the last war, the Treaties which were then made gave Europe something like 2,500 kilometres

  553
  of new tariff walls. They were a major factor in impoverishing the peoples of Europe in the period between the wars, and they helped, in no small degree, to promote the world economic crisis, which, in turn, helped to bring the second war. The division of a single great country like Germany is even worse. Looked at from the point of view of our zone, it is, of course, a disaster. Our zone must have imports. It ought to have those imports from the other parts of Germany. Figures given in the Report and quoted by the right hon. Gentleman show that it used to draw them from other parts. If it does not draw imports from the rest of Germany, it must draw them from abroad, and it has not got the exports with which to pay. That is our problem.
  I want, at the cost of wearying the House, to say exactly what the Government think about the meaning of the Potsdam Agreement, and what we intend now to do in this ma:ter. In the Potsdam Agreement, as the light hon. Gentleman said, the three Powers that were there agreed that German militarism and Nazism must be destroyed; that we must enable the German people to reconstruct their life on a democratic and peaceful basis; that we must look forward to their eventual peaceful cooperation in international life; that we must establish a level of industry wh:ch will enable them to have a standard of life not lower than the average of the standards of other European countries. Paragraph 9 of the Potsdam Agreement, as published, said that, for the time being, no central German Government would be established, but that there must be essential central German administrative departments, headed by State Secretaries, particularly in the fields of finance, transport, communications, foreign trade, and industry. Paragraph 14 said that during the period of occupation:
  "Germany shall be treated as a single economic unit to this end. Common politics shall be established in regard to mining, and industrial production and allocation, agriculture, wages, import and export programmes, currency and banking, reparations, and the removal of industrial war potential, transportation, and communications."
  Paragraph 15 said that Allied controls would be imposed to the extent necessary to ensure, in the manner determined by the Control Council, the equitable distribution of essential commodities between the several zones, so as to produce a
  554
  balanced economy throughout Germany and reduce the need for imports. Paragraph 17 said measures should be taken by common action to repair transport, and to enlarge coal production and to obtain the maximum agricultural output—and to fulfil all these purposes, which I have quoted from the text.
  The order of these provisions in the Potsdam Agreement is most significant. It shows that the requirement, that Germany should be treated as a single economic unit, is fundamental, and takes precedence over any question of reparations. We made specific proposals as to how these measures could be carried out. The Soviet representatives disagreed, and they made proposals which, they said, were necessary in order to enable them to secure the 10,000,000,000 dollars worth of reparations which they want from Germany, I am not going to argue that now, for it is not the time. We never agreed to that figure. We never said it was practical politics. We always said that we must first apply the fundamental principle, that during the occupation Germany should be treated as an economic whole. That provision was unqualified, unconditional, unambiguous; and it was laid down that the payment of reparations should leave sufficient resources to enable the German people to subsist without external assistance; and that the payment for approved imports into Germany should be the first charge against the proceeds of exports from current production and from stocks.
  That is our view of how we ought to treat Germany as an economic whole. In view of that, I have now a declaration to make. I want to tell the House—I shall be forgiven, I trust, if I adhere rather closely to the note I have made— that the Government have given very close attention to the economic situation in the British zone, and that they have decided that new measures must be taken. At the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris, the Secretary of State said that if it were impossible to secure agreement on the treatment of Germany as an economic whole, it would be necessary for us to reorganise the British zone, so as to reduce the burden on the British taxpayer, but that we should wish to cooperate with any other zone on a basis of reciprocity. Mr. Byrnes, for his part, made an offer to the

  555
  effect that the American zone would co-operate with any other zone that was willing to do so, in such a way as to form an economic unit with the other zone so cooperating. This offer was renewed by General McNarney, the American Commander-in-Chief in Germany, at the meeting of the Allied Control Council in Berlin on 20th July. In making this offer, the American representative made it clear that their object was to abolish the division of Germany into airtight compartments, and to expedite the treatment of Germany as an economic unit.
  At the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that the American offer would be studied by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. After full consideration, His Majesty's Government have decided to accept the American offer, in principle, so far as the British zone is concerned. The British authorities in Germany have been given authority to discuss details with the American authorities in order to carry this decision into effect. The arrangements to be made will include the establishment of suitable joint administrations for such matters as agriculture, trade, industry and finance. In making this statement I desire to stress that it is now, and always has been, the policy of His Majesty's Government that Germany should, during the period of occupation, be treated as a single economic unit in accordance with the Potsdam decision.
  So far from regarding the action I have just announced as being a step towards the division of Germany into two, it is the Government's firm resolve to continue to work towards the realisation of this Agreement to treat Germany as an economic whole. Nor is it intended that this special form of cooperation with the United States shall in any way detract from our cooperation with our Allies on the Control Council. On the contrary, we shall seek by all means to promote this four party cooperation in all matters concerning the control of our administration in Germany; and it is the hope of His Majesty's Government that the Governments of the two other occupying Powers will also join in the inter-zonal economic system now to be established between the British and American zones, and so help to bring about in full the treatment of Germany as an
  556
  economic unit. This step is directed against nobody. I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have so often said, that we are opposed—I almost said bitterly opposed—to the division of Europe into two parts. We think, as the Prime Minister said, that that would be a counsel of despair. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot that the adoption of this new measure should not make it more difficult, on the contrary, it ought to make it easier to secure the reintegration of Germany into one whole.
  I have finished what I wanted to say. The Government want a Germany which will no longer be a menace to the world, a Germany which is disarmed, whose people hate the idea of war as much as we do. We believe that a dismembered Germany—dismembered by force—would not be a peaceful member of the international community. We hope that we can secure a system which will satisfy all our Allies, by which the political as well as the economic unity of the German nation can be maintained. We are striving to develop democratic institutions, and we think that Germany must work out its salvation through Germans. Today we have to consider whether this money we are spending on this administration is wasted or not. I have given some reasons for thinking that it is not wasted, and I have given reasons for thinking that we may be able greatly to reduce the deficit we have suffered this year; I am certain that the new arrangement we have proposed will greatly reduce that deficit.
  We must face the fact that we shall have to occupy Germany for a considerable time to come. Some people say, and it is a respectable thesis, that the Ruhr is no longer a danger to world peace, because iron and steel will not be the foundation of the armaments of the future. Other people say, and it is a respectable thesis, that if you made a true system of world collective security, no nation of 67 million in the middle of a Continent could be a menace to the other nations. But we must now recognise the fact that unless the German people become a stable democracy with peaceful ideas, they may remain a potentially dangerous ally to be used by any intending aggressor, as Mussolini used Hitler in the fateful years after the last war. We must

  557
  recognise that the Ruhr, whatever its military importance—and it still may be very great—ought to make a major contribution towards the happiness and prosperity of Europe and the world. I end by quoting one paragraph from the Report:
  "If our policy is merely punitive, and our desire is to make Germany an economic desert, our stay should be as brief and as economical as possible. If, however, we regard our stay in Germany as a mission—to change the German outlook and to create a new democratic spirit—our expenditure in the building up of machinery for education, culture and moral regeneration will be fully justified."
  It is that mission which the Government hope to carry out.
  5.17 p.m.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: I take this opportunity, as a Member of the Committee which went to Germany, to express publicly our thanks to all the officials and officers with whom we met during the course of our work, both here and overseas, and without whose cooperation it would have been very difficult to do anything. The declaration made by the Minister of State is, I am sure, welcome to everyone, not only in this House, but throughout the country. To those who have heard so much evidence, it is, unfortunately, a very sad fact that the Government will not face the issue of coal. We feel convinced that unless the pump is primed, it will be almost impossible for German economy to get around this awkward corner. We believe that it is in the interests of consumer countries, France and the rest, to allow this to happen, because production from the Ruhr pits will not be increased in the way expected unless this is done.
  I want to mention one or two matters about which I feel very strongly, but which we could not put into the Report. I think that we are in danger of not really facing the facts of the situation. I believe that today the situation abroad is highly critical, and that it is our duty in this House to be perfectly frank about it, and to make it perfectly clear that the British people are being asked to pay now for the prosperity of others, and that we do not regret it. If this is to be a long-term policy, it will mean something more than that; it will mean enthusiasm and the right spirit to carry the thing through. A few months ago, no one thought that the Germans would be likely to do anything which we thought was
  558
  right, and the German people did not expect us to do anything which they thought was right. Yet, suddenly, we expect them to turn round and adopt wholeheartedly a new system of Government to which they are entirely unused. We cannot expect such a system to be effective unless there are years of education and years of tutelage by the right people. If that is done there may be some hope of some good results in 100 years time. One of the chief things which we have to remember is that the German people have never really had what we know as a Parliamentary system. There is a Parliamentary Union which does very good work, and I feel that if that could be developed, and some representatives of the Parliamentary Union made a study of the difficulties of Germany, great results would follow; but it will be a slow and difficult process.
  I would say a word about prisoners of war. It was impressed very strongly on us that the way in which we are using the German prisoners for this period after the war is not the way in which the Germans, and other people, expected us to use them. We may like it or not, but on page 24 of the Army Estimates it will be noticed that there is an Appropriation in Aid of £36 million, which comes back to the British taxpayers, as a result of the deduction of overhead charges and the net sums which are paid to Germans working in this country in agriculture and in other ways. You cannot get away from the fact that these men are writing to Germany and telling people there that they are being paid three halfpence an hour. That is not right, and because I think that it is not right, I think that we ought to say so here. A man cannot be expected to work alongside another man in the harvest field, or anywhere else, if he is only getting a token wage of that kind.. What was the effect on the people of Germany—and this is what we meant in the Report by talking about the effect on German morale—when letters came back from these men, saying how they were being treated? That is dealt with in paragraph 45 of our Report—and I hope that the House will appreciate that it was quite impossible to make it any longer—but I feel that it is so important a matter of faith, justice and understanding that it is high-time an inquiry was held, in consultation with the Control Commission in Germany, to see how it can be adjusted.

  559
  May I speak, in conclusion, about a few of the things which I found, and which I think we all found, and I have no doubt, every hon. Member who goes to Germany now, on a visit will bear this out? Presumably, the paramount reason why we are in Germany—the purpose of the Occupation—is to prevent another war. That I take to be the fundamental reason. We have to face the new spirit in Germany by every means in our power, and in my submission we cannot do that, unless we have an enthusiasm for something in the nature of a crusade. I think this is by far the most difficult part of the war. It was very easy, when we were fighting for a common objective, to know what we were going to do; it is dreadfully difficult now, the war having been won, to win the peace. I say quite frankly that I think we are in great danger of losing it, because we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is certainly not in us, if we do that. If we are to carry out strictly the arguments put forward in defence of our policy, we have to recognise that there are many things which the Germans expect us to do, and which we expect the Germans to do under our control. In the Report, they are summarised, and I do not think it necessary to waste any further time on that matter. I would however say this: There is undoubtedly a feeling of resentment growing up in Germany today which is not a good background against which our officials have to work. I am perfectly certain that it is no use treating the Germans as a half-educated race, which is the inclination of some individuals who are there—not many, but some.
  I also believe—and I am afraid that some hon. Members will not agree with me—that, in the earlier stages, the model which the Germans would most easily understand and which would train them until they undertake responsibility would be our Colonial form of Government. At the present time, the Germans are afraid to take responsibility. In order to get over that, the announcement, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government, about cooperation between the different parts of Germany would, I believe, have been more welcome had the dreadful word "zone" not come into it. These zones are artificial barriers, and a military convenience. They are purely arti-
  560
  ficial, and it would have been much better if, within the larger policy which has been put forward, we frankly admitted in this declaration that we would go forward not only with the American zone, but include the French zone and ultimately the Austrian zone. Within them we should have an Anschluss of some use.
  The great value of the declaration is to put some heart back into these people in charge of the reconstruction of Germany, and I think it is only right to say that the great majority of the British officials there are having a heartbreaking task, and are doing it with the utmost gallantry. Many decisions are reversed by the quadripartite arrangement, and I think that we must be true to the British people and to our own ideas, and not bother so much about others. The Germans recognise certain virtues in us, and they have a respect for us. We can carry through the British way and purpose of things if we are left to work these things out according to our traditions and methods, but when you get buffeted about by every sort of contrary purpose, not at all typical of British justice, law or order, then people begin to wonder what we are doing. I think that this House must recognise that here lies the responsibility and nowhere else, and that we cannot shirk it. The work that is being done by the Control Commission is done through a Minister of the Crown, responsible to this House. Each hon. Member of this House has a definite duty to himself, to his constituents, and to our country to see that these things which we are doing now, to remove the scourge of war from Europe by the rehabilitation of Germany and the reconstruction of her industries, are done not in a sense of revenge, but in a sense of educating and influencing. We cannot influence people unless we are being true to our own basic principles in carrying out every branch and part of our administration. When we do that, we shall be giving that leader-ship to Europe which Europe now wants, and which, I believe, can be given to Europe through the medium of the Control Commission.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Allen: I am glad to have this opportunity of addressing the House, because it was my privilege

  561
  to be a member of the Parliamentary delegation which returned from Germany last week. I am not arrogating to myself the position of spokesman on behalf of that delegation, because on our return we drew up a Report, which was unanimous, and although that was not part of our obligation we did so, and submitted it to the Chancellor. It was a pleasure the next day to find that the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates had been published, because it proved, once again, the truism that great minds think alike. In a great measure, the opinions of the Parliamentary delegation coincided with those of the Select Committee. There has been a great deal of concern on every side about criticisms arising from the cost of our administration in Germany. The members of the Commission in Germany feel that in criticising that expenditure some of the criticism is levelled at them; that it is implied criticism of them as individuals. There can be no greater mistake made by our people in Germany. I am sure that everybody who has had the privilege of going to Germany and seeing what is happening there is very impressed and realises the very good job that is being done on behalf of this country by those responsible for that administration. The Parliamentary delegation was very much impressed with the work that had been done, and with the fact that order had been brought out of chaos.
  There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the minds of some of the members of the Commission, because they are not working under any contract of service. It seems to me that we ought to make up our minds very quickly how long we intend to stay there, and whether it will be a term of years justifying us giving the people who are doing our work there a contract of service, which would give them security of tenure. The folk there are working under great difficulties most of which arise from one factor— lack of food, which, in some respects, is attributable to the inability to obtain coal. These are twin disasters, and something will have to be done about them, but what I do not know. It is difficult to say to France, Belgium and other countries that they ought to take less coal than they are taking in order that Germany can have more, but the fact is that unless Germany receives more coal and food her economic life will die. It ought to be understood that, as we see things, Germany psycho-
  562
  logically and economically is flat out. The fact of the matter is that the food that the population is receiving, as far as the ration is concerned, is not enough to sustain life. We were told by our own medical officer of health that if a person were confined to the basic ration without any additional food even should he lie in bed all the time, he would still die in consequence of malnutrition.
  The Germans themselves are beginning to lose faith in us. Indeed, they are beginning to say we are taking food out of the country. Because of the criticism being levelled at the administration owing to the lack of food, the Germans themselves are becoming unwilling to co-operate with us in the administration of the country. We were told that when we went in there we were hailed as liberators; now they are thinking something quite different about us. This lack of food seems to be the one thing that overshadows all in Germany, and we were told that the situation is being aggravated by the propaganda that comes over from the Eastern side. I have noticed in the Press—I have here a copy of the "Anglo-Russian News" and I could quote from it—that if we were to adopt in the Western zone agrarian reform we would be able to obtain more food. The suggestion is that the Western zone would be self-supporting provided we adopted this agrarian reform. It reminds me of a situation at the Northamptonshire county council when a suggestion was made that we ought to set up an education institute for the purpose of teaching agricultural education. After considerable discussion one old farmer, who had grown tired of the debate, suggested that it was not education the land wanted but muck. My own feeling about the criticism levelled against us for lack of agrarian reform is really the same as the reply given by that old farmer. Agrarian reform is a long-term policy, and what the land in Germany needs is just muck. German farms will suffer much more from lack of fertilisers than they are ever likely to suffer from the lack of reform. As a matter of fact, there are very few large estates in the Western zone. Generally speaking, Germany is a country of small holdings.
  As one goes through Germany one is struck by the ridiculous character of the zoning. There might have been a case for zoning when we first went into

  563
  Germany and the boundaries may have been fixed in accordance with military operations, but, as the Select Committee reports, these zones have now become economic barriers. It is not more barriers that Europe needs; it is far fewer. The trouble has been that in recent years there have been far too many boundaries. Nature made Europe one; we, in our lack of wisdom, are splitting it up more and more as the days go by. It is not merely ideas that need legs; trade needs legs, too. It ought to be possible—I do not know how far it is possible—to bring in food from the Eastern zone, which, in the ordinary course of things, is the granary for the Western zone. It seems to me that what we require from the Eastern zone is less criticism and more cooperation. I dare not say any more on that.
  It is not much use complaining about the cost to us of German administration, because in all probability, as the days go by, we shall find the administration of Germany costing us more. It seems to me it is going to cost us more before it costs us less, and the only way Germany can be made self-supporting is by an increase of exports. With Germany as with ourselves, it is a case of exporting or dying. Here again, more food and more coal are essential. Germany must have a greater share of the Ruhr coal. The more Germany is starved of raw materials the greater the responsibility for us. I had the privilege with the other members of the Parliamentary delegation of going into the Continental Tyre Factory, and I was told that the working week is one of 36 hours. It had to be reduced from 48 to 36 in consequence of lack of food. The people cannot work beyond 36 hours. That firm ought to be one which should find it possible to export tyres in return for importation of food.
  It is pitiable to go into the schools of Germany and see the evidence of lack of food. The children are obviously undernourished, and it is not a pleasant sight for those who are responsible for the administration of Germany. In the schools of Germany we found much that gives us some encouragement. In one of the schools, the elder children were discussing the rights of man and the younger children were producing an English play. I am just wondering if in
  564
  the French zone they teach French; in the Russian zone they teach Russian; and in the American zone they teach American. There it is, however, and it was very pleasant to see the older children in this particular school discussing the rights of man. From our meetings with political leaders, it was quite clear that liberal thought, as we understand it in this country, is not dead. There is a great deal of basis for sound hope for the Germans' future in that respect. But so far as political leaders and trade unionists are concerned, what have they to offer the electorate when they come to face them next September? Our policy must be directed towards helping Germany to get back on her feet. This can only be done by sustaining her until such time as she is able to maintain herself. The cost which we are complaining about, and which we have to meet, in the very nature of things, will probably become greater before the present figure becomes less. I am glad that I have been assured of the sympathy of the House in this, my maiden, speech, although I wonder if Members realise how I feel. I have tried to prevent my knees from knocking, but I would not be surprised if they could be heard on the other side of the Terrace.
  5.41 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Arthur Allen) has acquitted himself so creditably in his maiden speech that he need not doubt that he has had, from the beginning of his remarks, the very sincere sympathy of all Members, because most of us recollect very clearly that ordeal ourselves. As he went on and developed his argument, I think we all wished that on the occasion when we first addressed the House we had had the same assurance and the same feeling that he obviously had, that he had something definite to contribute to the Debate. Moreover, I think the hon. Gentleman's speech was a justification of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's initiative in inviting back bench Members to visit Germany to see his administration. Not all Governments in other parts of the world would be willing to do that. It was most valuable to have given back bench Members of the House the opportunity of studying the administration which we are debating today.
  It will be a relief to some Members of the House, no doubt, to know that after

  565
  the statement made by the Minister of State I shall be able to reduce the length of my observations. I had come armed with three separate quotations from Potsdam, to show that the whole of that Agreement was based on the conception that Germany must be treated as a single economic whole. When last I spoke on this subject, I asked the Foreign Secretary to do something about it. I said:
  "If European civilisation is to survive, it can only be by bringing together Western Europe, and treating at any rate the American, French and British zones as a single unit."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1877.]
  After going to Germany, and seeing the situation there, I was more than ever convinced that it was absolutely essential for the economic stability and revival of Europe that something should be done to break down those barriers inside Germany which are so infinitely worse than anything set up by the Treaty of Versailles.
  It was, therefore, with much satisfaction that I—and, I believe, many other Members—heard that the Government have made up their mind to go ahead on the lines indicated by the Foreign Secretary in Paris, and that discussions of detail are now taking place between ourselves and the Americans for the unification of these two zones. I hope there will be nothing exclusive in that policy, because I think it is essential that we should try to bring in the French. I had the advantage, last week, of talking to a prominent and well-informed Frenchman, who told me that there is already a change in the attitude of the French towards the question of the Ruhr. The original line was that they were not prepared to agree to any central administration of Germany until the question of the Ruhr and Rhineland had been settled. That came in origin from General De Gaulle, and was adopted by M. Bidault. It was also, at an earlier stage, supported by the Communists, but, when Moscow had to choose between the German Communists and the French Communists— and decided to back the German Communists who stood for the unity of Germany—it naturally followed, after a decent interval, that the French Communist party, in obedience to instructions sent from Moscow, would fall in with the policy which had been laid down. I understand that in the near future there will not be the same strong objection by
  566
  the Communist party to the political unity of Germany, as seemed likely a short time ago. The Foreign Secretary put forward, at Paris, a compromise suggestion which, I think, will commend itself to most parties in this House and, I believe, also to France. It was to maintain the political unity of Germany in order that there might be no danger of a recrudescence of a nationalist spirit, while bringing under something like international control the industries of the Ruhr and Rhineland which, in the past, have been used to menace the peace of Europe.
  I hope that the Russians will be invited to cooperate in this matter. Although we have had very little cooperation from them, at any rate never let it be said that we have not been willing to cooperate when the opportunity presented itself. I understand that there has been a very great departure from the principles of Potsdam in the Eastern zone, from which the current production of Germany is being taken for the payment of reparations. The dismantlement of industries, which my hon. Friends and I saw going on, at the Huttenwerke works for instance, has not been taking place in the Eastern zone to the same extent. Marshal Sokolovsky made a statement a few weeks ago, I understand, that it was not now the intention of the Russians to dismantle industrial equipment in the Eastern zone. That leads to the natural conclusion that the Eastern zone has been brought into the economic area of Russia, and that there is, therefore, no longer any object in removing industrial plant from Germany to Russia, because it is able much more conveniently to work in Germany for the Russian market. That being so, I hope that the Government, while offering friendly cooperation to the Russians, and suggesting that the restoration of the economic unity of Germany is desirable in the interests of Germany and the whole world, will make it plain that that involves the Eastern zone being brought into Germany, and not remaining a dependency of Russia.
  When my hon. Friends and I went to Germany, there were two matters, not quite of detail, but of administration, which struck us, and we wrote joint letters to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Both points, I am glad to see, have been included in the Report of the Select Committee. The first was the long-continued confinement without trial of 40,000 suspects in concentration camps.

  567
  We took the view that, at the end of the war, it was quite desirable and necessary that all those potentially dangerous persons should be put into those camps, but we thought that after a year the screening process might have been carried further than it has been. I am glad to say that we had a very sympathetic answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy upon that point, and I think he might have briefed the Minister of State to have given a slightly more sympathetic answer in his speech this afternoon. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy intends in future to allow all those in the camps to know the reason they are confined.
  The second point was the question of the personnel of the Administration. We came across a number of cases of officers in the Army who were about to be demobilised. We were very sad to find in how many cases enthusiastic officers did not feel justified in remaining on in the Administration as civilians. In almost every case the answer we were given, when we asked why, was that at most they got a contract of five or seven years, which was determinableata month's notice, and they did not feel they were justified, especially if they were married men, in sacrificing, perhaps, the certainty of returning to a permanent job in this country in order to carry on in that way. We have taken the matter up with the Chancellor of the Duchy and also with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it is largely a matter for the Treasury and the Special Establishments Department. I hope that, now that the Select Committee have drawn further attention to it, something will be done to ensure a greater security for those who remain in the Administration.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be misunderstood on this matter. Is he suggesting that we should continue to occupy Germany longer than we otherwise would have done merely in order to give security of employment to the officers we employ there?
  Mr. Molson: I did not desire to be misunderstood, and I very much doubt whether any hon. Member misunderstood me, apart from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). What I was about to say, when I was interrupted,
  568
  was that it seemed to us that the most constructive suggestion we could make was that the Government should generalise what is at present being done by the Post Office. The Post Office is treating the British zone in Germany as one of its districts, and, therefore, it is able to send its ordinary permanent civil servants into the British zone in Germany, and when they arc due for promotion, they are brought back to this country and given the appropriate promotion which they have earned. Something of the same kind is also being done by the Ministry of Labour. I believe that, on those lines, we might be able to give a security of tenure, certainty of further progress in the Service, to the officials out there, without involving the unnecessary and somewhat absurd state of affairs which occurred to the nimble mind of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
  There are two points to which I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy will refer in his closing speech. There is the question of the influx of refugees from eastern Germany. Seven thousand expelled Germans are returning to the British zone every day. It is anticipated that a total of nine million Germans may have to be received into the British zone. Of those who are coming back from the eastern zone and from Poland, only 25 per cent. are men, and only 10 per cent. are men who are still capable of working. This problem of vast numbers of unhappy, ailing and aged refugees pouring back into an already over-crowded and hungry British zone—
  Mr. Stokes: They are expelled persons.
  Mr. Molson: I understand there are two kinds. Some of them are people who voluntarily left Western Germany early in the war, and the others, I believe, are people who have been expelled from Poland—Germans who occupied the territory which has now been taken over by the Poles. However they came to be there, they are very unhappy and unfortunate, and something has to be done to give them succour, sustenance and refuge when they come into the British zone. Obviously, it is more than a matter of coincidence that only 10 per cent. of them are able to work for their own keep. This is a matter about which I think the Chancellor of the Duchy should make strong representations to our Russian Allies, and I hope we may hear something about this matter when he replies.

  569
  The last point to which I wish to refer is another matter upon which we must hear something more than the Minister of State has said. What is happening about reparations? One of the worst errors of the Potsdam Agreement was that Russia was entitled to take whatever she liked in the Eastern zone, without any record being kept of it, for reparations for herself, and she was also entitled to 25 per cent. of what was taken as reparations from the Western zone. There was a reasonable clause inserted in the Agreement that enough should be left for the livelihood of Germany. The Agreement said:
  "Payment of reparations should leave enough resources to enable the German people to subsist without external assistance. In working out the economic balance of Germany, the necessary means must be provided to pay for imports of food by the Control Council in Germany. The proceeds of exports from current production and stocks shall be available, in the first case, for payment for such imports."
  But the Agreement goes on to say:
  "The above clause will not apply to the equipment and products referred to in paragraph 4 (a) and (b) of the Reparations Agreement";
  that is, to the 25 per cent. of usable industrial equipment in the Western zone to which Russia is entitled. Therefore, to the general provision that reparations must not be such as to reduce Germany to collapse, there is this special exception that, in the case of the 25 per cent. which is to be sent from the Western zones to Russia, Russia's demands for reparations are to prevail over the needs of the livelihood of Germany. That was a grave blunder into which our representatives fell when they signed the Potsdam Agreement. Let us be quite clear what the position is at the present time. My hon. Friends and I saw the Huttenwerker works being dismantled and sent off to Russia. In Hanover, we heard of a factory for bedsteads which the Russians were claiming as reparations. At the present time, there are hundreds of thousands of refugees in the British zone who are in need of beds. The British administration was fighting to retain that factory inside our own zone to give employment to the German people and to meet their greatest and most urgent needs.
  If we are now recognising publicly for the first time that Potsdam has been honoured by us and has not been
  570
  honoured by some of our Allies then, in the interests of the British zone and of those Germans for whom we are responsible, let us make it quite plain that, like the Americans who have set the example, we are not prepared to go on any longer dismantling German equipment and sending it to Russia as reparations. When he comes to reply the hon. Gentleman will have to follow up a very important statement that has been made on behalf of the Government this afternoon by the Minister of State. These are two further points that I put to him, and they are of the utmost importance for the salvation of that zone in Germany for which he is responsible to Parliament. We must hear something of what is being done about the vast and tragic problem of refugees and something of what is going to be done about reparations.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has, I think, put his linger on the crux of the matter in pointing out that the announcement made this afternoon of the new relation between our zone and the American zone is of the greatest possible importance. I would urge the Chancellor to let us know in his winding up speech what is the relationship of the Quadripartite Conference in Berlin under this new arrangement. Will it be able in future to operate as it has in the past? Let it be perfectly clear that in the past, due to the difficulties created in the main by one of our Allies there, much good work and planning in the British zone, at least, as we know from our own experience, and also in the American zone from all we can hear, has been frustrated and brought to nought. We really must ask the Government to follow up the announcement they have made this afternoon of the integration of the American and British zones with a further announcement that no longer is the responsibility of the British and American joint authorities in the two united zones to be exposed to the veto at Berlin. On that point I believe we are entitled to ask for an assurance.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made some comparison between India and Germany concerning the staff required. I think that the suggestion that the Control Commission should work with anything like

  571
  3,000 officials is ludicrous, but on the other hand I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman hit the Chancellor in a very weak place when he mentioned the size of the Forestry Commission. The Minister of State says that they are not teaching the Germans to cut wood but how to plant it. The Germans cut more wood in one year before the war than was cut in this country in 10 years, and the Chancellor will not lose by admitting that there has been a mistake in sending 700 people over there to look after German forestry, whether for planting or cutting. Everyone knows it, and the sooner they are brought home the better.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Surely to goodness it is better to make use of German timber than to denude our own forests as they are being denuded indiscriminately all over the country?
  Mr. Butcher: I quite agree, but I would have said that 15 or 20 Englishmen in positions of high control would have been able to organise the Germans so that we could bring home the other 680 and probably still get more German wood than if we kept the whole 700 there.
  The real tragedy of Germany at the moment is the food situation. I shall not mince my words but say that His Majesty's Government as a whole are gravely at fault in this matter. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Minister for Economic Warfare, he said, on 27th January, 1942:
  "His Majesty's Government and the United States Government … maintain in the most categorical manner that it is incumbent upon the enemy to feed the countries occupied by him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1942; Vol. 377. c. 543.]
  The obligation rests fairly and squarely on anybody occupying foreign territory, and therefore it is our responsibility to see that the German people are fed. The Minister of State said that he was there as long ago as last September when, from his own personal observations, he was seized of the importance of the food position. He also paid a tribute, which I am sure was properly paid, to the Chancellor of the Duchy for the urgency with which he appreciated this position on assuming office. If this Government and the Cabinet, acquainted by the two Ministers of the position as stated in today's Debate,
  572
  knew of the state of affairs so long ago, how remiss they have been in the meantime.
  Finally, I would say one word about coal. I am convinced from all I heard when in Germany and from what I have been told by those who have come back since, both hon. Members and others— and I am fortified by the Report of this Select Committee—that we cannot continue to send so much coal out of Germany. One of two things must happen at once; either there must be an immediate and rapid stepping up of coal production so that a far greater proportion may remain in Germany—although in view of the food and consumer goods position I do not think it is possible—or there must be a break in the supply of coal to foreign Powers. There are too many people who have first claims on the German product of Ruhr coal, and the Chancellor of the Duchy will be putting the House in a very great debt if he will tell us exactly how the coal is being distributed, which countries benefit by it, and what they give in exchange. The officers on the spot, and indeed the staff under the hon. Gentleman as a whole, have done an admirable job so far, but they are in grave danger of using a 9ft. plank to bridge a 12 ft. gap. I, therefore, urge that the hon. Gentleman should take the House fully into his confidence in order to bring home to this House and to the people of this country their responsibility for the lives of many of their fellow human beings. We are not in a position of superiority compared to the Germans; I believe that the ideals which animate this country are better than those which prevail over most of Europe, but we are all human beings, and the only way we can help the German people is by discharging our duty to them as human beings and fellow sinners.
  6.9 p.m.
  Major Bramall: I must ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the indulgence of the House for a maiden speech, the more so since it is delivered such a very short time after my entry into the House. I would not have attempted to speak so soon were it not for the fact that I have just returned from 12 months' service as a Military Government officer and believe that I can, perhaps, contribute a few remarks to the deliberations of the House on this question.

  573
  I want to take up two points which have occurred to me as being of particular importance from my observations during my tour of duty in Germany. The first is the question that has already been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) with regard to the personnel in our administration in Germany. It has been said more than once in this Debate that we must have the right people; we have many of the right people, and I want to do no injustice to numbers of my colleagues who are doing a very creditable job with very great public conscience in Germany. We have all too many of the wrong people, whose one aim, in their life in Germany, is to have as good a time as possible and to enrich themselves as much as possible. They believe they are enriching themselves at the expense of the Germans, but, in point of fact, they are enriching themselves at the expense of the British taxpayer.
  I would ask my right hon. Friend to give great attention to the question of recruitment, which should be directed, I believe, to finding people who have a real sense of what we are trying to do in Germany,, and of mission in doing it. My right hon. Friend should also give attention to bringing to book those who have been found guilty of the offences in Germany to which I have referred. From my own observation during this year in Germany, I am convinced of one thing: His Majesty's Government are clear about the policy which they are following. From what was said this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Aldershot the Opposition are also clear, and appear to concur with the Government, on general principles. There is a very grave state of doubt and misunderstanding, however, among the officers actually responsible for the administration of our policy.
  As I see the matter, there are two alternative policies which we can pursue in Germany. We can say we are solving the German problem by an indefinite and prolonged appliance of force, by an occupation stretching indefinitely into the future, without any social or political ends. That is clearly not the policy of either the Government or the Opposition in this House. On the other hand, we can say, as I believe we do say, that our policy is to remove the German menace
  574
  by setting up in Germany something which has never existed there before, a working and lively democratic system. While there appears to be very considerable unanimity in this House as to our policy, there is possibly a majority of officers acting in our name but pursuing measures more in accordance with the first of the alternatives I have described. It is not as though any compromise were possible between those two alternatives. The two policies are absolutely incompatible. If our policy is the first as I have given them, we want from the German people a state of mind which has been cultivated by 150 years of militarism and which was brought to its highest point by the Nazis—docility and unquestioning obedience to authority, such as you can get readily from Germans at the present time for anybody who is in uniform.
  If, as I believe, we are attempting to carry out the second of the policies, what we want from the Germans is a sterling independence, and even defiance of authority if necessary, if the authority is being wrongly used. That is something very far from the aims of many officers who are administering government at the moment in Germany. I am afraid they are imbued too much with what has been referred to as the Colonial spirit, and imbued, too, with the spirit that because we have conquered the Germans the individual German is a person to whom no attention need be given at all. We have seen one result of it in the recent riots in Hamburg. The rights and wrongs of the policy of wholesale eviction for the purpose of building further establishments for the British administration I will not discuss at the moment. A promise was given, and not kept. Promises are always being given to the Germans at the moment. The attitude is that the promise is only being given to Germans, and need not be kept. I have seen a family, which incidentally had three brothers in the British Forces and the father of which was turned out as an anti-Nazi by Hitler, evicted at 24 hours' notice from a house required as a British mess. The house then remained empty for 13 weeks, until pressure was brought to bear from London. I had taken every possible step open to me, as a serving officer, to get that matter put right in Germany, but it proved to be completely impossible.

  575
  The attitude to which I have referred is leading us to attempt, as has been said from the Benches opposite, to take up far too much in our administration. Hon. Members know that there is a Control Commission; at the moment it is not really a Control Commission but an administration. Our American friends are, in fact, controlling German administration in their zone. We are attempting, in our zone, to carry out measures of government far more complicated than those which are being carried out by the Government of this country, and with a number of servants which sounds large as put down in the Report of the Select Committee but which, in proportion to the task which they are attempting to undertake, is hopelessly inadequate. The right hon. Member for Aldershot said that we were attempting too much with too many; I should say we are attempting too much with too few. The result is hopeless bureaucracy and a hopeless paper war, in the attempt made by those few British servants to carry out the full administration of the British zone. It is something which they cannot undertake. We are not giving enough scope to German administration. This omission has, as I have indicated, important administrative results, but it has also important and unfortunate political results.
  We are attempting to build a future German democracy on German political parties who are faced at the moment with frustration because they have nothing to offer their people. They put forward programmes and policies, but they have no hope that they can bring them into effect. Any organisation of which they are members has no authority, as there is always a British officer through whose hands every piece of paper has to go. The situation will undoubtedly be improved by the local elections in October. The Report of the Select Committee compares the German electoral areas to counties, but it would be far more accurate to compare them with county districts. That is the highest level at which the elections are to be carried out. In the chaotic state of Germany today, a democratic State organisation is required, even if it is only the organisation of the Federated States, and not just a local organisation. We cannot hope for anything more centralised. We must move as quickly as pos-
  576
  sible towards a democratically elected and responsible State administration, at the level of the Federated States.
  I have referred to the attitude, "He's only a German; therefore we needn't take any consideration of him. If it is inconvenient, we need not keep promises to him." In that connection I would recall the words of the leader of a democratic party, at its Hanover Congress. He said that the German people desperately needed calories of food but far more desperately needed moral calories, as it was difficult to build a democracy while depriving the people of their self-respect. A good many of the things we are doing to day are having that effect. I have indicated that I believe that political parties are not being given as much scope as they should have. I say the same far more urgently of the trade unions. Trade unions in Germany today are the most powerful force for democracy in that country.
  It is strange that in our administration —without, I must say, the knowledge of the Government or of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the country is being controlled by people who seem to vie with one another in distrust of the German trade unions and of those all too few British trade unionists, of whom I was one, who were trying to give a fair deal to those German trade unions. We and the German trade unionists were at every turn treated with suspicion and hostility, and these German trade unionists, many of them men who have come out of years of concentration camps and who have fought the Nazis in every way at their disposal, were treated with the same suspicion as if they were people with, at any rate, a grey past. We must give far more trust and drop far more of our suspicions when dealing with these proved anti-Nazis and proved democratic organisations.
  I am afraid that Nazism is undoubtedly gaining ground in Germany today. It sounds a hard thing to say that, but I am afraid it is true. We started off after the occupation with a tremendous opportunity. The German people were disillusioned with the Nazis because they had lost the war. I will put it on no higher a plane. We also started with wonderful opportunities because of the excellent behaviour of the British soldier in contrast both with our enemies and

  577
  with our Allies. The British soldier in Germany today is still—to use a hackneyed phrase—our best ambassador. His conduct has won universal respect. If only other people who are carrying Britain's name in Germany today behaved half as well as the ordinary British soldier, I should not have had to make the remark that Nazism is gaining ground.
  The Germans have heard so much from our lips about democracy that they say, "Let us. see something of it."They expect to see from us some of the enthusiasm for carrying out democracy that they showed in conquering countries for carrying out their own barbaric creed. They find not that, but corruption, cynicism and bureaucratic inefficiency. They see not an understanding of the problems which have to be solved but a complete failure to solve them. They do not see houses being built. No houses are being built. They see more and more families being evicted to make way for greater British requirements, and this again leads them to no sense of democracy as a better creed than that which they have perforce abandoned. They say, "At least under Hitler we did not hunger."
  I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) throwing reproaches at the Government that it was their fault that the food situation in Germany was such as it was. I was not a Member of this House at the time, but I remember reading in the Press that Members from those same benches reproached the Government because we were sending help to Germany. On that side of it the German people cannot reproach us, but there is much with which they can reproach us.
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot referred with approbation to the North German Coal Control and said that it had done excellent work. From my experience I cannot endorse what he has said. I will refer to one action of the North German Coal Control which I believe illustrates all the ills to which I have drawn attention in our administration in Germany. They were charged with trying to recruit more miners for the Ruhr. As the Minister of State has indicated, our only hope for industrial recovery in Germany is increased coal production. They had to resort to compulsion and to conscript these miners for the Ruhr.
  578
  Before they launched the programme of conscription, there was no preliminary propaganda, no preliminary Press notice and no preliminary work of any kind which might have made that campaign more effective and sweetened the pill in many ways. The press gangs descended and the men were conscripted. When they got there, there were no welfare amenities at all. No one met them. They were put into huts which had not been cleaned since they were occupied by Russian prisoners of war. They were given verminous blankets. They were told that if they did not like it they could go home, an invitation which some 50 per cent. of them accepted. The German president of the Westphalian Regional Labour Office went to some of the mines to see the welfare conditions with a view to improving them. He was run off the premises and told to mind his own business. If we are to cope with the problems which we can cope with, the Government must see that the policy which is carried out is their policy and not a policy devised by the people who are on the spot
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Birch: It falls to me to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Bexley (Major Bramall) on his maiden speech. I think I carry the whole House with me when I say that it was about the best maiden speech we have had during this Parliament, delivered with tremendous assurance and great knowledge. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not take it amiss if I say that I agree with every single word he has said. He began by saying that our officers in the Control Commission were not clear on what they were trying to do. That is absolutely true, but it is not really their fault. It is not really the fault of the top people there. It stems from that fundamental contradiction in the Potsdam Agreement because the intention to reconstruct German life on a democratic and peaceful basis without discrimination against race, creed or political opinion is not really consistent with the policy of final disarmament and with the level of industry plan—in short the policy of pastoralisation—nor is it consistent with the very large-scale de-Nazification as it is now being carried out.
  I want to say a few words about what we are doing in our zone towards the

  579
  reconstruction of a peaceful and democratic life. The only way to learn democracy is to practise it. Unlike the Americans, we have handed over no political power and practically no executive power whatever to the Germans above the lowest level. The highest deliberative body, the Zonal Advisory Council at Hamburg, has no more power than a school debating society, and unlike most school debating societies, it has to ask the headmaster before it may debate a subject. That is ludicrous. The German Economic Advisory Board at Minden has some small powers, but the organisation, for a reason I shall refer to in a moment, is very badly understaffed. The hon. and gallant Member for Bexley referred to the trade unions and obviously knows a great deal more about it than I do. The only point I want to make is that they are not allowed to negotiate on hours and wages. That is admirable Communism and admirable National Socialism, but not very good democracy.
  We have 89 political officers. I take it that their job is to teach democracy in Germany, but is it really possible to teach a foreign nation our variety of democracy and our way of life? It assumes that there is no real difference between Penge and MŰnchen-Gladbach, between Ponders End and Wolfen-bŰttel. They are divided by thousands of years of history—
  Mr. Follick: Did the hon. Member say thousands of years?
  Mr. Birch: Yes, they are divided by thousands of years. I read a very profound remark the other day by T. S. Elliot in his preface to "The Dark Side of the Moon." He said:
  "Respect for the culture, the pattern of life of other people—which is not the same thing as indifference to other people's crimes against humanity—is respect for history."
  I believe it is a political crime to show disrespect for history and a crime which is always punished. It is ridiculous to send out these political officers, who are some very worthy men, a type of fellow not adopted for a constituency over here —that is a fact with several of them— and say that they can teach the Germans democracy, but not allow them to practise it.
  Now to be more controversial, I believe it is quite wrong for us to impose
  580
  Socialism on German industry. I see all the reasons for Germany being socialised —bomb damage and so on. I fully understand that, but surely the degree to which Germany is socialised, and the way it is done, is for the Germans to decide and not us. I think that if they had their own Government they would do more than we are doing. I am not complaining about the degree, but that we should do it at all. It is against every possible tenet of the democracy we are trying to teach. It is absolutely wrong. If hon. Gentlemen opposite offer Germans tattered Socialism at the point of the bayonet, it will not appeal to the German people. It is not only that we give too little authority to the Germans, but the fact that we interfere the whole way down in the day to day administration, as the hon. and gallant Member for Bexley pointed out. The German economy is very complex It has been, to a certain extent a planned economy since the days of Bismarck and, of course, under National Socialism the Germans enjoyed to the full the pleasures of a planned economy. It would be fair to say, without wishing to criticise these people on the Commission that very few of them have any deep knowledge of German economic history, of German economic structure, and in fact few of them have even a working knowledge of German. Therefore it is bound to be unsatisfactory. The system of trying to administer the whole way down with people who are not qualified to do it is wrong.
  There has been a lot of talk about timber, and there was an answer given in this House the other day about the number of people engaged in the timber control. The Chancellor of the Duchy said there were 213 officers, and it has been said today that their job is to get some export of timber. What export of timber have they achieved? Since we have been in Germany the figure is £250,000, and if you divide 213 officers into that—their salaries and their expenses—I should think we have paid double for every plank. Take the radio station at Hamburg, where there are 25 British personnel, including administrators and technicians. I can understand having a few censorship people there, but why we should want to tell the Germans how to turn the knobs round, I cannot imagine. They had a most efficient radio system

  581
  before and during the war, and surely they can have it again? It goes all the way through. For instance, in order that a German in an official position may have the use of a car, he has to get permits signed by four different British officers. I could give details, but I will not weary the House. That may be good Socialism, I would not like to say; it is certainly good National Socialism but it is not very good sense. This duplication is unnecessary and disastrous. The way to get timber is to say to the Germans, "You will deliver so many standards of timber f .o.b. Hamburg at such and such a date," and leave them to do it. Then you would get the timber. You will never get it from the 213 officers.
  Everybody has stressed the fact that what we want is to get on with devolution and hand over to the Germans. That brings one up against one of the most difficult problems of the lot, the problem of de-Nazification. I can understand the demand for that—revenge, I suppose, is always sweet and, goodness knows, people have suffered enough from the Germans; but I wonder whether the people of this country realise exactly what the policy of de-Nazification means. I am not talking about war criminals, or about these wretched people in concentration camps, these arrestable categories about whom there has been a good deal of talk already. I am talking about the removal from office of Nazi sympathisers. Under the Allied Control Commission directive No. 24, it was laid down that all who were more than nominal participants in party affairs—a nominal participant was defined as
  "Any one who was an avowed believer in National Socialism or racial or militaristic creeds, or had voluntarily given assistance of any kind to the Nazis."
  —that includes, of course, practically all Germans—all these people must be removed from public office and from positions of responsibility in private firms. I think we are all agreed that the big villians have to go, but both the wisdom of any action and, indeed, the whole quality of it, is affected by the scale on which it is done. It might be wise to investigate 5,000 people, 10,000 or 50,000 people, but it would be entirely wrong to investigate several million. It might be right to sack 2 per cent. of the teachers where it would be wrong to sack 20 per cent. of them. The effect of this decree, if fully carried out, is that everybody in public employment above manual labour has to
  582
  be investigated. In fact a start has been made and, by the end of June, 1946, we had investigated 900,000 cases, and 47,000 people had been removed from civil employment, 12,250 refused employment and —this is a good one—by February, 1946, 16,700 teachers had been removed. I do not know what the figure is now. This, of course, left a hopeless shortage in the schools. By June, 1946, one-fifth of the whole banking staff in our zone had either been arrested, removed from office, or suspended.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Does the hon. Gentleman advocate the retaining of Nazis approved by the Nazi regime as teachers?
  Mr, Birch: I will come to that in a minute.
  Dr. Guest: That is what the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. Birch: We agree that the big people have to go, but what proportion, does anybody imagine, of those teachers had any say in policy? One per cent?
  Dr. Guest: They taught children Nazi doctrines.
  Mr. Birch: I will come back to that in a moment. In order to carry out this policy, we are employing 3,764 intelligence officers, and there are 224 de-Nazification panels sitting and 50 review boards. I would point out that it is not a very light punishment to be dismissed from your job, although I do not know what the hon. Member who has just interrupted considers the punishment should be. It means that you lose your pension, that your property is blocked, that you can never be employed again in any position of responsibility. That means, for an elderly sedentary worker on present rations, a sentence of slow death. I would say to those people who decried the suggested hanging of the Kaiser that surely he was more guilty than these 16,700 teachers. I think there are the greatest moral and practical objections to this course. To start with the moral ones. How can you judge whether a man was more than a nominal supporter of the régime and whether he acted voluntarily? That is judging not what he did, what his actions were, but what was in his heart and conscience. That is for God to judge, not man. The next point is that it is a retrospective decree. It was not a crime

  583
  to belong to the Nazi régime when they joined:
  "The facts were done before the laws were made;
  The trump turned up after the game was played."
  It is against the rale of law and against Western civilisation to bring in retrospective decrees like that. There are the greatest practical objections, because what we are doing is to create a new proletariat, made up of all the most able people in Germany. All the leaders, all the people with administrative experience are being thrown out. Not only that, but we are showing them no way to get back. Napoleon said that if you leave a man without hope, it is the most dangerous thing you can do. The second practical objection is that we cannot get Germans to run the country. You cannot get Germans to come forward to run the German economic life because, as soon as they come forward, they are screened and, nine times out of ten, they not only do not get the job but are thrown out of their own job. As a result they starve to death.
  Extensive de-Nazification is only right if you assume that the great mass of the German people were not Nazis, but the history of the last 12 years is only explicable on the hypothesis that the vast mass of the German people were Nazis. If the hon. Member is prepared to stand up and say that the vast majority of the people were not Nazis he should get up and denounce the Government for inflicting this terrible punishment on an innocent people. He cannot have it both ways. The fact is that they were mostly Nazis and we are picking out the best of them and condemning them to slow death. I am surprised that people have not spoken out more about this but I suppose they are afraid of being called Fascist beasts. I feel strongly about this and I hope I will get support from hon. Members opposite.
  So much for what we are doing for the reconstruction of German life on a democratic basis. Although the policy of pastoralisation would in any case make the birth of German democracy impossible, what we are doing is to make it impossible for it even to be conceived. I will cut out a great deal of what I wish to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]— I will come to the end of my remarks. The Minister of State, when he spoke a
  584
  little earlier gave us a certain amount of positive news, the first we have had, I think, from the Government about Germany since they have been in office. But his statement was heavily qualified, and he went out of his way to say once more, as the Prime Minister said the other day, that we cannot accept the counsel of despair that Europe should be divided into two. When we are discussing this matter, it seems to me that we have to start from the facts. The facts are that Europe is divided into two. I hope we shall not have much talk about what a pity it would be —it is a pity, but it has happened. The one thing I think it essential that we should not do, is to enter into a dishonourable and unworkable compromise such as those at Yalta and Potsdam. In this connection I would like to quote a remark made by the Chancellor of the Duchy in the last Debate in this House on the Control Commission. He sometimes makes not very profound remarks, but this I think was a profound remark; it was at least a remark capable of a profound interpretation. He was talking about the level of industry plan and said:
  "The fact that the agreement was finally reached, is not without significance in the present state of world affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 1365.]
  That is profoundly true, but" significant" of what? Significant of the fact that one can always reach an agreement which is dishonourable, which is cruel and which breaks up the structure of Europe. One can reach an agreement that old men, women and children shall be thrown out of their homes beyond the Western Neisse, or that the South Tyrol shall remain Italian, or that the people of Essen should be left to rot in the cellars in which they live. There is no difficulty in bringing about things of that sort, but for God's sake do not let us have any more of these agreements. The danger is, as the Minister of State suggested, that we shall go on fiddling about and get a half agreement and the result will be disastrous, because there is no time to spare. Surely, if we have learned anything at all from the history of the last 12 years, it is that the way to have a war with a totalitarian power is to appease that power. If we stand up for what is right we shall succeed, but if we truckle we shall find that all the country beyond the Rhine is "On the Dark Side of the Moon."
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Zilliacus: We have accepted the proposal to merge the British, French and American zones.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If the French agree to come in.
  Mr. Zilliacus: That is the logic of the situation at any rate. I would like to inquire into the effect of doing this. The purpose of doing it is stated to be to make this zone self-sufficient, and to enable us to dispense with paying £80 million a year for keeping alive the Germans in our zone. I do not know on what order the Government think they are going to save by this measure, but I have heard it mentioned that we should reduce our expenditure to about £20 million. I do not know if that is correct or not, but against that we have to offset the fact that both the American and British zones are deficit zones as far as food is concerned. They have to make up the difference by increasing manufactured exports in competition with our exports. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said that we need not worry very much because £200 million a year exports would make the Western zone self-sufficing, whereas before the war Germany was exporting £700 million. But she was also importing a great deal. Western Germany will import nothing but food. So, instead of paying for that food directly through the Exchequer, we will let them pay by exports which will compete with our exports on the world market. I do not know what we are going to get from that.
  On what basis is this fusion going to take place? General McNarney said in an interview in "The Times" a few days ago that the Americans were going to have an equal share with us in controlling the coal production from the Ruhr; the coal would go from the Ruhr to industries in the American zone, and American business men would offer raw materials to be worked up into finished goods for export. I see what the Americans get out of that, but not where we come in on that basis. If we are to merge these two zones, what is to be the economic policy governing production? Are we to attempt to restore capitalism, which the Americans are doing in their zone, or to try to base production on Government ownership and control, as the Foreign Secretary suggested on 21st February was the proper course to pursue in the Ruhr?
  586
  I was in Paris recently and I talked with the leaders of the Government parties in France. I found that the Socialist and Communist leaders were very much troubled by the prospect that private enterprise might be restored in the Ruhr, while they were insistent on the desirability of basing the production of the Ruhr on public ownership and control of heavy industry. That leads on to the wider issue of how we are to restore democracy and carry out de-Nazifcation in Germany. I have been surprised at some of the statements made on both sides of the House during the Debate. The implication was that the Nazis in concentration camps and dismissed Nazi school teachers are people suffering for their political opinions. Surely it must be realised by now that Fascism is something far deeper than a difference of opinion within a democracy? It is something fundamental.
  Mr. Birch: So is Communism.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Communism is a different issue altogether, and I would be glad to debate that matter with the hon. Member. Certainly I trust the Communists more than I would some of the hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Birch: We all know that.
  Mr. Zilliacus: I could quote some things to the hon. Member on that but I will not do it.
  The Report mentions, and the Minister quoted, that our mission in Germany is to change the German outlook and to create a democratic spirit. For that purpose it mentions that our expenditure in building up machinery for culture and education will be fully justified. What is the economic machinery? On what social basis is this change to democracy to proceed? That I believe to be the crucial issue. "The Economist" of 6th April, in a series of very remarkable articles by members of its staff, states:
  "The conditions 01 the British zone make far reaching Socialist experiments a necessity. There is … no other workable alternative. Instead of being driven reluctantly into them, let the British administration openly and deliberately evolve a plan for public ownerships of the essential industries and services in North-West Germany."
  The "Observer" Berlin correspondent pointed out, on 14th April, that the only reliable anti-Fascist and democratic

  587
  parties in Germany were the trade unions and the working class parties. He said that this means that:
  "German labour ought to be encouraged to reorganise German economy according to its ideas—that is, on Socialist lines. Without public ownership of key industries and without comprehensive economic planning, the reconstruction of Germany will bog down in a succession of phoney booms and real slumps. Full employment within the framework of a predominantly Socialist economy is the only possible method by which Germany can be both economically rebuilt and spiritually and politically de-Nazified. This is also the pre-condition for the re-establishment of democratic freedom in Germany."
  So far as we on this side of the House are concerned we are committed up to the hilt to that policy. We say in the Labour Party's report on "The International Post-War Settlement" that Socialism is a fundamental necessity for the revival of democracy in Europe. That, I believe to be as true of Germany as of any other part of Europe. I would ask whether the Government are resigning themselves to the division of Germany into two zones as being a permanent policy, or whether, as I think the Minister of State suggested, the Government are quite prepared to try to resume negotiations for basing our policy in Germany on the treatment of Germany as an economic entity. I regret that we have been quite so hasty as we have been in resorting to the policy of two zones.
  Mr. Molson: Hasty?
  Mr. Zilliacus: Yes. After all, who was it who held up this policy of treating Germany as an economic entity and the setting up of a central administration? It was France, in order to get her way about the Ruhr. We, quite rightly, were very patient and dealt with that by simply going on with negotiations, and doing the best we could.
  Today, instead of trying to use Molotov's statement as a basis of discussion—I think it was a perfectly acceptable basis of discussion—we rush into this business of dividing Germany into two zones. I hope we shall not live to regret it. I see no way of making Western Germany self-sufficing economically without Eastern Germany. The Russians asked for reparations, which, though large in comparison with Germany's capacity to pay, which is at present nil,
  588
  are very small in proportion to the damage which the Russians have suffered. The sum put forward is not unreasonable in view of the Dawes Plan—£3,000 million —and the Young Plan—£2,000 million— after the last war. It was an acceptable basis of negotiation. The Russian refusal to enter unconditionally into the economic unity proposals we made at Paris was not an unreasonable refusal, seeing that our two zones, to put it bluntly, are economically and financially bankrupt, whereas the Russian zone is a going concern. The diet there is 50 per cent. better in calories and in the Russian zone industrial production has reached almost prewar level, and the Socialist and Communist Parties have something to say in the Government of the country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members apposite find that amusing, but the truth is that the Russians have realised many of the things that we say we want to do, and which I believe we want to do, but have failed to achieve in our own zone. I believe that the price of agreement with the Russians is the price which our Government should be prepared to pay—the basing of the revival of Germany on Socialist reconstruction in Germany, the only basis upon which Germany can be de-Nazified, made safe for civilisation, and re-united.
  6.55 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: The House will not expect me to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) in extolling the virtues of Communism, and the better way the Russian zone is run compared with the English zone.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest and press the point that all the triumphs of reconstruction in the East of Germany are solely due to Communism?
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: I would not suggest that. I would congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead in having been able to discover what goes on behind the iron curtain. Some hon. Members on this side of the House have not been able to do so.
  Mr. Zilliacus: My information is based on the British Press, and if the hon. and gallant Member is interested, I can show him, after this Debate, the source of my information.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: I shall be very interested to see it, I am sure.
  I am glad to have this opportunity, as I have had the privilege of being a Member of the Select Committee of this House which recently visited Berlin and the British zone. As has been said in the Report, we returned from Germany late at night on Friday, 5th July, and by last Thursday this Report had been produced. That, I suggest, is a great tribute to the staff of the House who accompanied us on that journey and who worked so ably, upon our return, to have this Report available for hon. Members before this Debate took place today. This Committee which visited Germany will certainly achieve fame or notoriety, if for one reason only. That is, we have brought before Parliament and the people of this country the astounding fact, which has already been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), that we, the victorious nation, are, 12 months after the cessation of hostilities, subsidising some kind of Government organisation in Germany. That has never happened before. Perhaps after the welcome announcement of the Minister of State this afternoon about the new cooperation between the American and British Governments, we may now look forward to some relief for the British taxpayer.
  I wish to refer to one or two detailed recommendations in the Report, but before doing so I would emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has said, about the particularly unfortunate position of the hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In the past, this office has been regarded as a sinecure office. In fact my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who occupied that office, once described it as "well-paid inactivity." Today, the position is very different. The present Chancellor of the Duchy is given a virtually impossible task. He pays flying visits to Berlin and to the British zone. One would almost like to ask him if his journeys are really necessary. I do not say that in any kind of critical spirit, but rather in a spirit of sympathy with him, because after all what authority, if any, has he affecting policy? The Chancellor of the Duchy has two very formidable masters. He has, on the one hand, the Secretary
  590
  of State for Foreign Affairs, and, on the other, the Secretary of State for War. I wonder if the Government have any knowledge direct or indirect, as to whether any of our Allies conduct their activities in Germany in the same way as the British.
  I would like to refer to two matters of detail. The first is referred to in paragraph 47 of our Report, the paragraph dealing with the staff of the Control Commission. I think all hon. Members will agree that if we are to do our job in Germany well we must have the very best people that we can get to do the work. When, the Select Committee were in Germany, it was inevitable that we should meet mainly the principal and senior officers of the Control Commission, to whom too great a tribute could not be paid. That small body of men, many of them idealistic in outlook, are carrying far too great a burden. Here I refer not only to the civilian officials of the Control Commission but also to those officers of the Navy, Army and the Royal Air Force who are seconded for duty. I think that men from the Armed Forces should be told by the Service Ministries that their service with the Control Commission is not regarded as a black mark against them but as exactly the reverse. I am sorry that the Financial Secretary to the War Office is no longer present. I hope the Minister of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will bring that point to the notice of the Service Departments.
  It is, unfortunately, a fact that junior members of the civil staff of the Control Commission were recruited at the beginning with very great speed and certainly not with the care which should be exercised in appointments of this nature. As a result of the Report of the Select Committee, and of this Debate today, I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will take immediate steps to see that those members of the staff who have not given first class service are weeded out. By having only our very best men there, we shall speed the time when it will be much easier for us to arrange for the devolution of authority to Germany personnel, as the Report recommends. I also hope that those members of the civilian Control Commission who are retained, will be given conditions of service which will attract only the very best.

  591
  Whilst on the subject of personnel of the Control Commission, the size of which we hope will be considerably reduced in the not far distant future, I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will give the House an assurance that no big reduction will be made in the vitally important intelligence and security services. If we are to release a lot more Germans now held in concentration camps, either on parole or in some other way, it is necessary more than ever that our intelligence and security services should be maintained with the maximum number of personnel required to do the job properly. The other matter of ' detail which I wish to mention is one which has been touched upon already. I refer to the appalling fact that some 15 months after the cessation of hostilities we have 40,000 to 50,000 Germans still in concentration camps. I am afraid that" concentration camps" is the only right and proper descriptive phrase for these institutions. Some hon. Members may say, "Once a Nazi, always a Nazi." If we maintain that attitude we come to the stage when practically every German will be branded and placed in that category. We should also bear in mind the psychological aspect of this matter. Are we likely to denazify or make any German any less Nazi by keeping them behind barbed wire with searchlights gleaming on them throughout the night? As I mentioned when I interrupted the Minister of State, these 40,000 or 50,000 are in the British zone. We do not know how many there are in similar conditions in the other zones.
  We keep them in this state without any charge preferred against them, or any prospect of immediate trial, and even without telling them why they are there. They know by the traditional bush telegraph that they are there probably because they have been members of the Nazi Party. Surely, by doing this we are maintaining a system which we fought against for five or six years. I differ from the opinion held by the Minister of State. Many of these people are not, as he said, former active members of the Nazi Party. They are scientists, surgeons, dentists and the rest. Do the Government really mean to tell the Committee that to release some of these people, under proper surveillance, would cause any danger to public safety or security? [An HON. MEMBER: "Many are common criminals."] If that is the
  592
  case, it is a reflection upon the occupying authorities. If they are common criminals they should be brought to trial and given proper treatment. I hope the Government will do everything possible to release as many of these men and women, after proper screening, as they can. These people should be allowed their liberty and be enabled to contribute something useful to the economy of Germany. Let them be released on parole; we should not keep them in these concentration camps.
  The Select Committee have prepared the Report which is before the Committee with great care and trouble. In due course, I understand, the evidence will be published. We hope that the Report has been interesting to hon. Members, and venture to suggest that they will find some of the evidence startling. In this Report the Committee has made certain recommendations. It is my hope that the Government, through the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he replies, will be able to tell the House that they accept the majority of these recommendations.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Along with other right hon. and hon. Members I wish to congratulate the Select Committee of this House on this excellent Report on British Control in Germany. I think the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton) who opened the Debate today was one of the best which I have heard him make. Indeed, when I read this Report and listened to the Debate today, I began to think that reason had come into its own at last, because this is the first sensible document on peace that has been issued by the Government of this country for about six long years. Of course, nobody rejoices more about that than I do; and, if the right hon. Member for Aldershot does not mind my saying so, I wish that some of the noble sentiments he has uttered today had been spoken by him and his colleagues two or three years ago. We would not in that case have the ghastly picture of Germany presented before us today. What has brought this picture about? This is the consequence of the "unconditional surrender" policy of Governments during

  593
  the war. We cannot blame the Chancellor of the Duchy; he is doing his level best in clearing up the muddle created by the statesmen of our country during the war. This document is in the nature of a report of a post-mortem examination, not upon the Chancellor of the Duchy, but upon the statesmen of our country who were responsible for imposing unconditional surrender on Germany.
  I am glad, therefore, that, today, the House of Commons is practically unanimous that Germany shall not perish. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) once saying that, if we bankrupted Germany, we should bankrupt Europe, including ourselves, at the same time. I would add that if we divide Germany, we divide Europe too. Indeed, it is because we have divided Germany that Europe is now divided. The Minister of State will forgive me saying one jarring word about his speech. I want him to understand that it offends my spirit—and I have been a trade union official for probably as long as anybody else here—to think that our Government seem to accept the principle that German labour should be forced to work here as part of reparations due to us. That is a very dangerous policy, and I, for one, refuse to accept it. I trust that my right hon. Friend, who knows more about these international problems than ordinary hon. Members of the House, will not pursue that very dangerous line.
  Mr. Speaker: I was asked at the beginning of the Debate whether we might discuss the policy of keeping Germans here, and I said, "No, it would be out of Order on this Estimate." We may discuss the absence of Germans from Germany, but the emphasis must be on German employment and not on employment in this country.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I will drop that subject, because, of course, your Ruling is perfectly correct. I will then take up a point mentioned by several hon. Members in this Debate about persecuting those with objectionable political opinions in Germany. I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy will take note of this. I remember long ago workmen in my own country being punished at their jobs and not getting advances in wages because
  594
  they did not belong to certain clubs, associations and denominations. I would therefore lay down a policy for my country, if I could; it would be, that German workers should not be refused employment because they are Anarchists, Communists, Socialists, Catholics, Protestants or even Fascists. They ought to be free to work and paid wages, but, if they commit a crime, they ought to be brought to justice like any other criminal.
  I trust the Minister will see that, in employing Germans under our control in their own country, that that policy will be accepted by our Government. Hon. Members rightly declare that we in Britain are better off by comparison with the Germans; but one fact in this Report that really startles me is, that it has been found inexpedient to direct miners to work underground in Germany. We are, of course, still directing our own miners to the pits. We are the conquering country, and our miners forsooth are being directed to the pits, but in Germany, a defeated nation, it is inexpedient to direct them to the mines.
  Mr. Norman Smith: If the hon. Member will allow me, may I say to him that he is misquoting the Report? The Report says that experience has proved the inexpediency of directing German labour—not particularly German miners.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: When I worked in the pit, the miner was part of the labour employed. The kernel of the problem, of course, is whether Germany is to become one economic unit. I was very pleased on that score to hear the point made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot about selecting certain industries for destruction. I do not know enough about industry except to say that it does seem to me that, if we smash the few key industries of arms manufacture, we could soon settle the problem whether or not Germany will arm again.
  There is another point in the Report which interests me very much, and that is about de-Nazification. I do not quite understand our people when they talk about teaching the Germans how to live. I do not know much about Germans; the only friends I have in Germany are stout anti-Nazis; they are Quakers, and they do not believe in war any more than I do.

  595
  On the problem of teaching Germans a new way of life, I remember, during the heat of the war, somebody suggesting that we should send teachers from this country to teach the Germans our way of life. I began to wonder where we would find them, because we were at that time 70,000 teachers short for our own schools. However, I am all for propagating the Parliamentary democratic system among the Germans. I think it ought to be done; it is a very healthy gospel to preach to the tyrannised peoples of Europe. We could tell them, if we liked that, in this country, under a Parliamentary regime, we can have a revolution without shedding a drop of human blood in the process; we can change the Government overnight without much ado, except for a few scurrilous articles in the newspapers. In a totalitarian country, on the other hand, there must be a revolution by force and shedding human blood before you can change the Government. That is one of the main reasons why I am against the authoritarian regime.
  It seems to me that, although food is very important in Germany today, especially among the miners, there is one thing much more important than anything else, and that is the creation of a new spirit among the German people. We want a new evangelism and a new gospel. I remember Earl Baldwin, when he was Prime Minister, saying that we might be able to force other systems on Europe, but that it was not a new government or a new system that was required; what Europe needed was half a dozen prophets to preach a new gospel of toleration.
  Let me pay this tribute to my country. I am naturally enamoured of the right of free speech, and hon. Members who have come here for the first time since the war might be interested to know that this House actually tolerated my speaking against the war while the conflict was actually proceeding. I appreciated that beyond all the cash that could be given me. That spirit of toleration ought to be imported among the German people. If a new way is necessary in Germany and in Europe generally, it is that way of life which we possess of tolerating unpopular opinions.
  Earl Winterton Earl Winterton (Horsham) indicated assent.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I am very glad to note the assent of the right hon. Gentleman on this issue, because even he and I do not see eye to eye on all occasions. As I said at the beginning, I am very glad at the reasonableness exhibited by this House today on the question of the treatment of defeated Germany. I remember too well what was said at the end of the first world war. Among other things, we were going to hang the Kaiser, but the old fellow died a natural death; nobody ever touched him. But we are not talking like that at the end of the second world war. There are different views, a better spirit, and a superior attitude of mind being brought to bear on the problem of Germany.
  I have lived long enough to believe that the soldier, sailor, airman, the bomb and the gun will never bring peace to the world. I believe that the moral, human spirit, which we have been talking about today, is a million times more important than all the armies which could be sent to Germany. A new generation is born every day; new generations laugh at what has been said in the past—in fact, they are very nearly laughing today at what was said by some hon. Members during the war. There was a lot of nonsense spoken then about what we were going to do with Germany when she was defeated. Today, we are talking rather kindly about Germany. One good thing has emerged in this Debate, namely, that nearly everybody agrees that it is wrong to say that the whole of the Germans are a lot of rascals; one cannot indict a whole nation. And, in passing, I resent our representative in Jerusalem saying that all Jews must be held responsible for what has happened there recently. Likewise, I resent holding 70 million Germans responsible for what was done by Hitler and his gangsters. For instance, the miners of this country, to whom I belong, were not responsible for the Boer War, the first world war or the second world war. The common man has nothing to say about making war, or making the peace either.
  As I have said, I am glad to note the humane tone of this Debate. I hope that we shall henceforth go into Germany in this new spirit, to do justice and secure fair play. Incidentally, I do not like what is happening in Nuremburg at the moment; the language employed there is cheap; it

  597
  reminds me of some of the vocabulary of Hitler himself. I have more faith in my countrymen than to see them descend to that. We are at last exhibiting a better spirit towards the defeated foe; and I trust that, when my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor consider what has been said in this House today, they will carry back into our administration in Germany, not only justice, but will appreciate that the Germans must have already realised that their greatest penalty of all is the loss of the war. They have learned what defeat means; more than that they have lost their jobs, money, homes, property, children, wives and husbands. That, surely, ought to be sufficient punishment without adding more. Let us, who believe we are among the decent people in the world—and I am proud of our institutions—carry this gospel of justice, nay, charity, if one likes, and, above all, mercy, to the Germans, and teach them that better way of life which we have talked about for so many years.
  7.24 p.m.
  Commander Maitland: I feel very diffident about following the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I wish I could follow him and use the same eloquence, but for four minutes tonight, I propose to address myself to one small practical point. How right was my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) when he said that the one thing which we learned after the last war was the difficulty with which any dealing with reparation is fraught. He called attention to the mess into which we got after the last war. Everybody in this House, whether they have a knowledge of economics or whether they know nothing at all, realises that fact. But there is also a subtle additional reaction from which I believe that many of us suffer. Victory as we then regarded it brought merely difficulties and disaster and because of that, we feel that it is wrong to profit from victory. But that, I suggest, is not necessarily correct. I believe that there is one way in which we can gain reparations—by trying to absorb the knowledge of the German people. Theirs was a great knowledge, a knowledge which kept the world at bay for many years It was a great technical knowledge, a great knowledge of design and something which, had it not been
  598
  used in such a diabolical way, would have been of great value to the world.
  I want this country to get its fair share of that knowledge and to employ it in the way it should have been employed. As the House knows, there is an organisation called B.I.O.S. employed by the Government to obtain such information as trade secrets, technical secrets of German manufacturers and businesses. I want the Minister, when he replies, to tell us that we are going all out to get all the secrets and the knowledge we can. Surely, now that we are out for a great export drive, this is the moment when we need every good card in our export hand, and this is one of the good cards which are available to us. I am particularly asking this because, during the war, it fell to my lot to handle a good many German made armaments of various types. I found that, in almost every case, there was something very good about them. But I was horrified by the attitude taken by the various firms with whom I was then dealing. They took what, I believe, was an entirely insular line—that these things could not be as good as ours because they were made in Germany. That is the most stupid and ridiculous line to take, and I could not understand British manufacturers taking such a line.
  I want the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to tell us that the little dog is going to get a chance of seeing the rabbit as well as the big dog. Are these secrets open to everybody who wants them? Is there an asking organisation on behalf of the various small businesses in the country? Can such people go to the Chancellor with their problems and ask him whether he has any information which would help them? Are we investing enough money and using enough people in order to get the greatest benefit from this? I admit that I am very anxious that, in our great anxiety—and in our proper anxiety—to be generous victors as almost every speech which has been made today has emphasised, we should at least try to get the small fruits of victory which remain.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mr. Stokes: I do not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) because I so completely disagree with him. As an industrialist, I have found the

  599
  approach of some of His Majesty's Government officials, on the question of worming secrets out of Germany, utterly and completely repulsive. I do not mean that I object to anything that has been done in connection with atomic power and things which might be war elements, but I feel it to be utterly repugnant that, when an enemy is down and out, the industrialists of this country should invade its soil like a swarm of vultures and pick the remaining flesh from its bones. Whenever I have been approached on that subject I have always declined to take part in the discussion as the whole thing is repugnant to me. I wish particularly to speak to the right hon. Member for Alder-shot (Mr. Lyttelton). My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) expressed some astonishment at the right hon. Gentleman's performance at the Box today. I agree with him. It was the best speech that I have ever heard him make, largely because it was most like the speeches that I have made throughout the war. It is not only because of this idiocy of unconditional surrender that we got ourselves into a "jam," but, first and foremost, because of our betrayal of principle throughout the war. It was betrayed first at Teheran; then it was mortally wounded at Yalta, and the indecent funeral took place in Potsdam. I wish the right hon. Member for Aldershot had made the speech that he made today years ago when he was a Member of the Cabinet. Then, perhaps, the war would have been shorter. Certainly, the difficulties with which we are now confronted would not have been as great as they have proved to be.
  I would like to say in passing that I know the matters of Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam are not being discussed today, but let it be a warning for the future, for never on one occasion was this House consulted before those agreements were reached. Had this House been consulted on economic questions, not on military questions which, of course, must remain secret, but on questions such as the decision to cut up Germany and to send 14 million people across Europe like a creeping Belsen, I do not think the House of Commons, even constituted as it was in wartime, would have consented for a moment. Therefore, let it be a warning never to let the Government take the bit between their teeth again.
  600
  I now come to the main theme of what I want to say. The point that has been so ably put by so many Members on both sides of the House is this. My hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and all those who work so faithfully with him in this country and overseas, find themselves in a "jam" primarily because there has never been any real declaration of policy. Thank goodness, today we have had some constructive statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Thank goodness, at last, there has been a decision that if the iniquitous decisions of Potsdam are not carried out—and they are not going to be —we shall get something constructive in Germany in the not too distant future. Those of us who have studied this question realise that the Potsdam economics were crazy.
  The decision which followed it in March this year was almost as crazy. What Potsdam laid down, in effect, was—I think the Minister of State quoted it wrongly—that the standard of living in Germany was not to be higher than the average level in other European countries. That is really chasing one's tail, for this reason, that the whole of the economics of central Europe depend upon the successful operation of the Ruhr and the Rhine, as is well known by anybody who has studied the question. How are we to expect millions of human beings in the Ruhr and the Rhine to work themselves out, year in and year out, in order to maintain a standard of living to which they themselves cannot aspire? It is almost as stupid as saying to the farmers in this country, "You may not feed yourselves before you send food to the market." The answer would inevitably be that they would kill their animals and eat all their eggs, and things would just disappear.
  If we want to set Europe on its feet again—I do; I want to set Germany on its feet again under proper control—we must scrap the whole of the Potsdam economics and the whole of the findings of the Allied Commission in March, and realise that if Europe is to benefit, the whole productive capacity of the Ruhr and the Rhine must be worked to the utmost. We shall not achieve that state of affairs unless we offer the people who do the work some sort of bait. I have urged time and time again in this House and elsewhere that the way in which to

  601
  get the Ruhr miners to work is to make them realise thai after they have achieved whatever target we set them, the rest of the coal shall be for their country. I was distressed and disappointed when I heard the Minister of State say that it was probably impossible to ease up on the coal exports to other countries, for political reasons. I agree with what was said on the opposite side of the House, that unless those exports are stopped they will get diminishing returns. The only way in which they can get more coal is to get more steel so that more coalmines can be made to work. They cannot get more steel unless they get more coal to start with. The only thing to do is to scrap the export of coal from the Ruhr at the present time and get the output of steel up to the highest possible level.
  I come to another point which is really more fundamental than coal, and that is food. I thought the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) was a little unjust to my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is not really his fault that the food situation in Germany is what it is today. It certainly is not his fault that Germany has not got all the food for which he has been asking. I have been concerned with this question for some time, and it will be within the recollection of most of my hon. Friends that we have expressed views, which the Minister has supported and, indeed, adopted as his own, concerning the urgent necessity for food for the Germans, without which we shall have a vicious circle, as the Report makes clear. From the other side of the House we have often had sneers and ridicule, and, if it has not been quite so apparent in the House, it has certainly been bad in the country and in the Tory Press, making it appear again and again, quite wrongly, that efforts have been made to export from this country to Germany things which we can ill afford to spare. May I pay a great tribute to the "Daily Mail"—a most unusual occurrence? They had the good sense the other day to send one of their reporters abroad to give them a truthful account of the situation. Mr. Alexander Clifford—
  Earl Winterton: Would the hon. Gentleman also pay a tribute to myself and the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), as we were the first to initiate a Debate in this
  602
  House on the subject? The hon. Gentleman's recollection is somewhat in error. We were the first to call attention to this matter two years ago, before the hon. Gentleman commenced his talkings from the housetops.
  Mr. Stokes: Although I often find the noble Lord on the side of the angels, and on this occasion he is correct, I must point out that one swallow does not make a summer. However, I willingly give the noble Lord that point. This is my tribute to the "Daily Mail." Mr. Clifford came back and reported in a way in which I might have reported; they were good, factual articles, with points and truth— a magnificent combination—and the "Daily Mail" put them in, which was a most astonishing performance. What happened then? Today Lord Vansittart "gets cracking," and says on the food question:
  "We helped them"—
  that is the Germans—
  "too notably by putting our own people short of fats for their benefit."
  I take it that the whole object of this article, which goes on in the same strain, is to discredit what had appeared before. I support that for which my hon. Friend the Chancellor is appealing, and I would like to state shortly what the facts are. Who can challenge this:
  "The fat ration in the British zone in Germany today is 1.75 ozs. per week"?
  That is against our 7 ozs. in this country. The sugar ration is 2.25 ozs., as against our 8 ozs. a week. There is difficulty over bread. They have had practically no potatoes. Last week for the first time in six weeks the potato ration was honoured. Six weeks before that it was honoured, but before that they had had none since Christmas. We have the disreputable yellow Press trying to misrepresent the situation on the Continent, and trying, apparently, to use the appalling situation in which millions of people find themselves faced with dire starvation, in an effort to discredit the Government and stop further exports for their aid. It is about time the country knew the facts. If the country did know the facts, I am quite sure the country would be only too willing to suffer more, and to put up with even further restrictions.
  I now wish to say a few words about the steel situation. I have already spoken about coal, to which steel is closely allied.

  603
  The point I desire to emphasise is that the steel production limitation is, to my mind, fantastically stupid, for the following reason. A steel plant cannot be worked economically if it is going—I do not know whether this is a Parliamentary term, Mr. Speaker—at half cock. It just does not work. A given amount of steel may be produced, but it cannot be produced economically. It had better be soon recognised that the only way to get steel produced economically is to allow the blast furnaces and steel works to work at their utmost capacity, otherwise the burden will fall more and more heavily on the tax-payer in this country, and we will only be able to carry out the Potsdam Agreement at the economic levels mentioned on 27th March by making the British tax payer put his hand into his pocket in order to subsidise German production, for not producing enough steel.
  It is like the story of the Americans' non-hog raising gold bond before the war. They issued a non-hog raising gold bond, the object of which was not to raise more hogs but to raise less; the less hogs one raised the more money one got, for not raising them. It is the same principle as the Economic Council in Berlin, although I do not agree with the Economic Council. They told me they think their own is completely phoney, but we are being forced by the Potsdam Agreement to impose these conditions. May I add my support to the claim made by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), that the dismantling of plants in the British zone should be stopped? I think it is an absolutely fatuous thing to try to do. The Americans and Russians have stopped dismantling, yet when I have asked when we are to stop dismantling my hon. Friend has only been able to tell me that he is not sure about it because of a quadripartite agreement. The quadripartite agreement has gone sky high, as evidenced by statements from that Box today. For Heaven's sake let us stop this dismantling of industrial plants.
  In passing, I refer to a different subject, namely, the living accommodation in Germany. Twice this year I have been to the worst places and seen the appalling conditions in which people live. Here we are, a year after the cessation of hostilities,
  604
  and literally thousands of people are being turned out of their homes to make room for what? For a condition of things which we all knew, a year ago, would arise. Yet nothing has been done to meet it. When talking to Army people, to wives, sweethearts and so on, I have always done my best to persuade them not to go to Germany. I think it is an appalling mistake. What is taking place? I wish the Secretary of State for War would tell them what a miserable time they are going to have—because I think they are going to have a miserable time—and make them realise what a miserable time is being inflicted on other people in consequence. It does seem to me to be terrible that in a place like Hanover, and some of the smaller districts, people should be rooted out at 24 hours' notice and told to get away, without efforts having been made to accommodate these people. I can give my hon. Friend details. I know it is not entirely his fault; it comes under the military much more. I hope perhaps that complaint may be heard.
  I know the discussion of prisoners of war is barred from this Debate, but I do want to ask my hon. Friend to make representations in the right quarter, and to see that it is fully appreciated at this end how embarrassing it is to him at that end when so many of these men are away. Looking at it from the economic point of view, they are wanted in Germany for the rebuilding of the country, and getting the country going again. Here we are, short of labour, with an Army standing over there; yet we keep these prisoners of war over here to do the jobs which our men over there ought to be brought back here to do. That is another bit of crazy economics.
  There is another and more human aspect of it which, as my hon. Friend knows, strongly appeals to me and the hon. Member, for The High Peak. We have, under the iniquities in Europe, 14 million people being expelled, and herded across Europe like a lot of cattle. An hon. Member sitting beside me spoke to me just now of his experiences in a transit camp, entirely bearing out what I have said. He has come across women and children, turned out at short notice from the places where they and their families have lived for hundreds of years. Asked where their men folk were, they said they were prisoners of war in Scotland. The other day, when I asked the Secretary of State

  605
  for War whether he could tell me how many prisoners of war in this country had wives and children who were being expelled at short notice from Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia, he said it was too difficult to say. It is nothing of the sort. At every camp I have been into I have asked that question, and the camp commandant has been able to tell me at once. The trouble is, it would be extremely inconvenient for the War Office if the public knew. There is no other reason whatever. I appeal to my hon. Friend on humanitarian grounds to assist in this immense problem. There are millions coming into the British zone with no breadwinner, no man to look after them at all. The prisoners of war who belong to those women and children should be returned to them at once. With that, I leave the subject of prisoners of war, upon which I shall have a great deal more to say on another occasion.
  Another matter on the humanist side to which I must refer is that of the displaced persons. That is a problem with which my hon. Friend is very familiar, and I shall not speak for long on it. It has now been announced that U.N.R.R.A. comes to an end on 31st December. There has been a vague statement that something else will have to take its place, and take over some of the responsibilities which obviously cannot come to an end on 31st December. One of the most important problems is, what to do with the 800,000 displaced persons in the camps in the British and American zones. Can we have some pronouncement from that Box tonight on what the policy is to be? The mere announcement that U.N.R.R.A. is to come to an end has caused absolute consternation throughout the camps. This is not the moment to develop what could be done. Quite clearly, those people ought not to be left in Germany, and it ought not to be beyond the wits of the three great Western Powers, France, the United States and ourselves, to find accommodation for them within the confines of our own territories. No doubt something more will be said upon that by those interested in the Jewish problem when we come to debate another subject on Thursday.
  Turning to the personnel side of the concentration camps, I am horrified to find that there are some 40,000 German people in concentration camps in the area who have not yet been questioned, merely because they are dubbed "black." I had
  606
  too unfortunate an experience in regard to Regulation 18 (B) in this country to know that it is very unlikely there will not be grave injustices. It will be within the knowledge of the House that on one occasion a lady was put in a camp for nine months, although she had four little children, because in her diary against 14th November was written, "Destroy British Queen and instal Italian." It took our great Intelligence nine months to discover she had kept bees, yet the wretched woman was locked up. That might happen more easily in Germany where everybody has, until recently, experienced the custom of denouncing everybody else.
  With regard to the black, white and grey system of screening, I can tell my hon. Friend that if he goes to the commandants of the camps themselves he will be told it really is quite useless, for half the blacks have been proven white, the greys are nothing at all, and half the whites ought to be black. It is a hopelessly impossible situation. I offer a little advice to my hon. Friend and to His Majesty's Government, by saying that those who are proven Nazis, who have been active Nazis and are known to have been, who do not need to be screened at all, can be dealt with and the rest can be forgotten, because we are simply wasting our time, and will only land ourselves in more difficulties.
  I turn now to the Allied Control Commission and what ought to be done to improve it. I agree with what has been said already, that in many ways the whole organisation is top heavy. There are too many people trying to look after one another, and, in consequence, too much administrative detail and not enough control and proper guidance. To give a silly example of what I mean by the amount of paper that flows about I heard of a case the other day where it was necessary, and agreed, that a bridge which had been blown up should be rebuilt. Everybody agreed it; the military agreed, the civilians side agreed, the people who were to build the bridge agreed to do it, the labour was available and it required 360 tons of steel. The contractor put in an application for the required quantity of steel to do the job, and when the allocation came back he was told he could only have one ton—one ton to do a job which required 360 tons. Everybody agreed that it was a high

  607
  priority job, but the paper business is so great that everything snowballs up and nothing gets done. We did exactly the same sort of thing here with paper at the beginning of the war; I can remember that in my own works I used to throw the whole lot in the waste paper basket and say, "Let us get along without it." We did get along without it very well, but they cannot do that over there because of pressure from the top. I know of people over in Germany who are paid £1,500 a year for doing a job for which I would not pay £5 a week. They admit it, and I have known people resign for that very reason, all because the pressure from the top, by people who want to know every single detail, is so terrific that they cannot get on with real practical constructive work.
  Secondly, as I have said already, it is essential that we should go in for full production. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already made a statement, which we all welcome, that there is to be an amalgamation of the zones. Let us hope it will be three zones, and soon four, My experience of dealing with the Russians—I have had some as an industrialist, I have been to Moscow—is that the only way is to dig your toes in, and when you do they know what you want. As they always know what they want, there is then some possibility of coming to an agreement. But until you do know what you want, they will not help you to find out. That is the honest fact about the Russians, and I hope comrade Stalin will be sitting up and taking notice tonight, and that my friends in Moscow will recollect my own negotiations with them before the war. Fourthly, please send the prisoners of war back.
  Fifthly, cannot some modification be made in these quite ridiculous non-fraternisation regulations in Germany? When I was there I felt positively ashamed of myself. I went out for a walk, and I watched three or four people in Military Government uniform. They would not say "Good morning" to anybody. How are you to persuade people into a decent, Christian way of life if you cut them on Sunday mornings? I said "Good morning" to everybody, in my worst German. But then, when I go to a prisoner of war camp I shake hands with all the prisoners with whom I speak, and that does not go down very well—some of the
  608
  prisoners do not like shaking hands with me; perhaps they are not used to it. Well—teach them. This non-fraternisation business is nonsense. The only way to get people round to our way of thinking is by mixing with them. If all Englishmen married German girls and if all German men married English girls, perhaps we should get along a little better than we do today. Without wishing to introduce a too frivolous note into this, it really is quite ridiculous. These men who have done so much are being prevented from entering into normal relations with the opposite sex because of their nationality.
  Finally, will the Minister of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy give us some definite guidance on the displaced persons question? It is unfortunate that this was not settled months ago; millions of people are in a state of anxiety now, wondering what is to happen because U.N.R.R.A. is to come to an end. I feel very much for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary; as everybody knows, we are sorry he is not here or in Paris today. He has an awful job, and everybody chases him from pillar to post. The late Lord Lloyd-George said to me one day, "You will do the country a great service if you can persuade the people not to make peace in a hurry." By that I do not mean not stop fighting—stop fighting as soon as you like; but after the last war we were forced into impossible positions in Paris because we were made to settle boundary limitations and the rest which we knew were wrong because public opinion insisted on our doing so at the time. If we had taken more time those things would not have been done. In the past I have said, "Do not let us make peace for five years." At least let us take time, and not do wrong things, otherwise we shall have the whole tragedy over again.
  There is criticism of the Russians and their efforts to influence people in the Russian zone and bring that influence into ours; there is criticism in America, from that rather outworn capitalist system— we cannot help that, they will grow up and learn the fallacy of it one day, but I want to emphasise that we have a great contribution to make, in our zone of Germany and in Western Europe, through the instrument which my hon. Friend is designing. Through that instrument we can bring to Western civilisation a far finer order than it can ever get out of the

  609
  totalitarian Communism of the East, something far superior to what it can get from the outworn capitalism of America, that is, a Christian Socialist order which all the people are pining for.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: Like the hon and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland) I, too, have greatly enjoyed listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton. (Mr. Rhys Davies). I very seldom find myself in agreement with him, unfortunately, so I was particularly sorry I could not agree with him tonight in the jest he made against the Attorney-General. I am bound to say that during the last few days I have felt, in reading the right hon. and learned Gentleman's indictment of the Nazi Party and the Nazi people, that, like the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal on another occasion, he was speaking for England. I hope that he and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) will forgive me if I do not follow them, because I want to speak briefly on one problem of the Control Commission which, I believe, has not received sufficient attention, namely, the problem of the Danish minority in Schleswig-Holstein. It is that of the Danes who live in that territory which was formerly Danish and looted from them by Bismarck at the end of the first German war of aggression, 80 years ago.
  I do not know how many hon. Members of this House read the "Observer," but I can testify that this problem was very fairly set out in yesterday's edition by a Danish correspondent. When in South Schleswig nearly four months ago, I found that the Danish minority were extremely worried about their future, partly owing to the huge influx of Germans from Eastern Germany but mainly because they were unable, they thought, to get any sympathy or consideration for their case from the Control Commission. The Control Commission does recognise the central Danish organisation, the South Schleswig Association, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this Debate why this Danish minority association is forbidden to take any part in politics and to nominate candidates for local elections, and why it is that the Danish paper, the "Flensburg Avis," is the only paper of its kind still subject to censorship?
  610
  This Danish minority has made what appears, on the face of it, to be a perfectly sensible suggestion, that is that the old double Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein should be divided into two, because in the Northern part of it, Schleswig, those of Danish stock are many times more numerous than in Holstein. If this has been turned down by His Majesty's Government—there may be excellent reasons; I am not in a position to judge— I want to ask whether a patient and careful explanation of the reason for this has been given to this Danish minority. I should also like to know what consideration His Majesty's Government have given to the views of Denmark on the subject of their minority in South Schleswig.
  It has been widely reported in the papers that a British Foreign Office spokesman said:
  "Like Italy, Hungary and Austria, Denmark may be permitted to voice an opinion."
  I am quite certain that that is not the view of His Majesty's Government, who would surely be the last people to seek to make a statement of that nature; because to compare Denmark, with its strong and brave underground resistance, to a former enemy territory would, of course, be an extremely foolish comparison. But I feel that the hon. Gentleman might well take this opportunity thoroughly to dissociate His Majesty's Government from that statement, and, also, to clarify the situation in regard to this question of the Danish minority.
  The Danish people are our kith and kin. We ourselves, the English, are descended from them; and of all the alien people on the Continent of Europe today, they are our greatest friends, and, spiritually, the most akin to us. But, today, the people of Denmark are out of sympathy with us, because they simply cannot understand our attitude to this Danish minority. I ask His Majesty's Government to give careful consideration to the interests of these people, not because we seek any advantage for ourselves, but simply because, of course, Englishmen always stand for justice for minorities.
  8.3 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: When, in his Budget Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer first mentioned that figure of £8o million which we spend on Germany and Austria, he gave some-

  611
  thing of a shock to this House and, I think, to the nation. One hon. Member spoke with indignation of what he called "paying reparations to Germany, instead of Germany's paying reparations to us." In today's Debate, the right hon Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) mentioned it, quite truthfully, as an unprecedented occurrence, without parallel in history. Last week and the week before I had the privilege of going with a delegation to Germany, and. our experiences there confirmed what I have felt for a long time— that we have something of a wrong point of view, as a nation, on this matter of payments to the Control Commission. After all, what does that £80 million really represent? Fifty million pounds of it represents the difference between German imports and exports. The other £30 million, one may say, I think, speaking generally, represents goods and services that we supply to Germany, and which Germany cannot pay back in the only possible way she can pay for anything, namely, by exports. So it all boils down to this: that the reason we have to pay £80 million is that German industry cannot get going quickly and export a large quantity of goods.
  Why is that? Of course, the answer is obvious to anybody who sees anything of what has happened in Germany. It is on account of the almost entire destruction of her productive power. What was not destroyed during the war is partially being destroyed now, as part of the destruction of her war potential. That destruction of German productive power during the war was also something without parallel in history. Never before in the history of the world has an industrial nation suffered the destruction which we carried out in Germany—the wholesale destruction of her factories, of her communications, of the dwelling houses in which her workers lived. We did that as deliberate policy, because we believed it would shorten the war and greatly reduce the casualties amongst our own troops. The result showed that that belief was justified. We have only to compare what happened in world war I and world war 2 to see that, at the end of world war I we finished with over 1,000,000 of our best men dead; but Germany was still economically a going concern, though battered. We finished world war 2 with
  612
  a very lamentable loss in casualties—I do not want to minimise them in the slightest —but, none the less, they were only little over one third of what we suffered in the first world war.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman overlooking, in his comparison, the extraordinary losses of our Allies in this war?
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I was talking about our own share in the campaign which has just finished. It was our policy to destroy German industry, and it was to a large extent our own casualties that we were saving. I am not going to say for a moment that that policy was not justified, but what I do say is that the £80 million we are paying was the direct result of that policy, and we should not regard it as reparation to Germany; we should regard it as part of the cost of our way of beating Germany. If we regard it in that light, I think, it takes quite a different proportion, because, after all, £80 million is only the cost of one week of the war, and if, by this destruction we shortened the war, as I think we did, by probably many months, if not years, surely, even as a financial loss, it is very worth while. If we take into account the value of the lives we saved, it is many, many times worth while.
  But that is looking at the past. If it is justified on the basis of being part of the cost of the war, I think it is still more justified if we look at the present and the future. We have heard in many speeches today that our policy to Germany, the only right policy, is our avowed policy, namely, to build her up into a decent, economic unit and to lead her, if we can, into the path of democracy. We can only do that if we retain the good will of the German people, and it was distressing to find, as our delegation found, that there has been great deterioration in that respect in the past few months. I shall not go into detail into the causes, because they are all set out in the most excellent way in the Select Committee's Report, paragraphs 38 to 46. But in that it will be found that the greatest element is the shortage of food. That can be overcome only by the importation of more food and, particularly, of fertilisers.
  In other words, it is going to cost money to overcome these causes of ill will, but it is money which will be well

  613
  spent. A senior member of the Economic Section put it to me in this rather startling way. He said that if we kept our expenditure very carefully down to £80 million we might lose it, but if we spent £500 million it would be a splendid investment, and we should get it all back. I do not suggest we should follow that literally, but it enshrines a truth, namely, to spend wisely in Germany now will be a good investment for the future. I should very much like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer go over to Germany and see for himself the kind of task which we are up against. I wish, too, that the British nation as a whole realised a little more the importance of what we are trying to do in Germany. During the war we all followed with the utmost interest the doings of the 8th Army in Africa, and our Armies across the Channel. Sometimes we used to hear of the 14th Army slogging through the jungles of Burma, but we did not follow these doings so carefully and it came to be known as the "forgotten Army." That is bad for morale. I hope that we shall not allow the Control Commission officers to feel that they are a forgotten army. They have a tremendous job to do, and the greater the interest we take in them the more we can hope that the personnel will be better than has been described. We all agree, however, that there are a great many officials working with enthusiasm and sympathy, and we want them to feel that they have the interest, support and pride of the nation behind them.
  8.12 p.m.
  General Sir George Jeffreys: I do not rise on this occasion to criticise the recommendations of the Select Committee, beyond saying that in general they appear to me to be sound, and that I agree with them. I rise to advert to another matter, regarding which I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster some fortnight ago and to which I have had no reply. Among the recommendations of the Committee are that the screening of Germans should be rapidly completed, and that the general policy should be to reduce staff and to improve its quality. I could not agree more with both of these recommendations, but I would say, if I am correctly informed, that it is the staff of the Control Commission which really want screening. If reports can be believed,
  614
  its quality leaves much to be desired. Reports from responsible Regular serving officers have been made to me. They suggest that the conduct and behaviour of many of the Control Commission officers is very bad indeed. Intemperance and immorality, flagrant intemperance and flagrant immorality, are said to be rife among them, rife in public and semi-public places, and more particularly is this the case, I am informed, in Hamburg. I am told, too, that this kind of misconduct is not prevalent only among a small minority, but is prevalent among a substantial number of Control Commission officials.
  I am told that our Regular serving officers are very disgusted at it. Many of these officials are ex-members of the Services, for whom the Services had no use in their Service capacities. I am told that the example of these Control Commission officials is quite deplorable, and that their misconduct is the cause of resentment and contempt on the part of the Germans who ought to respect them. I hope very much that whoever replies will deal with these allegations. My information comes from Regular serving officers in whom I have the utmost confidence. It is obvious that if our government in Germany is to be carried on through the medium of such officials, it cannot be efficient or respected; and if it is to be efficient, it must be respected.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: I would commence by endorsing what the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) has said The accounts which I have heard from Germany coincide precisely with what he has said, particularly in regard to Hamburg. I have heard of shocking things going on. I should like also to endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch). I believe that men should not be imprisoned for indefinite periods because of their political opinions. I assert that that is being done in Germany, At present 40,000 to 50,000 men are imprisoned in concentration camps without any charge having been levelled against them. It may be said that some of these men have committed crimes, and that is undoubtedly true, but it is incidental. They are not charged with crimes, and they are not there for crimes. They are there because they are Nazis. That is a

  615
  matter of political opinion, and for my part I would say that my conception of democracy is liberty, liberty to disagree, and liberty to be a Nazi.
  The real point to which I wish to address myself concerns what is occurring in these camps. The Minister of State said that these men were members of organisations which were about to be put on trial, but you cannot put an organisation on trial under any civilised law. You can no more indict an organisation than you can indict a nation. The only historical precedent for the indictment of an organisation was the indictment of the Order of the Knights of the Temple, and that was not a very pretty historical precedent. We have gone back to the Dark Ages if that is the sort of justice we now conceive. If that is to be our conception of justice today, then, in a large sense, we have lost this war, because the principles of the Nazis are the principles which have won. What is happening to the 40,000 to 50,000 men who arc in prison? I have reports from the ex-commandants of two camps, Milag and Marlag inVeste-timke. These two camps were closed on 1st July—that is to say, they were closed in the sense that they ceased to be concentration camps.
  These camps became prisons, because the prisons in Germany are not large enough to accommodate all the criminals created by our regulations. Each of these camps held 1,500 people, 250 of which were suffering from hunger-oedema—that is the dreadful swelling of the abdomen and limbs that precedes death from starvation. I would ask the Minister to tell us how many of these 40,000 to 50,000 people we have incarcerated have been reported as suffering from hunger-oedema. Is the percentage I have mentioned typical of the country? Of the people in these camps 100 were children between the ages of 15 and 18. There were 30 solitary confinement cells where people were put on half starvation rations. The offences for which they were imprisoned in these cells were, firstly, the smuggling of food—21 days' solitary confinement for bringing a turnip into the camp from a working party—and secondly for smuggling letters. It was a privilege in this camp, not often granted, to send a single pink postcard to one's family on which one might say only that one was alive.
  616
  Finally, I would quote one instance. I can give the names and the particulars. At Bremonde a woman was sentenced by the military court to a year's imprisonment. Her offence was that she had hidden in a ditch to speak to her husband when he came out on a working party. She was the mother of four children; they were destitute; and the man was given solitary confinement. I am also told— and this I had signed by an ex-commandant of this camp—that men in the confinement cells were beaten, both by British officers and British N.C.Os. He gives specific instances of that, and he says that he investigated the cases and that these men were seriously beaten, and, indeed, beaten unconscious in the cells. After receiving that report, I asked a barrister friend, who had gone over to Germany to defend one of these people whom, we had put in command of these camps on a charge of rape. He investigated camps with Colonel Vanderkist, who is in charge of these camps, and he told me—and he came back yesterday— that in his view the charges which had been made were only too well founded.
  I would say this to the Minister of State: If you are going to shut people up, the least which you can do is to feed them, and if you are not in a position to feed them you have no right to shut them up and forbid them the right to forage for themselves. If you did that to animals you would be run in and, rightly so, for cruelty. That is what is being done. We are not in a position to feed these people in Germany and, therefore, we have no right to incarcerate them. Even if they were all proved murderers, we may not put them behind barbed wire if we cannot feed them. We must either shoot them, or let them go and forage for themselves. In the stresses of war, the Germans imprisoned in camps men they accused of being a menace to the safety of their State, and they failed to feed the inmates of these camps. We have hanged them for doing it.
  We gave full publicity to what happened in those camps, and I ask that similar publicity be given to what is happening in our camps. We sent Pathé Gazette to photograph what happened in their camps, and let the people in this country see what was happening. Will the Minister allow Pathé Gazette access to our camps, so that our people may

  617
  know what is happening now? Let us not do anything on which we fear the light of day. Will he, therefore, allow an inquiry to be held as to what is happening in these camps, as to the specific charges which I have brought upon the authority of commandants of these camps, and will he allow Germans to be represented at the inquiry by their counsel to put questions and bring out into the light of day what is happening? These are serious charges and they at least deserve investigation.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I feel that everyone present will agree that this has been a most useful Debate, and I think that the wisdom of the Opposition in putting down this subject for discussion has been more than justified. I feel also, that the fair name of Britain has been at stake in our administration of our zone in Germany, and that public conscience has been aroused, and will be further aroused, when people hear of and read this Debate. I naturally hope that the Minister, in his reply—for which I propose to give him plenty of time—will be able to reassure us, and add to the important statement made by the Minister of State. There is very much still to answer. The Ministers have by no means satisfied the House. The Minister has himself been compared to a minnow, and his friend the Minister of State said that he might, perhaps, be eaten by a salmon. Indeed we have got into certain fishy difficulties because the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) reminded us that minnows do not go into sea water, and I am creditably informed that salmon have their principal meals only in sea water.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I utterly repudiate anyone wanting to eat my hon. Friend, who is very able to look after himself.
  Mr. Butler: That is very satisfactory and enables me to continue with the Debate. Whether the hon. Gentleman is a minnow or not, it is quite clear that the public and the House are not satisfied with the administration, and it will be up to him to answer some of the serious charges put, not only by the Opposition, but by hon. Members on all sides of the House. We had intended to challenge this Vote to a Division, because we were not satisfied with the position,
  618
  but I am authorised to say that, in view of the very important, far-reaching, and, we think, statesmanlike decision announced by the Government for cooperation with the American zone, we shall certainly not take this matter to a Division. That does not mean, however, that we desire to give the Minister an easy time, but it does mean that we desire to hear all that he has to say upon these important matters
  It is high time that we had a statement of the importance of that made by the Minister of State this afternoon. In the Debate on Foreign Affairs on 4th June, I put certain questions to the Government on this matter of the control of our zone in Germany, pointing out to them that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had deplored the gross waste of public money which has been taking place, and asking the Government to look at the future of Germany with more imagination. I said that, if we were satisfied that a bigger drive was being undertaken and that this area was and will be a credit to the British administration and the British name, we should not mind spending these funds. But in my view we had been squandering the taxpayers' money and at the time besmirching the British name by the failure of a lax and overburdened administration.
  The Minister of State has gone some way today to give us a picture of the future of Germany as the Government see it. I am ready to agree with the Minister that the unity of Germany should be the aim. I noticed that that was the view of the Chancellor of the Duchy as long ago as 4th May. That is one of the things to which I drew attention in the Debate on Foreign Affairs on 4th June. That has been the view of the Government, it remains their view, and it should be the view of all of us. It is equally obvious, as the Minister of State pointed out in his argument, which I have taken down, on the lack of the proper operation of the Potsdam Agreement—that it is high time that an alteration in policy was made. We support the alteration in policy, and our only regret is that it did not take place earlier. The right hon. Gentleman may say that it was not possible to respond to the American request at an earlier date. That may be the reason. There has been an American suggestion, and His Majesty's Government have decided to

  619
  take it up and agree with it. As such we welcome it and we trust that this new development will work to our general satisfaction and to the credit of Europe as a whole.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked us to believe that the details of this plan will be worked out later. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he cannot fill in a little the picture that was painted by his right hon. Friend. Details are all very well, but we want to get a bigger idea of the broad picture. We arc told, in the words of the Minister, that there is to be cooperation with the American zone and a joint administration for agriculture, finance, trade and industry; that it is the Government's firm resolve to work towards treating Germany as an economic whole. He went on to say—and it is a sentiment which I applaud —that this decision was not directed against anybody. So far so good, but could the Chancellor fill in the details a little further and paint a picture for us? Is this decision going to result in a wider form of government? Are we going to see the beginnings of a federal system in Germany as a whole? Are we going to include later not only cooperation with the American zone, but with the French zone and with those portions of Austria with which we are able to cooperate? I would say in passing that the sooner we have a report on Austria of the same calibre as this report whereby a Committee would present its views, the happier we shall be.
  I should like to pay tribute to the Select Committee for its work and reecho the sentiments expressed from different parts of the House. I have always believed that the federal solution is the only one for Germany. However gloomy and pessimistic we may be about the line which divides Europe at the present time, it is possible under a federal system to integrate and reintegrate the different parts of Europe at a later date. However deeply one may distrust the methods of government on the other side of the line in Europe, and whatever language one may care to use about it, it is a case that certain things are being done on the other side of the line and these will have a result, economically, industrially and in the matter of land reform. Whether one can call it democratisation depends
  620
  on the extent to which one can stretch the English language. At any rate, things are happening, and the duty of the federal system, if one can take an optimistic view, is to take the opportunity of integrating the whole into some general picture of what Germany and Central Europe may mean. Besides, the federal system is always welcomed by democrats in Germany, of whom the Minister of State spoke with such fervour, and by those who adopted and favoured the Weimar system. Could we hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy whether this is the beginning of a plan towards an imaginative and useful policy for Germany and Central Europe that is taking shape in the mind of His Majesty's Government, or whether they arc stumbling, step by step, accepting this offer and that without any bright or great ideas for the future?
  I want to ask some questions about the effect of this new decision to cooperate with the American zone on certain matters. The first thing I want to ask about is the lame and halting statement by the Minister of State on the subject of coal, a statement which I think must have cast most of the House into deep and dark depression. The Minister of State is quite unable to accept the wholly reasonable suggestions made by the Committee in Paragraph 20, namely, that unless the other nations outside, notably the Low Countries, should be ready to accept a cut in the exports of raw coal, a deterioration in the industrial position would enforce on them an inescapable cut. That was the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Alder-shot (Mr. Lyttelton) when he opened this Debate. Surely it would be far better to look far ahead and to give that increased fillip to German morale which the Committee described as well as the increased fillip to German productivity by keeping within the British zone the sinews without which industry cannot be got going again. The most powerful force to that end is the coal supply from the Ruhr and adjacent areas. If the Government are to produce a policy to raise output I would like to hear why they think they can succeed with that as against the alternative of the powerful case put forward by the Committee.
  I am informed that in the American zone industries are operating at only 30

  621
  per cent. of their efficiency, and I would like to hear if that is the exact figure. If that is so, are the two zones to be regarded as one economic unit, and in that case does the Minister's decision about coal apply to the joint American and British zone? I feel that certain countries will feel this cut in coal very much, notably the French. I have always stood for a closer understanding and liaison with the French people, and I would certainly expect—and this is where the economic problem fits into the political problem in Europe—that if there were a decision to cut exports of coal it would be necessary to meet the French in other ways, notably in regard to questions of security, on which the French feel so deeply, with distinct understandings that these cuts were only for the-purpose of bringing life to the British zone so that it could later serve the purpose of creating a normal and healthy Europe.
  I was alarmed when the Minister said that there will be an attempt within the British zone to increase coal production in order thereby to increase exports. I do not know whether he meant that but he said it, according to the note of his words which I have here—
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I meant an increase for all purposes including, first, an increase for use in the zone. If there were an increase of coal there would be an increase of exports.
  Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman will realise, of course, that we must acutely take up every point in the cut and thrust of Debate, and I am greatly obliged to him for expanding his thought, and making the point clear. When he says that I think he is accurately representing the wishes of the Committee that reported. The only point that stands between us is this: We believe that you cannot get the zones to operate properly unless you have a pause in the export of coal, and give them an opportunity of getting together. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy can say something on that point. In the event of the Government adhering to the Committee's recommendation, could we have some sort of coal budget to show what the zone can produce, and the amount of the cuts necessary in respect of neighbouring countries, so that they will know where they are? I would like to ask what will be the effect on the rations in the British
  622
  zone, as the result of amalgamation with the American zone? The facts about the rations are set out in paragraph 28 of the Committee's Report. They paint a very grim picture, and if the Minister who is to reply could give us some indication as to whether that picture is likely to be improved by collaboration and cooperation with the American zone, I am sure that we should feel much happier.
  I want to ask a question about the effect of the reparations policy. When I spoke on 4th June I drew attention to the effect of the dismantlement of the industries in the British zone, and said that of all the plants scheduled for reparations to go— not, as has been stated inaccurately, only to Russia—to many countries, there are 262 in the British zone, only 174 in the American zone, and 20 to 30 in the French zone. Those figures are very alarming, because they show that by far the greatest problem of reparations is the fact that 262 of the plants, as compared with 172 and from 20 to 30, are in the British zone. Do the Government intend to follow American policy in the decision to stop the payment of reparations in this manner by the dismantling of industry, and do they, at the same time, intend to follow the advice given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot to pick just those industries which are potentially dangerous and to reduce them? Do they intend to come to a decision about the dismantling of industry, and a decision generally about the level of industry? Perhaps the Minister will answer those points, especially in view of the very much larger number of plants which exist for dismantling in the British zone as compared with others.
  I want to ask a question about the effect on our administration of this cooperation with the American zone. I remember that, when I was Minister of Education, the original conception was that such subjects as education and all other more important or equally important subjects would be organised from a centre in Berlin. Since then, we have been working upon the almost impossible system of one country organising one arm, another country organising a leg, another country organising part of the body, and all countries worrying and grumbling about the head. That is an impossible system upon which to conduct any administration. If we are to have cooperation with the American zone and,

  623
  as I recommended, cooperation later with a larger slice, including the French zone and a portion of Austria, can the Minister give us some reassurance that the administration will be centralised and efficient? Is it proposed, for example, to remove the whole of the administration and centralise it in the continent of Europe? Or is it proposed to continue with this dilatory system whereby files, messages, telegrams and telephones permeate and wander to Norfolk House, to Princes' Gardens, S.W.7, and to various other addresses, causing intolerable delays in administration and grave doubts about the efficiency of the British and their ability to administer anything. Can the Minister tell us whether the opportunity will be taken in amalgamating with the American zone, to improve those things? Can he give us a definite answer whether, according to the report of the Committee, the Treasury is to undertake, through its Organisation and Methods Division, a survey of the swollen numbers of the Control Commission? If he would give us a definite answer about that, it would reassure us greatly.
  Various hon. Members, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), have talked about the morale of our own staff in Germany. I know very well that when Members of Parliament talk in the House, their language, if critical, is very much resented by those civil servants or others who are trying to do their duty in posts overseas, but I must honestly say that I do not mind if my words, or any words spoken in this Debate, are wounding to those who are not doing their duty at the present time. I have evidence that the most incredible indolence prevails among the ordinary clerical staff. Papers and letters, I am told, can never be found. The shortest note or memorandum takes 24 hours or more to get typed, and most of the clerks' working time seems to be taken up in drinking tea. ringing up one's boy or girl friend, reading or answering personal mail, or reporting sick. I have had that report from one centre. All those are very human occupations in which we have all engaged, but they are much more satisfactory occupations in one's own country, and not when giving an example to the world of how British administration works abroad. I do not intend to stress what my hon. and gallant
  624
  Friend the Member for Petersfield has said about the general lack of self-control and the indulgence that is going on in these staffs, because I have no personal evidence; if I had I would use it.
  If the Minister finds correct what has been said in this House by hon. Members with personal evidence, then I hope he will give a proper answer and see that these practices are stopped. The fact is, to put it quite bluntly, that some of these people think they are on the spree abroad. Some of them may be abroad for the first time but I think they should realise that they are not on the Spree but figuratively on the Oder and that the Oder is an odiferous thing and that the sooner they reform their actions and their character and better perform their duties the better will they be representing the name of England abroad. I naturally except absolutely those who are doing their duty, and if the Minister finds that there is nothing in this it is for him to take the responsibility of saying so.
  Next, I should like to ask whether a half-yearly statement is to be made to Parliament by the Government on the administration of the two zones and the economic cooperation between them, which is what the Committee asked for. Before I sit down and give the Minister time to reply I should like to point out that I think it is most important that our administration in Germany should have a moral purpose, which seems singularly lacking at the present time. We want to know not merely where we are going but why we are going somewhere. In particular, can the Minister tell us whether the educational efforts being undertaken by the Commissioner for Education are proving successful and whether our moral purpose in regenerating German youth is getting anywhere with the obvious shortage of teachers set out in these papers? Secondly, can he give an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot about the internees. I would say here that the lack of cooperation between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State in their answers on this matter is an ill augury for the manner in which administration in this Government is centralised because the Minister's own answers on the questions of internees have been much more convincing than those given today by the Minister of State. I trust, therefore, that he will reassure the House that these men know the

  625
  reason why they have been interned and that he will clear up the matter in a more satisfactory manner than the Minister of State has done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot requested that these internees should at least know the reason why they were confined.
  Then, on the subject of the prisoners, while I know that although I represent an agricultural district I am not entitled to discuss the effect upon the harvest here at home of the loss of prisoners, which would be very great, I can at least say that we do welcome the fact that eventually, when this is possible, the prisoners will be given a definite knowledge of when they are to go and that a reasonable period ahead will be fixed.
  The long and short of this matter is that we seem to be drifting in Germany at the present time. We have neither efficiency nor purpose, and this is extremely damaging to our name. There is a particularly good supplement in a recent week to the "Christian News Letter," written by a Quaker—and the Quaker's language is usually moderate and calm. He says this:
  "Without a corporate voice, without economic or political hope, without leaders, without good newspapers, how can the average German take an interest in Europe and how can the constructively minded and imaginative German begin to call his fellow Germans to a better sense of international responsibility?"
  That is what we want to ask. How can these things grow until the beginnings of them emerge above the ground as the result of the Government policy?. A convincing answer comes again in the words of this writer:
  "This is part of a greater problem of world peace and of the future of Europe because European misery, either of body or spirit, will not be isolated nationally. It is total and must be held totally in the minds of the people concerned, if they can get their minds to the totality of world suffering as I hope they will."
  I hope the Government will give their mind to the totality of this suffering.
  8.50 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): In the course of today's Debate I have been described as a number of things, from a minnow to something approaching the Loch Ness monster, but I make no complaint as to the tone or temper of the Debate, both of which have been excellent. The speeches were based upon a most excellent Report,
  626
  to which tribute has been deservedly paid, to which tribute I add my contribution. I hope that the Report will be widely distributed and widely read. It should—I had intended to say "it will" but I limit myself, after some of the remarks which have been made—correct the distorted impressions that have been given, through misunderstanding in some cases and through malicious representation in others, of what is happening in Germany today, and of what is being done in the various branches of the administration there. I have been listening to a most reasoned and most helpful speech from the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), but I read in the Sunday Press that the same right hon. Gentleman speaks quite differently in the country. According to the reports yesterday of his speech, he contrasted the "squandering of £80 million on Germans in the British zone" with what he called "the abandoning of vantage points in the East." This is what he is reported as saying:
  "We are evidently content to devote to the 21,000,000 Germans in our zone far larger sums per head of population than we are to the development of the resources of the whole of our Colonial Empire, which stood by us so gallantly in the war."
  That was evidently taken from a leading article in the "Daily Express" of the day before, which suggested that we were spending £80 million a year on the Germans, or £4 per head, and that because we are making a grant of £120 million for Colonial development spread over 10 years, that represented only 4s. per head for each citizen of the Empire. That kind of deliberate misrepresentation of figures and of purposes does no good to the British Government or to British prestige. It has been well pointed out by one of my hon. Friends that the £80 million is, in fact, not a grant towards the establishment of a higher standard of living for the Germans, but represents, for the greater part, exports to Germany which we hope and intend, so far as we are able, shall be repaid by the Germans by imports to this country.
  Captain Crookshank: What a hope!
  Mr. Hynd: What a hope, if you like, but that is the purpose and the intention. I would ask those who are prepared to criticise that £80 million whether they suggest that we should give up the game altogether, and come out of Germany.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Would the Minister ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer that question? It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself who started that hare about the £80 million.
  Mr. Hynd: The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quite rightly complained about the £80 million, as each of us is entitled to complain, and therefore we base our policy upon every effort to recover that £80 million, as circumstances and opportunity permit. Also, a large number of charges have been made against our administration in Germany. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken used phrases like "most incredible indolence," "neither efficiency nor purpose,"and" faulty, lax administration." Those phrases are entirely out of harmony with the Report to which such ample tribute has been paid. I would remind hon. Members who make those charges—I make no excuse for any individual member of our personnel in Germany who may be guilty of any of those offences—and who suggest that the charges may apply to the greater part of our people in Germany, of precisely what has been happening over the last 12 months.
  We have before us a most excellent Report which gives a very clear picture. It rightly emphasises the importance and seriousness of the £80 million expenditure, and seeks a constructive solution. It emphasises that our objective in Germany is twofold: first, the disarmament of that country and its de-Nazification, and the establishment, in place of the Nazi regime, of a democratic administration and way of life.
  Secondly, the controlled restoration of life in a country where the destruction is probably unparalleled in any other part of the world. That is a big task. It has been carried out in almost impossible conditions by some 26,000 British men and women. They have had to rebuild accommodation and communications and reestablish industry and agriculture, and they have had to do these things almost without the tools, raw materials and manpower on the most minimum standards in relation to such a job.
  What progress has been made? We have a demobilisation problem in Germany as well as in this country. We have demobilised no fewer than 3 million mem-
  628
  bers of the German Wehrmacht into a country where there is no industrial production, or practically none. We have done that without disorder, and we are in complete control of the situation. In disarmament we have made tremendous progress, but that again is a long job. It is estimated that it will take at least another 18 months before it is completed, and it takes a large number of British people to ensure that work of that kind is carried out. We cannot leave these jobs entirely to the Germans. In regard to denazification, there were 8 million members on the Nazi books, and in the course of 12 months we have had to screen millions of these people in our zone. We have arrested 60,000 out of those millions, and released after examination and inquiry—which is the reply to those who suggest that these people are simply thrown into gaol and forgotten—no fewer than 20,000 odd, and more are being released every day. All this very important highly essential work has to be done by British staff. It is not the kind of thing that can be done by the Germans.
  In the matter of local government, the establishment of political parties, trade unions, youth organisations, and education, tremendous strides have been made, as is shown by the Committee's Report. In the case of transport, the Report shows that no fewer than 1,300 bridges were destroyed in the British zone in Germany. No fewer than 800 of these have been restored within two or three months. Rivers, canals and railways, all blocked with broken bridges, barges and so on, have been cleared to get communications going. I do not want to dilate too much on that, but this has all had to be done in a country which is overcrowded and which was being swollen by the repatriation of 1,750,000 displaced persons moving about the zone over a considerable period, disturbing accommodation and communications. The 1,750,000 have now gone, but in their place there have been the refugees and evacuees coming in. That all means a disorganisation on a scale never known in this country. There are 1,500,000 of these refugees coming from the East for whom we have had to prepare a reception. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) referred to 9,000,000. I do not know where he gets the figure, but the number which we agreed on, and which has not yet come in, was 1,500,000 from

  629
  Poland. I want to remind the House that our other Allies have agreed to take their share of these refugees. We have not evicted them. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has referred to the unsatisfactory features of this movement, but I would remind him of what happened before we agreed to take this portion of the refugees into our zone— the horrible scenes that occurred before there was any organisation at all and which the organised movement has been able to avoid—
  Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Gentleman oblige the House by not confusing refugees with expelled persons? It is the expelled persons I have been asking after.
  Mr. Hynd: I am speaking of refugees as distinct from displaced persons. All this has been done in a country where housing has been pretty well destroyed and where considerably more than 50 per cent. of accommodation has completely gone. We have had to distribute these people on the basis of 4.78 square yards per person—the lowest accommodation in any zone. Our population has been inflated by over 80 per cent. Beds, furniture and all these items are in very short supply. I could give as an illustration one kreis in Hanover where there were 10,000 people without beds. The total number of beds available was 84. We were able to distribute 12, the remainder having to be retained for maternity and hospital cases and so on.
  What all this means in terms of human misery, danger and disease and so on, I leave to the imagination of the House, but it brings other problems. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), referring to the Schleswig - Holstein problem—
  Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman is reading his speech with great fluency, but on this matter of the refugees—I am sorry if the figure I gave was wrong—I have been asked what the policy of the Government is with regard to this further influx from the Russian zone. I said that only 10 per cent. of those who come in are men who are able to work for their living. Are we to be told about them?
  Mr. Hynd: There is no influx from the Russian zone of which 10 per cent. are incapable. I may say, incidentally, that I am not reading my speech; I am reading from notes I have taken during the
  630
  Debate. I am trying to cover a subject of very wide scope, incidentally; it is indeed not one subject, it is 101 subjects. The refugees coming in are the 1,500,000 refugees from Poland, not from the Russian zone. It is true that we had an agreement that they would be brought in under certain conditions, which we considered humane conditions, with rations, suitable heating of trains, and so on. That was observed in the early stages. Then we were satisfied that it was not being observed, and that a very small proportion of the people coming in were fit men capable of work, and we had reason to believe that we were not getting complete families, that we were not getting a fair deal. The result was that we made representations to the Polish Government in this matter, and there was an improvement. However, that improvement again showed signs of deterioration, as a result of which we are again considering the position, and also considering whether steps may have to be taken to check the flow of these people who are not capable of playing their part in the life of the zone.
  Mr, Kenneth Lindsay: Could I ask the Chancellor, if he has finished with this personnel question—
  Mr. Hynd: No, I have not finished; I am trying to summarise, as quickly as I can, the main points raised, and then to deal with some of the outstanding ones in detail. I would like to point out that the achievements of our administration in conditions such as I have described are something of which any administration can be proud, in spite of exceptions. Their achievement, I submit, belies many of the distortions that have appeared on many occasions in different quarters, which it has been my duty and purpose to check up, and in some cases to demolish by producing the facts. I am quite prepared to do that at any time but we have, as has been emphasised throughout the Debate, the overall question of the restoration of industry in our zone.
  We have been asked whether we have a definite policy. Again, anyone who has read the Report will realise that the amount of destruction which industry suffered as a result of the air raids, and which particularly hit the British zone, has made conditions from the beginning extremely difficult, to put it very mildly.

  631
  But, on top of the destruction, there has been the absence of raw materials, the absence of coal, a world shortage of raw materials, the difficulty of manpower. I do not know whether the Report makes it sufficiently clear what that difficulty is, but the fact is that young men in the British zone of Germany are in very short supply. The majority of the fit young men were taken into the army and have been killed, or wounded, or dispersed in prison camps. Those who were left were unfit, and the result has been a considerable drop in employable personnel. In the coal mines alone, the average age today is 43, which is considerably higher than it was before the war or than it is in this country.
  Someone may ask about the direction of labour. We have a law which makes it permissible to direct labour to the coal mines or to any other industry, but direction is of very little use when you are dealing with unfit men, when you are dealing with men for whom you cannot provide accommodation or any of the amenities of the coal mines or any other industry. The result has been a desertion rate of something like 60 per cent., or 50 per cent. at the very least, amongst these directed people.
  Wages themselves are of no value, or very little value, because there is nothing to buy with them. There is no accommodation, and no amenities. Prices have been fixed at, I believe, 1936 levels. The result of that, taken together with the worn-out equipment and slow rate of production, the condition of manpower, and the absence of commodity goods, together with fixed prices, is that the production of anything is entirely uneconomic. The result is that some of the commodity industries have gone out of production altogether, and we are unable to produce commodity goods that will make wages of more value. Before coming to the question of food, I should like—
  Mr. Lyttelton: May I ask if this is the statement on the industrial policy His Majesty's Government are going to pursue in Germany? If so, it seems very inadequate.
  Mr. Hynd: I think it will be recognised that throughout the Debate a large number of statements have been made, and I
  632
  have been asked to reply to them. Every statement I have made up to date has been in reply to one or other of these questions, and I still have a little time—
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: The Minister of State clearly said that various questions were going to be answered by the hon. Gentleman. I listened carefully, and heard him say that the Control Commission will be run with very much fewer people. But we still have to hear whether these 26,000 are necessary or not.
  Mr. Hynd: If everyone who has spoken invites me to answer his particular point, I am afraid I cannot do it. What I propose to do is to justify the policy which is being pursued, and the policy we are now pursuing. It is necessary that we should retain the 26,000 at the present time.
  Mr. Lyttelton Mr. Lyttelton rose—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman need not give way if he does not wish, but he is courteous enough to do so. I asked a very specific question about the industrial policy His Majesty's Government are going to pursue. We are entitled to have an answer.
  Hon. Members: Wait.
  Mr. Hynd: Since I have again been interrupted, and since the right hon. Gentleman wants me to deal with the points he raised, I would like to say a word or two about them. That means that someone else will have to wait. He spent quite a considerable time in making a number of statements, a number of allegations, and a number of assessments of the position, based on completely inadequate and, in many cases, completely false information, and a completely false reading of the Report of the Select Committee. He dealt, for instance, with the question of timber, and suggested that we were sending 700 British personnel for the purpose of teaching the Germans how to plant trees. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say ' plant '."] Maybe he said "grow" trees. The reason we have sent some 200 British personnel over there, is to cut down the trees, and to see that the Germans cut down the trees in order that they can export the timber to pay for the imports of food they have been having. If the right hon. Member wants to know anything about the German timber trade in the

  633
  British zone it is a trade which had not been dealing with exports and had no large number of expert fellers. But it is important that we should export the maximum amount of timber and it is desirable to send the maximum number of experts available for that purpose from this county. Rather than cut them down we are looking for more. The more we can get, the more timber we shall get out of the British zone in Germany.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether any machinery has been sent to Russia. At the moment two plants are being dismantled for the purpose of allocation to Russia under the Potsdam Agreement, for which I am not responsible. But it is clearly laid down in the Potsdam Agreement what the position should be in regard to reparations. I am not responsible—
  Mr. Lyttelton: Of course the hon. Gentleman is responsible. The Government are responsible.
  Mr. Hynd: The Potsdam Agreement was concluded long before I was a Member of any Government.
  Mr. Stokes: We are not responsible for the sins of our fathers.
  Mr. Hynd: The Government are fully aware of the fact that the present food situation is entirely unsatisfactory. The fact that we reduced the rations to 1,050 calories in March last is again a matter for which we cannot accept entire responsibility. I personally do not accept responsibility. I welcome the fact that many Members of the House are beginning to realise the importance of the situation which is being created by the shortage of food in Germany. I would like to be able to paint them a picture of what that means in Germany today, but I do not want to go into details, it would probably take up time which could be used for dealing with some of the other points.
  The fact is that this shortage of food is leading not only to listlessness amongst working people, not only to the possibility of dangerous epidemics this winter; it is also leading to the possibility of a complete breakdown in production in our zone. Unless ways and means are found of increasing food supplies it may be found that any industrial policy we try to pursue will be entirely impracticable.
  634
  This is not my responsibility, or the responsibility of the Government. In addition to the breakdown in industry, which means lack of fertilisers, lack of coal for the production of processing machinery for other agricultural purposes, the right hon. Gentleman may remember that there was a world food crisis, which broke on us a little while ago. He may also remember that the Lord President went to Washington specially to deal with this situation, and was very seriously criticised because of the fact that he did so. He was very seriously criticised in this House because he was able to get an allocation for Germany. That allocation is the only thing which has enabled us to carry the position through to this stage.
  Mr. Molson Mr. Molson rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think that the hon. Gentleman might be permitted to make his speech in his own way. He has been interrupted a good deal. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), the hon. Member is not entitled to speak.
  Mr. Molson: I much appreciate the courtesy of the Chancellor of the Duchy in giving way. I would like to put this point to him. On 9th July he gave me an answer that there had been no change in the difference between the ration in the American zone and that in the British zone. That was after the Lord President came back from Washington, and one of the features of the agreement was that the rations were to be the same.
  Mr. Hynd: As I said, if it had not been for the Lord President's visit, we should not have been able to maintain even the 1,050 calorie basis. It was because of that situation that the Lord President went to America and got that allocation.
  If I may proceed to the question of the cost, which, after all, is the main substance of this Debate, the right hon. Member for Aldershot suggested in his statement that nothing had been done during the last 12 months towards reducing this cost. I would only refer him to paragraph 15 of the Committee's Report to answer that charge. This cost of a total of £130 million is set off by £50 million, as was well stated by one of my hon. Friends, which we anticipate getting as exports

  635
  from the British zone this year. There will be a net deficit of £80 million which it is our intention and purpose, if at all possible, to recover if not next year then within the course of our occupation. This depends entirely upon the amount of food that we can get into, and out of, Germany and the amount of coal that we can produce and pump into German industry. As the Report says, the only answer to this cost is more output from German industry. But before we can get that output we must have more food or there will be further deterioration than that which we are suffering at present.
  On this matter of coal, as the Minister of State said, we have been following a policy of trying to meet the needs of our Allies. There has been criticism of that and very strong suggestions that we should curtail exports, and possibly even cancel them altogether, in order to develop the needs of our zone. That is an argument which comes strangely from some hon. Members of this Committee who have been suggesting we have been paying too much attention to the Germans in relation to our Allies. We have been trying to meet the needs of our Allies at the same time as we have been trying to meet the minimum essential needs of the British zone of Germany. The problem of coal in the British zone is essentially a problem of production and the situation is that as a result of the Paris Conference, and of our appreciation of the overall importance of this coal question, a Quadripartite Technical Commission has been set up in order to examine the possibilities of increased production in the zone and the allocation of coal between export and domestic consumers. That Technical Committee will report in due course to the Control Commission, who will report, in their turn, to the Council of Foreign Ministers. Therefore, I am not in a position to say what will be the result of that quadripartite Committee's inquiries, nor to be able to say whether or not we propose to increase or decrease exports at this stage. It is-quite clear, however—and I agree entirely with the Select Committee and hon. Members—that until we can get more coal into the zone, the task of reducing the £80 million cost to the British taxpayer, or of increasing the output of industry in the British zone, will be extremely difficult if not impossible.
  636
  The present effects of the shortage of coal are clearly shown in the Report of the Select Committee. The case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich where one ton of steel was allocated for a bridge, is an illustration not of inefficiency or too much paper work but of the shortage of steel due to the shortage of coal. That is the situation that has been created and unless, and until, we get more coal obviously we will not get more steel. Up to the present, we have been able to maintain substantial allocations to France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark and other countries, because we have been drawing largely on stock. By giving additional rations to the miners and taking extraordinary steps to recruit additional miners, we have been able to maintain production.
  A number of questions were asked by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden. He asked me if I could fill in the picture drawn by the Minister of State concerning the new Agreement between the British and American zones, and whether that applied also to the French zone. The answer is, of course, as I believe the Minister of State made clear, that the invitation which has been conveved to us by the Americans, and which we have accepted, will in turn be conveyed to the French and to the Russians as well. We are not departing from our conception of the quadripartite administration of Germany. We shall continue to seek the realisation of a quadripartite government, and there is no intention on our part to establish an iron curtain down the middle of Europe so long as there is any possibility of its being avoided.
  I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman what would be the effect on British zone rations of this common administration of the British and American zones. We hope and believe that the effect on the rations in the zone will be considerable. It is true that production in the American zone is down to something like 30 per cent. It is true that our zone is an industrial zone, where production is also down. While the American zone is richer in food, our zone is rich in coal. The result of the two zones being made complementary should be to the gain of both zones. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me if there would be a new level of industry.

  637
  I should think that it would be quite obvious that, unless we get a quadripartite agreement to the administration of the economy of Germany as a single unit, there will have to be a review of the level of industry plans. Indeed, when we agreed to the level of industry plans a few months ago, we made it quite clear that our agreement was dependent upon recognition of the Potsdam Agreement for the single economic administration for the whole of Germany. Ipso facto, if these conditions do not apply and we have to run our zone along with the American, and possibly the French zone, we shall have to review the level of industry on that basis.
  I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he suggests the establishment of a headquarters in Berlin for the administration of these territories. If we transferred Norfolk House to Berlin, we should still have to maintain contact with London and with the Cabinet in order to get policy decisions, and I entirely fail to see where any advantage would be achieved by such a step.
  I want to make one reference—and there are a large number of questions with which it is obviously impossible for me to deal—to the Very important point which has been made by a number of hon. Members that our purpose in Germany is not purely economic, but that we are bound, under the terms of our occupation, and it is, in fact, one of the chief parts of the purpose of our occupation, to seek the establishment of a democratic regime in Germany and a democratic spirit which will obviate the danger of war from another Nazi or militarist Germany. Indeed, I have mentioned and emphasised the difficulties with which we are faced in being charged with that task, but, if we are to stay in Germany, that must be our purpose. We cannot stay in Germany for all time, even if the British taxpayer could afford it.
  The Report draws particular attention to the question of internees. It is not true, as I believe the Report suggests and as was again suggested by a number of hon. Members, that these internees are simply thrown into gaol without any review. That is not the procedure. Each case is reviewed and considered on its merits before a person is placed in incarceration. It has to be borne in mind under what conditions this movement took
  638
  place and the numbers of the British personnel who had to do it, in addition to the other work which they had to do in connection with displaced persons, refugees, and this vast mass of population.
  We had to dispose of the Nazis one way or another, and it had to be done under the block system. There was no question of setting up courts, because, in most cases, the judges and lawyers themselves were Nazis, anyhow. There was no question of individual trials, and so they were locked up in blocks. We have now adopted a scheme which will enable us to expedite the release of the less guilty, and we have, in the last few days, broken them down into categories, taking, as the first category, the war criminals, who are in prison; secondly, high Nazi leaders and other people-charged with civil crimes, who are in internment camps, and, in the third category, the mandatory arrest cases. Then we have those who will be subject to special review and who will be released as soon as possible. The trial will work upwards, so that the highest criminals will be the last tried and will, therefore, suffer the least injustice.
  I am not, of course, in a position to give an answer to the specific charges which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in regard to a particular camp. All I can say is that, when these camps were taken over from B.A.O.R. by the Control Office in April last, special investigations were made of the conditions in each camp. Members of Parliament have visited the camps. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton whether I would allow Pathé Gazette to film the camp. We have given full publicity to the matter and have allowed the Press to examine the camps. I have been told that we have no right to incarcerate people in this way unless we feed them. Not only are we feeding them, but we are feeding them on a higher calory ration than that enjoyed by the other Germans, just because they are incarcerated. I shall be pleased to check up on the allegations made—
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Will the Chancellor—
  Mr. Hynd: I have no time to give way to the hon. and gallant Member. By the

  639
  removal of the Nazi elements and the positive encouragement of anti-Nazi elements, we can build up the possibility of a democratic system in Germany. If we believe in that possibility, then we are bound to give them encouragement and all the assistance in our power. If we do not believe in it, then we had better say so frankly at the beginning and abandon the attempt. But I have not heard the latter course suggested from any quarter. In the interest of our security and economy, as well as of that of Europe and the whole world, we have to pursue our objective by assisting in the democratic rebirth of Germany, which means achieving conditions in which that democracy can breathe.
  I would finish by saying that the level of industry agreed on in March was based on a calculation based on a balance of payment, on a single system providing for a balanced economy under which resources of all zones would be pooled for the purposes of internal consumption and to pay for the imports necessary for that economy. The plan also envisaged a common import-export scheme. So far as this plan cannot be achieved, it is our purpose and our policy to achieve it within our own zone or by linking up with the American or any other zones which may be prepared to come in.
  Obviously, I have not time to deal with the recommendations made with regard to the staff of the Control Commission, but I would tell the House that we are in complete agreement with the conclusions reached by the Select Committee. In regard to the recommendations of the Committee's Report, I can say that, with two exceptions, I am, in the main, in agreement with them. In regard to those two exceptions, which present purely technical difficulties and with the spirit of which I am in agreement, I have no hesitation in saying that we will give them the fullest possible consideration and the careful examination they undoubtedly merit. I am only sorry that time does not permit of my replying to the very many questions which have been asked, but I hope that I have dealt with the outstanding ones.
  Sir G. Jeffreys Sir G. Jeffreys rose—
  Mr. Hynd: It will be clear to the House that, in endeavouring to deal with a con-
  640
  fused mass of issues, it is not possible to give justice to everyone. Therefore, I appreciate all the more the work done by the Select Committee and the very concise and admirable way in which they have presented both the problems and the directions in which we are to seek their solution.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Will not the Chancellor deal with the very specific allegations made by me regarding the conduct and failure of the personnel of the Control Commission?
  It being half-past Nine o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, as modified by the Order of the House of 12th April, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution under consideration.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates, and of the Revenue Departments Estimates, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates."
  [For details of remaining Resolutions see OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1946; Vol. 426, c. 335–344.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1946
    CLASS I

      CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE
      Question,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,"
      put, and agreed to.

  CLASS II

    FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS III

    HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS IV

    EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS V

    HEALTH, HOUSING, TOWN PIANNING, LABOUR AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VI

    TRADE, INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORT
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VII

    COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, ETC.)
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VIII

    NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES (PENSIONS)
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS IX

    EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL REVENUES
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS X

    SUPPLY, FOOD AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1946
  Question,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,"
  put, and agreed to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1946
  Question,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,"
  put, and agreed to.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1946
  Question,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,"
  put, and agreed to.

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1946
  Question,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,"
  put, and agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [25th July]
  Resolutions reported:

  1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1945, the sum of £10 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

  2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the

  643
  year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, the sum of £1,829,054,990 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Glenvil Hall, and Mr. Whiteley.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  "To apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five, and one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament;" presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

  CIVIL AVIATION BILL
  Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Ordered: "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[Mr. Ivor Thomas.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 31, insert new Clause A: (Constitution of Scottish Associate.)
  ".—(1) Upon the establishment of the British European Airways Corporation that Corporation shall, with the approval of the Minister, constitute an Associate (to be known as ' The Scottish Associate '), the members of which shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and shall have their offices in Scotland.
  (2) The functions of the Scottish Associate shall include the following:—

  (a) to advise the Minister and the three Corporations upon all questions affecting air transport in, from or to Scotland.

  (b) to provide such air transport services internally in Scotland and such other air transport services as the Minister may from time to time after consultation with any of the three Corporations allocate to it, and

  (c) to perform such other of the functions which any of the three Corporations have power to perform as the Minister may from time to time direct.

  (3) The provision of working capital for, and the making of loans to, and the fulfilment of guarantees given for the benefit of the Scottish Associate shall be purposes for which each of
  644
  the three Corporations may borrow money under the powers conferred by this Act.
  (4) The Scottish Associate shall consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman and such number of other members, not being less than three nor more than nine, as the Minister may from time to time determine and the supplementary provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation thereto with any necessary modifications as they have in relation to each of the new Corporations."
  9.35 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. Speaker: I must point out that this is the refusal of a Lords Amendment which affects a matter of Privilege as far as we are concerned. But, I understand, the reasons for rejecting it do not affect the matter of Privilege.
  Mr. Thomas: That is the case. I should not like to rest the argument upon the question of Privilege. We should like to face the merits of the proposal. I believe it could have been drafted in a way which might have avoided the question of Privilege. Therefore, it would be unfair to resist the proposal on the question of Privilege, and I prefer to do so on its merits. This is another stage in a long and friendly argument with some representatives from Scotland, about the way in which Scottish air services can best be met. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding on this subject. From some of the comments which have appeared in the public Press one would think that the moment my noble Friend comes into his Ministry in the morning he rubs his hands together and says to his Permanent Secretary: "What can we do this morning to annoy Scotland?" Those who work with him know how different is the reality. There is no subject that has been more constantly before his mind than that of Scottish needs. I have little doubt that when he dies—an event which I hope will be long distant —the name "Prestwick" will be found graven on his heart.
  Certainly, there is no part of the United Kingdom that is so well served with air services as Scotland at the present time, and no part of the United Kingdom figures so prominently in our plans for air services as Scotland. By the end of next year there will be some 33 Scottish lines

  645
  operating—internally, to the Scottish islands, and to the Continent of Europe— apart from that trans-oceanic line which will go through Prestwick, from London, to America. It is planned to have direct connections between Glasgow and Edinburgh and a number of cities on the Continent. Owing to the mountainous nature of the country and the many islands, my noble Friend has considered that Scotland is entitled to have air services out of all proportion to her population, for the reason that the air can convey such benefits to a country which, owing to its nature, is badly served by surface communications. This then is the reality of what takes place in the Ministry.
  Another place has proposed the establishment by British European Airways Corporation of an associate; that is a technical term defined in Clause 14 of the Bill. It has been made clear in discussion that what is meant by the authors of this proposal is a subsidiary company of British European Airways. In the new Clause proposed by another place there are certain technical defects in drafting. However, I shall not dwell on those for the moment, because they could easily have been improved if the objects were desirable. I can see certain defects of substance in the new Clause as now proposed. I can see that Subsection (2) (b), where it is provided that the Associate shall
  "provide such air transport services internally in Scotland and such other air transport services as the Minister may from time to time … aliocate to it"
  would expose the Minister to almost intolerable pressure to put on services from one point to another. It is much better that these things should be clearly defined. There is also this objection to the Clause as drafted: it would open the possibility of competition between the associate and the other United Kingdom corporations on the same routes, for it is envisaged that the Minister might allocate services, shall we say to South America or to the United States, to this associate, and it would, therefore, come into com-petition with other United Kingdom corporations operating throughout the world.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Surely that is a matter which is entirely within the control of the Minister?
  Mr. Thomas: It links up with my previous point; I said that the Minister would
  646
  be put under intolerable pressure to put on such services. Experience must be our only guide in these matters, and we have had 12 months' experience.
  I turn now from the Clause as drafted, in which I see these objections, to consider some more fundamental objections to this proposal. What is this associate intended to be? Is it intended to be absolutely independent of British-European Airways, or is it intended to be a subsidiary of B.E.A.? If it is intended to be completely independent, then it does not differ from a fourth corporation, which has already been rejected by this House, and it will suffer from the many defects which have been urged against such a corporation.
  Commander Galbraith: Was it rejected by the House or by the Committee?
  Mr. Thomas: By the House. It may be a technical argument, but the Bill as it left this House for another place did not contain that proposal. If it is intended to be completely independent of B.E.A. except only in name, then it will suffer from the many defects which have been pointed out already in connection with an independent corporation. There will not be that proper pooling of aircraft which is essential for the full utilisation of resources; there will not be proper economical arrangements for centralised training; there will not be the same opportunities of employment for Scottish pilots as there would be on English routes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because employment with the British European Airways Corporation, operating from this country to the whole of Europe, offers far more scope to pilots and to other employees than would be possible in a smaller corporation.
  These, then, are the arguments against a completely independent associate. But suppose it is not to be completely independent. Let us suppose that it is to be, as we have been told, a subsidiary of British European Airways. What advantage is that to Scottish national sentiment? I do not wish for one moment to belittle Scottish national sentiment; I think it is something of which Scotsmen can be very proud. I come from a small nation myself, and I welcome this determination on the part of the Scots to see that they get their rights and to

  647
  stand up for everything Scottish in matters of culture and of economics. I welcome that determination, and I know that the demand for some special recognition of Scotland in the field of aviation springs from this strong Scottish national sentiment. I am certainly not going to belittle it.
  But what advantage would this proposal bring to Scotland, from that point of view? None at all; for this proposed associate company would be—I use a word I learned in Committee—a "stooge" of the English Corporation. Its directors would be appointed by an English Minister; its capital would come from English money—[HON. MEMBERS: "Money from the Treasury."] Well, I do ask hon. Gentlemen to realise that, in asking for an associate company to be formed, they are compelling British European Airways to be an English company, or an English and Welsh and Northern Irish company. They are excluding Scotland from the operations of this company, and in so doing they are doing great harm to Scotland. That would be the inevitable effect of insisting upon a separate associate company to operate Scottish services.
  Commander Galbraith: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how it would be doing a great disservice to Scotland? I do not quite follow him.
  Mr. Thomas: I am trying to do so, because, under the Minister's present proposals, Scotland would play a very big part in British European Airways. [HON. MEMBERS: "HOW?"] Scottish pilots would have all the scope that employment in that corporation offers; Scottish ground engineers would have similar scope; and it would permit better services to Scotland, because of the pooling of aircraft that would follow, and so on. If Scottish Members insist upon having this associate company, then, inevitably, British European Airways becomes an English-Welsh-Northern Irish Corporation and Scotland will be excluded from its benefits.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean to say that, if this request for a Scottish associate were granted, it would prevent Scotsmen from being employed in any other Corporation than the Scottish one?
  Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. It would, I suggest, be a logical conclusion that, if Englishmen were not to be employed in Scotland, Scotsmen should not be employed in England. But I should not wish to carry that argument to its logical conclusion. These, then, are some big objections that I see to the Amendment as it has been sent to us from another place. The great objection that I feel to it —and this is the ground on which I should like the House to reject this Amendment— is that the proposals under it can be better secured by the Bill as it is now drafted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What is it my noble Friend proposes for Scotland?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Nothing in the Bill.
  Mr. Thomas: He has outlined proposals for a Scottish Advisory Committee, which will be advisory to the three corporations, and will have access to himself, and whose chairman is to be a member of British European Airways Corporation. He has also proposed a Scottish Division of British European Airways, to which there would be devolved a considerable measure of autonomy. Hitherto, for reasons which my noble Friend has explained, it has not been possible for him to amplify his proposal, and, even now, until the Bill establishing the new corporations becomes law, it is not possible to do more than sketch out what is contemplated; but I will do what I can now in that direction, and the explanation should furnish the necessary assurances to all except those who will refuse to be convinced. The Scottish division of B.E.A., in the first place, will, of course, have its headquarters in Scotland. Policy, planning, training, and research will be under the control of the board of the corporation, but the division will be completely responsible for all matters of day to day management connected with the operations of its services. The general intention is to give the greatest measure of autonomy to the division which the needs of integration will permit.
  I do not think there is a Member in the House who will deny that our great need in aviation today is for integration and not for division. The organisation will be largely a replica of the headquarters organisation with its staff, services, traffic and technical managers, and accounts division. The divisional manager

  649
  will report direct to the managing director of the corporation. The division will be free to improve existing services, or arrange for new services not affecting other routes. Where other routes are affected, the problem of integration obviously arises, and the board must be the final arbiters of what is possible in that direction.
  Mr. Willis: Does that mean that the division will also have power to inaugurate a service from Scotland to Norway?
  Mr. Thomas: If there is need for such a service from Scotland, and if traffic demands justify it, then it will be open to them to do it. Services will be operated from points in England to Norway, but they are not on the same route. It would be open to the Scottish division, if there was a traffic need which could be justified, to open such a service. The chairman of the advisory committee, speaking not merely as an individual member of the board of B.E.A. but as the mouthpiece of Scottish interests, will ensure that Scotland's needs find expression, and, if need arises, will seek the intervention of the Minister. As regards maintenance and overhaul of aircraft and equipment, Scotland will get its fair proportion. Certificate-of-air-worthiness overhauls are now carried out during the continuous process of maintenance, and Scottish aircraft will be maintained in Scotland. Overhauls of replaceable major components, such as engines, cannot be centralised in England, and a fair share of this work must be carried out in Scotland. Training must be centralised if there is not to be wasteful expenditure. Where separate establishments cannot be set up in Scotland, we shall not introduce any new order of refusing to employ Scots in England. The advisory committee will have direct access to the chairman and Minister on any matter affecting the interests of Scotland. In providing services of interest to Scotland within the sphere of the corporation, the access to the chairman of the corporation and the Minister would provide the guarantee I have referred to above.
  I consider that these proposals go far beyond what is proposed in the Clause as it has come to us from another place. It is a Clause which would be very diffi-
  650
  cult to work; indeed, it would be impossible to work as it is drafted. My noble Friend's proposals have gone a long way indeed towards satisfying feelings in Scotland. I have noticed a great change in opinion over the past 12 months. There was great hostility at first, but as Scotland came to understand better my noble Friend's proposals, that hostility has very largely died down. The climax came when that very wise body the Glasgow Corporation refused to be dragged in to what was in fact an attempt to secure a vote of censure on my noble Friend. The Glasgow Corporation, like many other responsible bodies in Scotland, realise the wisdom of my noble Friend's proposals. What had happened is that public opinion in another place is rather behind the times, as has happened before. It has now just caught up with where Scottish opinion was 12 months ago. I hope that I have convinced the House that the proposals of my noble Friend will do far more for Scottish aviation interests than what is proposed by another place.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This is an occasion of very great importance for Scotland. This is the first of a Government string of nationalisation Bills, in which it is necessary to define clearly what is the proper position of Scotland in a United Kingdom monopoly. This is the first time in this Bill that the House, as distinct from the Committee upstairs, has had the chance to vote upon this issue. We are very moderate in our demands. We do not ask for independence for Scottish aviation. We agree that if there is to be nationalisation and a monopoly, it is proper that there should be a United Kingdom Minister. We agree to accept, although some of us would like to go further, a mere subsidiary company, instead of a fourth corporation, as many people would prefer. All that we ask is that there should be responsible executive management resident in Scotland. That has been steadily refused by the Government. Let me read, as I am entitled to do, from the pronouncement of the Minister in another place, in which he said that the proposal to set up any separate operating organisation for Scotland, in the terms of the Amendment, was not, in his opinion, in the best in-

  651
  terests of air transport development. That was said in answer to a demand for a responsible executive management resident in Scotland. We have never tied ourselves to any particular form of organisation, provided that essential is met, but the Government have throughout refused to meet that or anything else in the Bill. The Minister said that he would be sub-ject to pressure because it should be clearly defined—
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: As I understand the position, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants is conceded in the form of a division, but apparently he is not willing to accept it in that form.
  Mr. Reid: That falls very far short of what is intended by us, very far short of a resident executive management. A division means that we would always be running up to London to get authority to do things, and that is what we object to. The Minister said that things ought to be clearly defined in this Bill. One of our objections to the Bill is that with regard to Scotland there is nothing clearly defined in the Bill at all. If the Minister anticipates pressure, he will get far more pressure in future, if the Bill goes through as it stands, than if he accepts this Amendment.
  The Minister's argument might have a certain measure of plausibility were it not for the arrangement which he has made with another part of these islands. I would like to refer briefly to that because my hon. Friends know the details better than I do, but the distinction is so glaring that one must refer to it For Ireland, the Government have accepted the position of minority shareholders in an independent company under Irish control. So far as distance and economic management are concerned, because Eire—
  Mr. Mikardo: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: I have been listening very carefully. I was not quite sure, and I was waiting to see how far the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going.
  Mr. Reid: I merely wanted to use this argument to show that the Government are using wholly inconsistent arguments. Did they accept the Irish agreement under duress or because they think it is a good
  652
  thing? If they accept it under duress I say no more; I leave it to the House to judge. If they accept it because it is a good thing they cannot possibly deny this small measure of devolution which we seek for Scotland. Is the Minister going to say that Scotland is incapable through being so small or unimportant of any independence of management at all? Then why are they giving way to Irish pressure? The truth is that every Scottish expert who is not tied to the Government agrees that the scheme under this Clause is practicable, economic and very much better than the scheme suggested by the Government. Every responsible Scotsman who is not a professional Socialist politician agrees that we ought to have a scheme like that.
  Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. Gentleman an amateur Tory politician?
  Mr. Reid: I am a Tory politician and I glory in it. I see no objection either to the word "Tory" or "politician."
  Mr. Hoy: Professional?
  Mr. Reid: If the hon. Gentleman will prefer to call himself an amateur I withdraw it. How does it come about then that a practical, economical proposal supported by all shades of opinion in Scotland is summarily rejected by this Government? It is for this reason—ever since the General Election Scotland has been deliberately slighted by this Government. It started on 17th August last year when the Lord Privy Seal—and Scottish Members will remember what he said— remarked:
  "Scotland cannot always continue to have special advantages."
  When we asked "Why not?" he said:
  "I think we have been excessively genercus to Scotland"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 256.]
  That is the whole attitude of approach of the more important Members of the Socialist Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council has been more careful and guarded in his speech but equally unsympathetic on many occasions to Scotland. I believe that the reason for this is that the Members of this Government are gluttonous for power. They intend that Socialism shall mean the concentration of power in London. The Secretary of State has proved incapable of standing up against

  653
  his colleagues. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I see him hiding away in the distance just now. I do not blame him. I am sure he does not approve the Government's attitude on this, but there are two difficulties with which he has to contend. There is no Scotsman in the Cabinet, and moreover the Secretary of State has not been supported by Socialist back benchers in trying to maintain the rights of Scotland. The time has come when Socialist back benchers must make up their mind which way they are going.
  In the last Parliament the Scottish Members acted together and we gained a great deal for Scotland. Those who were in the last Parliament will remember that Mr. Tom Johnston and other Scottish Ministers were never afraid to press on their colleagues the interests of Scotland because they knew they would receive combined support from Scotsmen of all parties. But more has been given away by this Government in the last 12 months than we had gained in the previous 12 years. Our policy is perfectly clear in matters of this kind. We shall continue to seek political union combined with progressive administrative devolution. We have pursued that policy for many years but the Socialist candidates at the last election—
  Mr. Speaker: Are we discussing the last election or are we discussing a Lords Amendment?
  Mr. Reid: I am trying to point out that if Socialist Members go into the Lobby against this Amendment, they will go against what they said they would do at the last election. I think it is always in Order to remind hon. Members of what they have said in the past—
  An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member looked at me hard and said, "Hear, hear," when an argument was addressed against me. I do not think that is respectful behaviour.
  Mr. Reid: Perhaps I may be allowed to vouch for this from the election address of a most respected Scottish Socialist— perhaps the leading Scottish Socialist—at the last General Election. I refer to Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who said, in flat contradiction of the Government's attitude today:
  654
  "It remains true that if all major questions affecting Scotland are decided in London, they will not get proper attention, and vital matters, such as the Forth road bridge and the development of Scottish airlines and aerodromes, will be subordinated to English interests."
  There is not much doubt about what Lord Pethick-Lawrence would say if he were still of the same opinion as a year ago. The point I wish to make is that Scottish Socialists have always said they want to go further than we do in the direction of devolution. Here is an occasion where we want to have devolution in favour of Scotland, and Scottish Socialists are denying it. We know their difficulty. It is party discipline. It is very difficult for hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite to avoid taking orders from a Socialist caucus in London.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Since when did the right hon. and learned Gentleman become such an ardent advocate of devolution? Is it with public money that he wants devolution? When it was private money, it was always rationalisation, in London, in Newcastle, anywhere, and the closing of the Clyde shipyards. Is this a new change of front?
  Mr. Speaker: That matter is a long way outside the Amendment.
  Mr. Reid: I thought I had said, a few moments ago, that ever since I have been in the House, the policy of the party to which I belong has been progressive administrative devolution. I claim that we have been very successful in that respect, and that this Amendment is exactly in line with the policy followed by us for at least the last 15 years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they wanted to go further, but now they will not go so far. Why? It is because of difficulties with their party headquarters. We realise the difficulties. We have not pressed hon. Gentlemen too hard during this last year.
  Mr. Steele: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this policy of devolution has been the policy of the Tory Party for many years. Is he not aware that when the Railways Act went through in 1921, that was not so?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid my rather feeble endeavours have been to try to keep the Debate on the Lords Amendment. Hon. Gentlemen are now getting on to the respective merits of various

  655
  party policies on Scotland in the past as well as the present.
  Mr. Reid: I will not pursue that matter further than to say that I referred to the last 15 years, and the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Steele) is going back 25 years. As I was not in the House in those days, I was not responsible then. Since I have been in the House, I can vouch for what has happened. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must choose now what they are going to do. Are they going to stand by their Election promises? Are they going to support the true interests of Scotland or to prefer party loyalty? They must decide, and Scotland, tomorrow, will take note of how they decide.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) in support of the Amendment. This precise proposal has now appeared before us in three different forms. It appeared in the Second Reading Debate in the form of a separate Scottish corporation, it appeared in Committee as a Scottish management committee, it now appears as a Scottish associate company. On the two previous occasions, I gave reasons why I rejected the idea. Those reasons were not of the character mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They were that, in the opinion of the Members of the Scottish Labour group, the idea would not benefit the people of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that for the last 15 years his party had followed a policy of progressive devolution. He forgot to add that that policy had ended up in Scotland becoming the largest depressed area in the United Kingdom. He said that his party wished to serve the true interests of Scotland. This is a piece of political shadow boxing to help the Tory Party to try to recover some of its prestige.
  The Amendment asks for the setting up of a Scottish associate company which shall advise the Minister and the three corporations upon all questions affecting air transport in, from, or to, Scotland. That has already been promised. We are to have a Scottish advisory committee with powers to advise and with direct access to the Minister, and with a
  656
  member sitting on the B.E.A.C. I understand that the chairman of the advisory committee will sit on the B.E.A.C.
  Major Guy Lloyd: Surely it must be within the knowledge of the hon. Member that the so-called promise is not in the Bill?
  Mr. Willis: The promise has been made in the House on several occasions that Scotland would have such an advisory committee. The second provision with which this Amendment deals is
  "to provide such air transport services internally in Scotland and such other air transport services as the Minister may from time to time alter consultation with any of the three corporations allocate to it."
  "Allocate to it"—in other words under this second part of the proposed Amendment we shall not even possess the powers which the Minister has already given to the Scottish division. The body we are being asked to set up is not to possess the power to start any service unless the Minister tells it to start that service. We have already been promised a Scottish division which will have these powers internally, and, as we have been told tonight, externally.
  Sir William Darling: Where is this promise to which the hon. Gentleman refers?
  Mr. Willis: The promise has been made by the Minister in this House on several occasions and it has been stated in detail tonight that the Scottish division will have residential executive functions to deal with internal and certain external services. The third provision of the proposed Amendment is
  "to perform such other of the functions which any of the three corporations have power to perform as the Minister may from time to time direct."
  What does this mean? It means nothing, and when it was debated in another place it was admitted by the mover that this could be an absolutely dead part of the Amendment. What is it then that hon. Members opposite want?
  Mr. Mikardo: The headlines.
  Mr. Willis: They want the headlines tomorrow, as my hon. Friend points out. We on this side have been concerned as to how we could obtain for the people of Scotland the finest air services possible.

  657
  After twenty years of rule by hon. Members opposite we have railway services closing down, steam boat services closing down—everything closing down and becoming stagnant. That is what happened under the rule of the party opposite, and, as one of my hon. Friends on this side of the House has pointed out, they are still today allowing Scottish concerns to be absorbed by English concerns under private enterprise. They have always allowed this, and to such an extent that, as was mentioned earlier, Scotland became a depressed area. My point is that this Amendment asks for nothing that has not already been conceded by the Minister, and because of that we on this side of the House—and here I think I speak on behalf of my Scottish colleagues—intend to oppose it.
  10.19 p.m.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Seldom can the House have listened to arguments resting on a flimsier basis than do those to which we have listened tonight. Not only are they flimsy but the flimsiness of the defence is a different flimsiness when the argument falls from the mouth of the Minister from what it is when the case is argued by the Parliamentary Secretary. In another place the Minister adduced arguments to show that there would be gross inefficiency if this subsidiary were to get a degree of autonomy amounting to independence. I hope to show that this argument was completely misconceived. If I understand the Parliamentary Secretary aright, he used that very same argument against us if we did not get independence. I would like to know how matters stand. I can sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary in having to try to build up a case on the very poor foundations available to him. He said that if we had in Scotland some form of subsidiary on a basis which amounted to a kind of independence, intolerable pressure would be brought upon the Minister to start lines which the Minister might not want to start at all. We have been keeping up "intolerable pressure" for a year now, originally aided by hon. Members on the benches opposite, but I have not seen much sign of the Minister having to yield to the "intolerable pressure," as he says he fears he might have to do in the future
  The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that if we had no measure of inde-
  658
  pendence in this matter, the associate company would become a mere "stooge," and that that would not be good for Scotland. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will leave us at least one thing in Scotland, and that is that we should know what is good for us. Before I go on to show that the arguments against the associate company are misconceived I want to clear up one point. Either the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) is under a misapprehension, or else I am. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will clear the matter up here and now. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh is apparently of the opinion that the proposed division, whose powers have not been defined, would have, among those powers, the right to start a new line from Scotland if the division wanted it, and would not have to go to the Corporation or to the Minister and ask for those powers. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say, either now or later on, whether that is so. Is he proposing to give automonous powers to the new division to start a new line, coming into conflict with the Minister, because Scot-lands wants it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would have answered now, as that would have helped the Debate. I am certain that the hon. Member for North Edinburgh now realises that nothing of the sort is intended or will come to pass.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is that power given to Scotland?
  Colonel Hutchison: No, it is not, and that is why I should like to have the answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member says that the Scottish division will have power to inaugurate without the consent of the Minister new Scottish lines, but I believe that that is impossible. That was the suggestion which the hon. Member for North Edinburgh made.
  Mr. Willis: I said that it would have power to start services, internal and external, but obviously the B.O.A.C. would have to approve. In the Amendment it is proposed that the division shall
  "provide such air transport services internally in Scotland and such other air transport services as the Minister may from time to time after consultation with any of the three Corporations allocate to it."
  Colonel Hutchison: That is precisely the same thing. All the hon. Member is saying is that under the Division there will be powers, but if the B.O.A.C. have to go to the Minister that will be precisely the same thing as is contained in the Amendment. All the Amendment does is to tidy up things that have already been promised in a rather heterogeneous and piecemeal collection, by the Minister or by the Parliamentary Secretary. The fact has been emphasised time and again this evening that what has already been promised is, in fact, as great as what we are asking. If that is so, what on earth can be the objection to tidying up by giving us what we are asking for in a rounded off form?
  What have we been promised? The famous Scottish division with powers that are not yet clear. A Scottish Advisory Council with a seat on B.E.A.C. This Advisory Council should also have a seat on B.O.A.C, for Scottish interests, which are Britain's, will not be confined only to B.E.A.C, and Scotland, if given a fair chance, will have a great interest in the British Overseas Airways Corporation also. We have been promised branch offices in Scotland. Would any intelligent man be fobbed off with a branch office? What is the use of that unless we know what powers they will have? We have been promised a Scottish Regional Board to look after the air lines. Where is the consistency in the hon. Gentleman's argument if he resists giving us a Regional Board or an associate company for Scotland? How can he justify having given a Regional Board for looking after the airfields? It seems to me the same argument must be used for both Boards or neither.
  Let us be clear exactly what are the mechanics in this matter. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the House to follow me for a moment in what would happen—and how justified would all his fears be—if in fact this associate company sees the light of day. The first thing they would do would be to appoint a board, presumably of Scotsmen or men resident in Scotland with qualifications, who in their turn would appoint a managing director and staff. Then this managing director and staff would submit a plan of routes. That would be submitted in the long run to the Minister. There would then be a plan of fleets—the type of aircraft which would be needed to give effect to the route plan. That would no doubt include the minimum fleet suitable
  660
  for the routes which the Minister had by this time accepted. That does not in the least mean to say that the system of pooling, which I advocate, should be used for all the Corporations, would not still be available to the Scottish associate company. They would have their own fleet and make use of the national pool in the same way as the Corporations. That is a system which has been used in shipping and has worked very well. They would then submit an estimated profit and loss account, and having done all this, would come to the capital structure. Let us see what there is in all that, that varies from what is granted already?
  First, the question of owning their own fleet. I do not mind whether they own it or not as long as they have a sufficient say in what routes shall be run. Then there is the capital structure. I do not care about that so long as the Scottish associate company have some say in what sort of routes shall be run. The Minister pretended that this would be a decentralisation or devolution which would be dangerous. Our point of view is—it applies to all nationalisation measures—that centralisation is going too far and is, in fact, becoming dangerous to the country. It is unwieldy, and that is a feature which I believe Ministers are already finding in the difficulties they are facing. This form of devolution will be of benefit to the whole country. It has been found so in Northern Ireland where the fact that there is a measure of devolution in government has immensely speeded up the solution of many questions. The Minister objects, and I will deal with his objections, that this would give rise to competition. Where on earth can competition arise since the Minister himself is the final arbitrator and the final authority as to what routes shall be run. There can be no competition on internal Scottish routes, and as all external lines are subject to his control, where can he justify this statement there is to be competition? For my own part, I would welcome competition, because competition makes for efficiency, but for this argument he has given tonight, the hon. Gentleman must surely adduce some sort of evidence that competition is going to arise.
  Then we have the situation of trans-Atlantic traffic where there is a measure of competition already. We have Pan-

  661
  America Airways and Trans-Western Airways flying from North America to Europe and we contend that they will find their quickest route between their destination in a line across Scotland. In fact, K.L.M. the Dutch line, who have got this service going already, are touching down in Scotland. We want to cater for this trans-Atlantic aircraft which are going to touch down, and we believe they will, in fact, use the Scottish bases if they are given proper facilities. That is where this associated company will attack the Minister and urge the Minister to establish a frequency and an efficiency in the, on carrying service from a Scottish base which will allow these trans-Atlantic aircraft to use Scotland if they wish to use it. Then the Minister says this will not be economical. How will it be less economical? Will it be less economical for aircraft? Surely, if the Minister is going to use a pool of aircraft for the Corporations, a fourth associated company will not, in fact, increase the numbers of aircraft that will be held in that pool to carry out all these journeys. If, on the other hand, he is not going to allow this associated company to do more than fly internal airways, then how can it be uneconomical in the matter of aircraft since only this line is to be run by the associated company.
  If the Minister says it will not be economical in equipment, how can that be so, since equipment can only consist either of equipment on aircraft or equipment on the ground? If the equipment on the ground belongs to the airfield there, how can the establishment of this associated company in any way vary the amount of equipment lying on the airfields or built on the airfields of Scotland? If, on the other hand, he pretends it is going to be uneconomical in equipment on aircraft, surely, if you accept the thesis that aircraft are going to be pooled you must accept the thesis that equipment on the aircraft, and equipment attached to the aircraft, will be pooled also. There is no lack of economy in that. Then he pretends the crews will not be able to be used to the best advantage. Surely, whether we have this associated company or whether we do not, the system is going to be a pooled system of crews and each corporation is not going to have a watertight compartment into which it is going to keep these crews and from which they
  662
  cannot pass to another corporation. So that argument falls to the ground.
  Finally, he adduces that it will be uneconomical in training. If the Minister really has a conception that each aircraft is going to train its own crew or that each route is going to train its own crew, or even that each corporation is going to train its own crews, then I can say already that he has the most wasteful ideas on economic training that anyone can imagine. Surely the only action in dealing with a problem like this will be to set up a central training establishment, and, therefore, training will in i:o way be affected by the fact that a Scottish associated company may be granted These arguments are only a vague smoke screen to veil his rigidity. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to paint a picture of the Minister being a sort of benevolent Father Christmas to Scotland. I am more reminded of that effigy which was erected in the time of the 1914–1918 war of Hindenburg, a great enormous wooden effigy into which the people of Germany were encouraged to hammer nails. We have hammered many nails into the Minister. Nails have been hammered in by the Scottish Trade Union Congress, the Scottish Council of Industry, and the Association of County Councils yet the Minister has not yielded. Those three bodies, representing every shade of political opinion in Scotland, ask for the same thing. I admit they are not asking for the associate company, but they ask for the Board for which we asked, and that is so allied to the associate company as to be almost indistinct from it.
  Mr. Scollan: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean that the Scottish Trade Union Congress asked for this Amendment? The Scottish Trade Union Congress, right from the beginning, condemned the private profit-making company advocated by hon. Members on the other side. They wanted it nationalised.
  Colonel Hutchison: There was no question, and has been none for a very long time, of any profit-making concern in this matter. I hold a letter sent on behalf of the Scottish Trade Union Congress saying that they advocate the Scottish Board. Why is there this resistance to what at the most is a very indistinct difference of opinion? Eire has been given what she

  663
  wanted almost "with love and kisses. "Yet we, a country in full association with the rest of the British Isles have to struggle for the smallest degree of reasonable concession. I remember the Minister promising us at a conference we had jointly with hon. Members from the other side, that the only yardstick on which Scottish airlines and Scottish airfields would be judged, would be that of efficiency. We ask nothing more, and on that we would rest our case.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: I rise with the hope of explaining to this House why this Clause is necessary. I am nothing if not an optimist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can see I have the attention of hon. Members. It will be pleasurable, therefore, to explain why it is necessary that Scotland should have full confidence under its own control. Surely it is not prepared to allow the development of its internal and external air lines to be under a Whitehall bureaucracy? It fears that the task of developing airlines from England to Europe is so vast a job that it may detract attention from the necessities of Scotland. Besides that, it knows it has been operating airlines successfully for 12 years, and making progress, while England lagged behind. Scottish services have proved that they are a paying proposition and Scotland feels that, in handing them over they may be passing to the Minister the most successful and profitable of his future airlines. If Scotland's international services are to be considered as rivals to those of Eng- land, then, the Minister's argument destroys itself. How could Scotland fee! happy to be controlled by a bureaucracy from Whitehall? Further, the record of British Overseas Airways Corporation defeats the argument for one large unit. It is not creditable. Far too many services are operating today in Europe at 8d. per passenger mile whereas airlines are operating in Scotland at 4d. and 5d.
  Besides that—and here I appeal to all Scotsmen of whatever party—Scots are trained in economy. Their upbringing is hard, their background rigorous. I suggest that Scotland in control of the development of its own services will show this House an economy which the Treasury will appreciate. It is not necessary for Scotland to own its aircraft. It may own a
  664
  percentage, it may charter another percentage. Much is heard on the question of standardisation, but do we know the correct answer to that issue? On the question of standardisation, are we certain it would be wise to replace four or five services a day with two aircraft to carry all passengers? It is more important to operate services on the hour, than to have too large aircraft. Scotland has its own peculiarities, its own climatic conditions, difficulties and contours. She needs special consideration in the matter of control.
  This Clause only points out to the Minister the way which he should go. It is not arbitrary. It places no control on him. The good advice given for Scotland, has, I believe, been expressed here, in another place, and by the Scottish Council of Industry and at a meeting in Edinburgh of Scottish Members of Parliament and Scottish peers. What Scotland needs is a body of four or five tough directors to put forward her case, and nobody could do that better than Mr. Thomas Johnston who broadcast advice to hon. Members recently on the radio. Scotland has a natural fear of depopulation. If Scottish airlines are not developed to the full they will not absorb the people who wish to work, and are competent to work, on civil aviation. In the present Bill the promises made are not cited, but if this Clause is carried Scotland can depend on inclusion in the Bill. If it is rejected, Scottish feeling will be further inflamed, and more encouragement given to people who are pressing for Scottish Home Rule.
  I do not want to embarrass hon. Members of the Labour Party. I am in sympathy with them. I know well that they have two loyalties. They have loyalty to Scotland, and they have loyalty to their party, but I do ask them to consider whether it is wise to sacrifice Scottish interests to Whitehall bureaucracy. They will have to face the consequences. I would like to say that I have respect and admiration for the Parliamentary Secretary. He has put in a lot of time and hard work in furthering this Bill, but I hope that I shall not be unkind, if I say that I have never heard him more unconvincing than tonight. He is young to aviation, and he is playing with fire. I beg him to remember that children who play with fire suffer from it. Scotland will demand his head on a charger if he rejects this Clause, and the Govern-

  665
  ment will lose another possible candidate for the Food Ministry.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) has been talking to us as if the issue in this Debate was the question of Scottish Home Rule. The real issue is whether or not this House is going to accept the Lords Amendment, and that is not an argument for Scottish Home Rule at all, but is a question of relegating the rule of Scotland to a subsidiary company. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) did not deal at any length with the Lords Amendment or present the case for it. I submit there is very little of the legal ability and forensic skill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be found in the drafting of the terms of this flimsy Amendment. He suggested that this was going to be a test case on the general principle of devolution for Scotland. He forgets that during this Session of Parliament there has been other legislation in which it was open to the newly-converted advocates of devolution for Scotland to put similar Amendments. Why did not the hon. Members who are now so enthusiastic about Scottish devolution and Scottish control come forward with an Amendment to the legislation nationalising the Bank of England? Why did they not advocate a separate corporation for a national Bank of Scotland? Again, did they advocate separate corporations under the Coal Nationalisation Bill? And when it comes to a question of Cable and Wireless are we to get emotional and nationalistically phrased speeches advocating a separate Scottish Corporation for Cable and Wireless?
  Mr. Speaker: Let us stick to aviation and not go off into Cable and Wireless.
  Mr. Hughes: I submit that the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead did not go deeply into an explanatory exposition of the Amendment because he understands its weaknesses. I wish to deal with only one point in this Lords Amendment. It is paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) which says:
  "to provide such air transport services internally in Scotland …"
  I would like the defenders of this Amendment to explain exactly what the word "internally" means, so far as civil avia-
  666
  tion is concerned. Does it mean that this corporation can only have the powers to organise air services internally in Scotland? Does it mean that this proposed corporation would have power to organise air services, say, between Glasgow and Aberdeen, or between Edinburgh and the Outer Islands? Would this corporation, or subsidiary company, have the power to organise air lines or air services?
  Mr. McKie: I think if the hon. Member had read the Debate in another place he would see that it does provide not merely for internal air services, but air services from Glasgow to Oslo, and Edinburgh to Copenhagen.
  Mr. Hughes: I was referring to the question of what powers were to be given to this Scottish associate company. This Amendment only gives power to provide such air transport services internally, so that under this Bill this suggested new air subsidiary company would not have power to run air lines between, say, Glasgow and the Isle of Man. It would be limited to an internal service, which would mean that an air line service between Glasgow and London could not be run by this Scottish subsidiary at all. It would have to stop at the Border line. Under this Amendment it would only have power to run air liners from, say, Glasgow to Gretna Green. I suggest that this Lords Amendment would give only a poor shadow of really efficient air services for Scotland, and that we would be much better off under the legislation which has been expounded by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  10.50 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I do not propose to follow the abstruse arguments advanced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Hughes). I think it was perfectly obvious to everyone that he either had not read the Debates in the other place or had not read them so that he understood them. It seems to me, taking it by and large, that this is the most incompetent Government we have had since 1931, when we also had a Socialist Government. Oddly enough, in addition to being incompetent, the Government today are even more distressingly complacent, and that is no doubt caused by the existence of their big battalions. But big battalions have to be properly led and directed, must have faith in their cause; and that is what none of the big battalions opposite have got. The party

  667
  opposite, and the Government which leads it, has just sufficient sense to know when it has done wrong, but not sufficient courage to put it right. It is so frightened of losing face; so frightened of losing the confidence of the electors who voted for them last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Last week."] In America they have a name for a certain type of person—"suckers." I am not referring to the voters of this country as "suckers." That leads me to the Amendment that has come from another place. I would like to ask whether you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have had time to study the most excellent Debate which took place on this Amendment in the other place. I am not going to read the speeches; I know I would be out of Order if I attempted to do so. But they were so wise, so potent, and so convincing, that I feel that if the Parliamentary Secretary had had time to give full attention to them, he would have been so convinced that he would not have resisted this Amendment, but would have invited his well-trained colleagues behind him to support it. I think we are very fortunate in having a Second Chamber which is fearless of party discipline or the electoral consequences of putting a party in the wrong. I, naturally, as the mover of the original Amendment in Committee upstairs, am very disappointed that a separate Scottish Corporation was not adopted in the other place. But I can see that this substitute, so ably moved, does something for Scotland. Certainly, it is workable, it gives Scotland something of what it wants, and, so far as I can see, the Minister has no real argument against it, except, of course, the fear of being thought weak, vacillating and conciliatory, and, of course, these are serious crimes in the new Socialist hierarchy. At the same time, I feel that this substitute Amendment points a way out of the impasse into which the Government have got with their stupid policy. I am not going to talk of the constitutional issues involved by the possible rejection of this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because I want to give my colleagues here an opportunity of speaking, since no hon. Member opposite has the courage to speak for it. Nor am I going into the danger of holding up this Bill for 18 months, which, of course, might well happen, though the Parliamentary Secretary has not con-
  668
  vinced me that it would be a good thing for Scottish aviation to get tnis Bill through. Time alone will tell whether there is any justification for his optimism.
  What, in fact, does the Amendment do? It seeks to set up a Scottish associate or subsidiary to the British European Corporation for three different purposes—first, to advise the Minister on Scottish aviation affairs, second, to manage internal airlines in Scotland, and, third, to arrange, in conjunction with the Minister, and, of course, the other Corporations, for airlines and routes from Scotland to North America, Scandinavia and elsewhere. Let us see how these aims accord or conflict with the declared intentions of the Minister. The Minister has stated time after time that it is his hope and intention to set up further corporations and associates as circumstances may require. The first part of the Amendment is, therefore, obviously in accordance with the Minister's view. Secondly, he has declared, and has agreed, I believe, to put it in the Bill, that he wishes the fullest possible consultation with, and advice from, Scotland, in order to aid him to carry out his plans for British, and, especially, for Scottish, aviation. The second part of the Amendment, therefore, is in order and in accord with his plans. Thirdly, and this is very important, the Amendment seeks to ensure that the Scottish subsidiary shall have the power to control and manage internal airlines in Scotland and also to arrange to operate and run air routes to and from Scotland and parts of North America and Scandinavia.
  In June, 1945, the then Under-Secretary for Civil Aviation declared in this House, that it was the policy of the then Coalition Government—and no doubt that decision was given by the authority of, and in accord with, the present Minister's advisers in the Ministry of Civil Aviation —to give Scottish civil aviation a charter, and that that charter should designate Prestwick as the second international Atlantic airport, and, secondly, that Scotland should have the right, indeed, the monopoly, to run airlines and routes from Scotland to North America and Scandinavia. Those undertakings were given in June, 1945, by Mr. Perkins, on the authority of the Minister's present advisers. If that authority was good enough then, if that decision was workable and right, and the argument good and proper

  669
  then, how can the Parliamentary Secretary today come down and say this Amendment is unacceptable? Of course, it was approved by the Lord President of the Council—
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): If I may say so, the hon. and gallant Member's fluency is greater than his accuracy. Surely he knows the Government in office at that date was the Caretaker Government and not the Coalition Government.
  Sir T. Moore: I was carried away by the sweet song of my hon. Friend the leader of the National Liberal Party. I would now direct myself and the House to one or two other important factors, which I think should be considered in regard to this case. I appeal to the House to say that I have successfully demolished any arguments put forward by the Government in support of their attitude in rejecting this Amendment. There are other factors which are of exceeding importance to Scotland, though they may not be important to the Minister of Civil Aviation. One has been already referred to, namely, Scottish sentiment; the second is the question of decentralisation from London, and the third is the question of providing work in Scotland for Scotsmen. I have not necessarily placed them in order of priority, but in order of easy management. Scottish sentiment may not be a very important thing to the Minister of Civil Aviation, but it has importance in dealing with Scottish affairs. Like Lord Beveridge, who spoke with great effect in another place, I am half and half. The only difference is that my second half is much more truculent than his, because my other half comes from Ulster and not from England. It has been said that if one scratches a Russian, one finds a Tartar; it is far more true to say that if one scratches an Ulsterman one finds a Scot. Therefore, I realise and stress the importance of Scottish sentiment in dealing with Scottish affairs. This sentiment is very powerful. It has made Canada a second Scotland. It is established in China, in South America and in India— Mr. Deputy-Speaker, forgive me; I can see a menace in your eye. I would point out to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Scottish sentiment is partly behind this Amendment from another place, and unless we realise the strength and importance of Scottish sentiment we will not
  670
  give due importance to this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Hon. Members opposite should be more intent on listening to my words than in observing the position of my feet.
  Mr. Scollan: The hon. and gallant Member explained how Scotsmen had made Canada Scottish, and China Scottish—
  Sir T. Moore: No, I did not say that.
  Mr. Scollan: Would he please tell us if one of his colleagues has been hiding his pigtail beneath his hat? [Laughter.]
  Sir T. Moore: As the hon. Member's colleagues were quick enough to laugh before the finish of the joke, I have not the opportunity of sharing in their pleasure or answering the question. Scottish sentiment established outposts in China, in South America and in India, due to this allegiance of Scotland to Great Britain. That sentiment cannot be flouted. If it is, as has been said already tonight, Scottish nationalism will obtrude its head, perhaps with more vehemence than Scottish Members who gave obsequious lip service at the last Election will appreciate. I come to this question of decentralisation in Scotland. Every Scottish candidate, especially the Members of the Party opposite were adamant at the last Election on this point. They stressed that Whitehall must be subservient to St. Andrews House. This Amendment gives hon. Members opposite the opportunity of translating that excellent piece of advice into practice. Finally there is the question of work for Scotsmen in Scotland. When Scotland first established shipping lines it led inevitably to the creation of the shipping industry, whereby ships were built to carry the flag across the Seven Seas. We want to follow that example and precedent in the matter of air lines. Give us the Scottish Air Line for which we ask, and the manufacture of Scottish aircraft will follow. As every Member of this House knows, in Scotland we have got the most highly-skilled craftsmen in the world. If we give this further opportunity to Scottish craftsmen of such noted skill and experience, we certainly shall never regret it, and any Member opposite who has the courage to support this Amendment will contribute perhaps more than he knows to the future greatness of Scotland. I want the Minister or whoever is going to reply to say what is the real difficulty in accepting this Amend-

  671
  ment. I cannot see any, and certainly no reason was given by the Parliamentary Secretary. According to the Bill the State has allocated £8 million to British European Airways Corporation. Why is it not possible to divert £2 million of that to an associate company and give the associate the same freedom as is enjoyed by the European Corporation, B.O.A.C. and the other one, such as was promised by the Coalition Government? Let it have Scottish control; let it have local knowledge; let it have a national spirit peculiar to Scotland; and I do guarantee that Scotland will provide a service which will show Britain the way, as has been the case for centuries.
  11.9 p.m.
  Major Niall Macpherson: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) has spoken with great eloquence of the question of Scottish sentiment in this Amendment, and I will address myself mainly to the economic arguments in its favour. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire' (Mr. Hughes) started his speech by pouring contempt on this Amendment on the ground that it was merely putting Scotland into the position of a subsidiary. If he had studied the Debate in another place, he would have seen that in the first place an Amendment was introduced to provide for a fourth corporation. It was at the suggestion of an English noble Lord that this proposition was toned down to the idea of a subsidiary company. But I want to say that this subsidiary company is going a good deal further than the original text of the Bill, The hon. Member for South Ayrshire dealt at some length with the fact that in paragraph 2 (b) of the Amendment the Scottish Associate is called on only to produce internal services. Of course under this Amendment Scotland has to be master in her own house, but the Amendment also goes on to specify that in consultation with the Minister it can provide any other services, whether to other parts of Great Britain or to foreign countries. That is exactly what Scotland wants to do. A further point is that under this Amendment direct access both to the Minister and to the Corporations is given to the Scottish Associate. The Government have promised an Advisory Council with a chairman who is to be a member of B.E.A.C. Rather a ridiculous situation results from that.
  672
  The Advisory Council, through its chairman, has access to the Minister; the chairman is also a member of the board of the B.E.A.C, so that he may very often find himself in the position of recommending to the Minister direct something different from what his board are Recommending to the Minister. Can that possibly make for good relations?
  The second point I would like to make is that this Amendment will provide quite definitely, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs has said, a focus for development in Scotland. It has been argued in Committee and, I think, on the Third Reading, that it is natural for British air services to use British planes, the reason being that British manufacturers will study the special requirements of British operators. In the same way Scottish manufacturers will tend to study the special requirements of Scottish operators, and the Scottish operators, in turn, will tend to turn particularly to Scottish manufacturers; and that will create in Scotland not only a maintenance industry but also a manufacturing industry, which will be a most important result. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the maintenance of Scottish aircraft, yet he says that all aircraft are to come from a pool. If they are all coming from a pool surely there will be no such things as Scottish aircraft at all—only British aircraft.
  My third point is that the Scottish Associate would be a thoroughly independent body with executive powers, not a one-man show like the Advisory Council. It is a perfectly well integrated Board. Hon. Members on the other side of the House seem to think there is something Satanic in what they call Scottish "devilution, "but this is what Scotland will insist on in all matters concerning nationalisation. I have dealt with the three main points in which Scotland stands to benefit from this Amendment, but I should like also to draw the attention of the House to some advantages that British aviation as a whole would obtain from it. The Scottish Corporation would stand in the same economic relationship to the B.E.A.C. as the Overseas Corporation will stand to the B.S.A.A.C. The Parlfa-mentary Secretary said in Committee that it would be a good thing to stimulate competition between B.O.A.C. and the North American Corporation. It will not be competition over the same routes, but compe-

  673
  tition in efficiency and technique. They have the same functions, just as the proposed Scottish Board and the European Corporation have the same functions. There, again, would be competition in efficiency and technique, and that I submit would be good for British aviation.
  Again the question of efficiency in relation to the size of the fleet was mentioned on the Third Reading, but was not answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. Has he really made up his mind what the efficient size of an air fleet is really to be? The success of the aircraft service will depend on the right machines getting to the right place at the right time. If the Corporations are too big, that object will be difficult to attain. Army experience, and, indeed, experience in the R.A.F., have shown that. What ought the optimum size of an air fleet to be? Can the Parliamentary Secretary answer this question? To a large extent, it would be the answer to the proposed Amendment. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that the cost of operation depends on the maximum use of machines. The B.O.A.C. are using planes at the present time for only three hours a day I believe, whereas the United States are using aircraft for 10 hours a day. The result is that the U.S.A. are running at something like 3d. a mile, whereas it is costing us 8d. a mile. That shows the need for the maximum use of aircraft, and that can be done only by the most efficient control—I suggest that a small basis rather than a large basis is better for this purpose and that for that reason, the proposed Scottish Division would be more efficient that the B.E.A.C. At the least, it would operate as a standard against which the Corporation could be measured.
  The only fault I have to find with the Amendment is that it does not provide for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be consulted except in regard to the appointment of the Board. I would have liked him to be inserted, so that we could bring pressure to bear directly, through him, upon the Cabinet. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about intolerable pressure. What does he mean? Intolerable pressure representing the rights of Scotland? That is what he has in mind, and he is afraid of setting up a Corporation which could bring such pressure upon himself. He thinks it will be better to have Scotland well away in the limbo so that it will not
  674
  be possible for Scotland's rights to be properly represented. Therefore he supports the idea of having a Scottish division—not a separate corporation— even though it were only a subsidiary.
  At the close of the Debate in another place the Minister said that he saw no objection to putting the Advisory Council of the Scottish division into the Bill. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to state today whether it is his intention, even if he does not accept the Amendment—he has already indicated his intention not to do so—at least to implement that undertaking of the Minister's that if it was possible he would draft the provisions in such a way that he would put it into the Bill. That is clearly an undertaking. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he is prepared to implement it.
  11.20 p.m
  Major Guy Lloyd: The object of this Amendment, which has been sent to us for consideration is, in my judgment, the minimum possible claim which Scotland wishes to make with regard to this Bill. It seeks also to interpret that vague phrase which the Parliamentary Secretary has repeatedly put about in the House, namely, that the Government contend that they have, in fact, given Scotland a considerable measure of autonomy. That is the whole issue in dispute, and it was because we had never felt that Scotland had been given a considerable measure of autonomy that we were thoroughly dissatisfied with the Bill. Now we are given an opportunity, by this Amendment from another place, to interpret what is at least their view of what is a considerable measure of autonomy. We have been promised that, but very little is indeed in the Bill which gives a measure of autonomy at all. We have been promised an Advisory Committee. We have been told of what is the rôle of the Scottish Division, but it is not in the Bill. This Amendment, at least, brings out what is meant by a measure of autonomy.
  These are the minimum demands of the hon. Members who come from Scotland. We know well Scotland wanted a great deal more. We were all agreed that Scotland ought to have a great deal more, but because Scottish Labour Members opposite have put the party whip before the needs of Scotland, we on this side now fight alone for what Scotland has wanted

  675
  for years. There is no doubt about that. In fact, what measure of autonomy is Scotland going to get in the Bill? This Amendment is going to be rejected, I have no doubt, by the big battalions. The acid test of loyalty to Scotland will be put to Scottish Members of all parties when this matter is put to a division. Scotland is looking to see who her friends are and who is best representing her interests tonight. This Scottish division will have no autonomy about it, no independence about it. It is to be just a puppet, and it is to take its orders, in fact, from elsewhere. Without a shadow of doubt, its members will be marionettes, dancing to the tune of a majority. This Scottish division, in fact, will have no real autonomy. The word "autonomy" is a farce; it is just a red herring in order to try to draw away Scottish Members of Parliament on the other side from their allegiance and loyalty to Scottish interests which they had at one time, and which they have now lost.
  There can be no doubt about what the opinion of Scotland is. She is bitterly disappointed with this Bill. No hon. Member opposite who comes from Scotland can dare to say that, in his opinion, the people of Scotland are thoroughly satisfied with this Bill. No hon. Member will say that Scottish people and the people he represents are thoroughly satisfied with this Bill. Of course he dare not. They know it is not true, and I give them credit for their honesty. Yet they are going to vote and say that they, in fact, are satisfied, yet they know their constituents are not satisfied. Scotland is going to know who her real representatives are, and who are the puppets and marionettes. That is the issue. Here is the last attempt to fight for some measure of autonomy for Scotland; here is the last attempt to defend it; here is the last attempt to secure a measure of Scottish independence and a measure of Scottish devolution and autonomy. I would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman who has to reply to this Debate has to say about it. Will he put these things in the Bill? What is the good of promising these things, unless they are in the Bill? The whole country was promised a lot at the General Election. Look where the promises have gone now. Scotland wants more than promises. Put these things in
  676
  the Bill, and Scotland will at least be more satisfied, than she is at present.
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: We have listened to a characteristic spate of invective from the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd), part relevant and part otherwise. I would like, in the name of my colleagues on this side of the House, to reject and repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) that hon. Members on this side have broken their promise and pledged word. The reason for his not being the most suitable person to make that remark is obvious to all hon. Members. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I cannot help it if he chooses to be absent at this moment trying to find out the date of the end of the Japanese war. He is the least suitable person to make this allegation, and it is wholly untrue. One thing we promised the people of Scotland, and we are fulfilling that promise now, was to nationalise civil aviation. That was our promise to the electorate and we are carrying it out and hon. Members opposite on all kinds of pretexts—technical, financial and pseudo-Scottish-nationalist—are trying to obstruct us.
  This matter has been very adequately dealt with in this House and in Committee over and over again. The essential substance of this Amendment has been rejected time and time again. It comes before us tonight trimmed with a few rhetorical phrases, a little ermine and a few noble knobs on, and we can only follow consistently the view of the overwhelming majority of elected Members of this House by rejecting it again. Scottish Members of the Opposition are trying to set the Scottish heather on fire with civil aviation spirit. Had they shown a little more of the true spirit of Scotland before the last General Election, we should not have been called to the rescue by the Scottish people in 1945.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), who presented the case more reasonably and cogently than any other hon. Member tonight, turned for support to the Scottish T.U.C. Even there, the Opposition cannot be consistent, unless they go back a bit and support the demand of the T.U.C. for the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act. This is another stunt. We are

  677
  conscious that the substance of this Amendment is very little in the minds of hon. Members opposite. They have abandoned all argument about nationalisation or private enterprise, because they know we mean to redeem the promise we gave the electorate. This is a stunt Amendment, and they know it is from beginning to end. It is another series, like the bread rationing stunts. They hope that as Napoleon's armies marched to victory "on their stomachs," that they can crawl back to popularity on those of other people. That stunt did not work, and this will not work.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. Is this in Order?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A great many things have been said on both sides which are not strictly in Order, but we shall see.
  Mr. MacMillan: I will vary the metaphor and make it quite relevant and say that in civil aviation hon. Members opposite are more interested in flying political kites than in British aviation. What is behind this Amendment now? The other day a very distinguished supporter of it complained that the
  "palsied fingers of the Government were gripping the country from London to the North of Scotland."
  That is not a bad achievement for the "palsied fingers." Another noble supporter of this Amendment said of a Scottish colleague's speech on this Amendment that it was a reflection of the fact that, since the last Election, there has grown up a deep and powerful consciousness of Scottish nationality among the Conservative hon. Members—and I will throw in the National Liberals as well to make up the weight. Scottish people will measure the genuineness of this by their achievements in the past. There is still hope that, given this Tory "freedom" in Scotland, they may be able to work in a few more taxi services—a few more aerial pleasure trips —and make a little money still out of that part of civil aviation which is not being nationalised wholly. I think there is a little lucre-lust in their newly-found love of Scotland.
  However, I am not the only person rejecting this Amendment. A Conservative newspaper in Glasgow, the "Bulletin," said recently,
  678
  "…the surprising vigour with which some formerly silent Scottish Tories have rushed in to the rescue of a London-ruled Scotland has seemed at least as much like enthusiastic exploitation of a political opportunity as genuine patriotism."
  That is a remark about the "nationalistic Tories." If that remark is not true, it is a capitalist Tory newspaper which told the lie; it is the "Glasgow Bulletin."
  Sir William Darling: Will the hon. Member allow me? There is no such newspaper as the "Glasgow Bulletin." The newspaper which he refers to is "The Bulletin." Be accurate.
  Mr. MacMillan: Well, it is "The Bulletin," and that is what it said. What I would like to point out is that, first the Tories asked for a Scottish corporation. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) went farther than that, He demanded two corporations. His words are recorded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I will read it if I can lay my hands on the report. [Interruption.] He interrupted the Lord President during that Debate to ask what the right hon. Gentleman wanted, and he said then that he wanted two public utility corporations.
  Sir T. Moore: That was a year ago.
  Mr. MacMillan: Yes, and now we are just about the anniversary of the winning of the General Election shortly after. Then the Opposition asked for one corporation and later still a board of management with powers which amounted to a corporation again to all intents and purposes. Now they ask for an "associate" with much less powers. They have been fickle, fond and fly all at once; to use a Scottish expression, but it has not availed them, because the logic of the case has not supported their argument. The hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew accused us on this side, of having "put Scotland in the soup." He said we had "ratted." He used terms of abuse that were not fit for the soap box unless one also used plenty of water. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow a bit more ascetically—and aesthetically—left the "rats" out of the "soap." But the hon. Members opposite have, in their Press, on the public platforms and in this House misrepresented

  679
  and completely distorted the point of view of the Labour Members and of the Government.
  What is our object in this Bill? It is to fit in Scottish aviation with our economic progress and not to cramp it into the old traditional and obsolete system and methods. Civil Aviation control must tend inevitably international control and organisation. There must be bi-lateral agreements leading towards multi-lateral agreements and developing towards that international control and world organisation which members on all sides must ultimately support. They must harmonise these developments, economic and social, with the needs of the peoples of all nations, including Scotland. Organisation on these lines is not immediately practicable but it is our common aim and in this we have a common ground. Meantime, we must try to fit it in along the lines of our own country's economic reconstruction. We have to avoid the duplicating of adequate services, which are already being provided. We have to avoid multiplying controls, and avoid also uneconomic and unnecessary sub-division, which must certainly add to the cost of running our civil aviation and pass the increased charges on finally to the consumer. Our object is to make civil aviation efficient, technically and administratively. We have to make it meet the needs, social and economic, of the people, and make it cheaply available to our own people at large. We have to make it freer to our people in our comings and goings among the other peoples of the world. I want to emphasise Scotland's share under this Bill. All the benefits shared by England and Wales, or any part of England and Wales, will be shared by Scotland in this Bill, without this Amendment. Scotland is excepted from none of the benefits under this Bill, if she is not mentioned for specific benefits then she is not mentioned for any exclusion from any specific benefits. Hon. Members will see if they look through this Bill that England is not specifically mentioned either. Like Shylock they keep chanting: "It is not in the bond!" "It is not in the Bill." Members opposite are still after something to bring them in a material benefit. It is Shylock's gold ducats drawing out of hon. Members a new patriotism which has been exuding
  680
  from them these past few months! We want to give the Minister full scope. We want to give the Corporations full scope. We would rather they had this and be able to use the powers imaginatively than have it done by narrowing statutory definition, which, if the Minister exceeded it on one point, could be challenged in the courts. We believe that the Minister's assurances in this House will be kept. They are spoken on behalf of the Government. [Interruption.] I can see that hon. Members opposite are immensely relieved to discover at any rate one supporter in the Public Gallery for their Amendment. Why do they distrust these undertakings of our Ministers. I think their distrust has its basis in their own experience of Tory Governments in power. But things are different now. One of the first and most truly enterprising and imaginative things this Government did in carrying out its promises to the electorate was to undertake putting on a really sound basis our national aviation.
  I appeal to hon. Members on all sides of the House not to narrow this issue down to an issue of separatism or special claims. I make an appeal that they shall put the welfare of British civil aviation before all these Party political stunts, of which we have all perhaps been guilty at times. I make honourable exception in the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I see him about to rise, and I give him that exoneration. Let us try to rise above this narrow, almost parochial, circle into a wider, more realistic conception of our duty and purpose. Let us get down to the job of making a success in the world of British civil aviation. I hope hon. Members will not resist the appeal of the Minister and their own colleagues on this side, who are still willing to co-operate with them, as they have done in the past, when promoting the true interests of Scotland. Let them lend their support and assistance, instead of hovering around and circling round and round this exhausted Amendment until their gas runs out and they have to do a pancake landing on the precincts of another place.
  11.43 p.m.
  Major McCallum: The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) has trotted out an appeal to Members on this side of the House about excessive generosity to Scotland; but we have heard this in previous Debates from

  681
  the Lord President. I must confess that I never expected to hear this from the hon. Member for the Western Isles. I seem to remember during the General Election two points from the Scottish Labour Party's election address which told a different story in regard to Scotland. Coming to this Amendment, I would call to the memory of the hon. Member for the Western Isles that he has put down Questions, from time to time, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in connection with Scotland's internal airways to the Western Isles. He, like myself, represents what might be called consumer constituents for Scottish civil aviation. I have been in recent weeks putting to the test this very case which the Government put forward to us tonight in turning down this Amendment from another place. I have been in correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with the air service to one of our islands, and I have received from him a courteous reply in which I have been assured that the island in question may be suitable for landing air ambulances, but the landing places available are not sufficient for civil aviation passenger and transport aircraft. That advice, I suspect, he was given by the officials of, maybe, Scottish Airways, or officials of his own Department, but not by the Scottish Office. I maintain that we ought to have had the Scottish associated company, put forward in this Amendment, in the Bill, and I repeat "in the Bill." I have always been taught, in the fairly short time I have been in this House, that what a Minister says is his intention is ruled out when the matter comes to a court of law, and that the law only takes account of what is in the Bill. For that reason, I would like to see the promises which the Parliamentary Secretary and his noble Friend have given inserted in the Bill. If that was done, our anxieties might be somewhat allayed.
  I now come to the actual form of practice that will take place under this nationalised civil aviation. What will happen? Experts will come along and say "This place is not suitable for an air service." I am quite certain that, if they were to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, he would say "But I require that you should run a service to that particular place, because of the very difficult conditions of the surface communications," as the Parliamentary Secre-
  682
  tary well knows. The particular conditions, which the hon. Gentleman well knows, apply very much in the Scottish islands, yet we are told that this passenger service must be ruled out. That is a sample of what is going to happen under civil aviation run from Whitehall, and it seems to me that we are going to have conditions very similar to those we have under the Scottish division of the Ministry of Transport—completely useless, so far as Scottish steamer transport is concerned. When requests are made about improvements in the steamer services to the islands such applications are presumably referred to the regional offices in Scotland of the Transport Ministry but we get no reply whatever. There is no sympathy for such requests and were it not for the support of the Secretary of State for Scotland they would be just as good as wasted, because nothing more would be heard of them. That is the kind of support we shall get under this Bill, and that is why we, on this side of the House, feel that we must support the Amendment from another place.
  11.49 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), in what I thought was a very able and powerful speech, went a long way—I think, the complete way—to debunking the superficially nationalist speeches of Conservative hon. Members opposite, and I will only add this. Listening to those speeches, coming from most strange throats, I could not but remember the economic and industrial depression that Scotland suffered between the wars under a Tory Government, and it seems to me that all this enthusiasm, all this semi-Sinn Fein that we have been hearing, very naturally, from the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore)—it is curious to note how few Scots Tories have Scottish accents—all this Sinn Fein such as we have had from the hon. and gallant Member has, as far as I can see, no depth in it. It seems to me to be just political playing about, without any deep conviction and sincerity behind the arguments. In this matter I would draw attention to this, the White Paper for which Lord Swinton was responsible in the Coalition Government—the White Paper on which civil aviation policy was brought in, for which he was depart-mentally responsible; though, to be quite

  683
  fair, other Ministers had responsibility as well—never said anything about Scotland at all. That White Paper was brought forward by a Tory Minister.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: And objected to.
  Mr. Morrison: Well, it was brought forward by a Tory Minister who, in another place, has been most enthusiatic in support of this Amendment. It is true that under the Caretaker Government, in the light of a forthcoming election—which, in itself, is eloquent as to the sincerity of people about this—there was an announcement, through Mr. Perkins, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, of certain developments from a Scottish point of view. One of the purposes of those modifications was, not to assuage Scottish national feeling but to preserve Scottish capitalism, or somebody's capitalism, in Scottish aviation. I do not suppose the money was even Scottish capital; probably quite a lot of it was English capital. That was one of the purposes of these boasted concessions that were supposed to be made to Scottish Members. As a matter of fact, Mr. Perkins, in concluding his explanation of the thing, which did not seem to me to give Scotland much, was not very satisfactory about Prestwick—it was such a muddled affair—said:
  "I have no doubt whatever that this complicated statement will have muddled some hon. Members."
  It apparently did, because the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs followed him, as he apparently remembers, and said:
  "May I thank my hon. Friend for that very long, very carefully prepared statement, which I agree with him is somewhat difficult fully to absorb just by listening to it?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1945; Vol. 411, c. 989.]
  That was the boasted concession to Scotland. I am bound to say, if I was a Scottish Member I would not think very much of it. The original Swinton White Paper had no reference to Scotland at all. The main concession here was to preserve private enterprise. England was to have a public corporation of some sort, operating in this country for part of the service, but Scotland, under the Swinton plan, was to be specifically reserved for private enterprise exploitation. If that
  684
  is Scottish nationalism or patriotism it seems to me a curious viewpoint.
  Sir W. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the company to which he refers offered itself to the Scottish Council of Industry, to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, at the price which the Government thought reasonable to take.
  Mr. Morrison: I would like to know more about that before I express an opinion.
  Sir W. Darling: Ask the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Morrison: I am bound to say, I prefer the true Scottish voice as I know it. I do not purport to be an expert, any more than other non-Scottish Members, but I have been to Scotland, and I have heard Scotsmen talk. I say this: I hear the voice of Scotland from hon. Members on this side of the House with greater depth and sincerity than I hear it from hon. Members opposite. Now let us look at the complete unreality of this Amendment which is before the House, and compare it with the offer—which they will live up to—made by my noble Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary to Scottish Members. This scheme, to which the Government are committed and with which the House is familiar, gives to Scotland management of Scottish Airways through a divisional organisation under a Scottish office; it gives to Scotland an Advisory Committee composed of Scotsmen, and the chairman of the Advisory Committee will himself not only be chairman of the Advisory Committee, but he will actually be a member of the Board of the main corporation.
  Colonel Hutchison: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that Scotland is to have the management of Scottish. Airways. Will he now proceed to define what are Scottish Airways? Will they be merely internal services or external services originating in Scotland?
  Mr. Morrison: They will be much like the airways mentioned by Mr. Perkins in his statement, and that ought to be all right. Moreover what I think was not promised before, the management of the airfields in Scotland will also be under a Scottish organisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why is it not in the Bill?"] I will

  685
  come to the Bill in a minute. Scottish airfields are to be under a Scottish organisation. These and other undertakings in relation to Scotland—real undertakings which are going to be a great advantage to Scotland, and, as I hope to show, of much greater advantage than would this Amendment be which has been sent to us from another place—are in response to the arguments and persuasions not of Scottish Tory Members, who have had little effect on this Bill whatsoever, but in response to the persuasion, argument and if you like the pressure of hon. Members who are representative of Scottish constituencies and who sit on the Government benches. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Tell that in the constituencies."] That is where the credit belongs, and no credit whatever for any of these concessions belongs to Tory Members. In effect, the Tory Members on the other side of this House and in another place have been so incompetent in the examination of this Bill that they have had no effect on it at all.
  Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman has just made rather a startling statement Is he aware that a colleague of his in another place said that Tory Members were responsible for great improvements in the Bill; and how does he explain that statement and the one he has just made?
  Mr. Morrison: That was not in relation to Scotland. I say, that in relation to Scotland any material concessions which have been given by this Government, which they were very happy to give, have been given as a result of the able advocacy of Scots Labour Members and not as a result of the Scottish Tory Members. It is said that the Tory Members would be happy— unless, of course, I am wrong—if the undertakings given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation were embodied in the Bill. I do not know whether that is true or not, but this point has been implied in a number of Tory speeches this evening— if only we put our undertakings in the Bill all would be well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not all."] Then all would not be well. That has been the implication of some of these speeches, but it is typical of the muddled minds of hon. Members that they really do not know what they want. Why did not my noble Friend, on reflection, insert these words in the Bill? It is perfectly true that he did flirt with
  686
  the idea in discussion in another place, and promised to consider it, but that was as far as it went. He did not put the words in, because if one comes to define in legal language and in statutory form the undertakings that were given by the Parliamentary Secretary and myself, then I think that the possibilities of concessions to Scotland would be more rigid, more crabbed and more confined than they would be if one left the matter to be dealt with by administration. I am perfectly certain that if we put these words in the Bill we should cramp the style of the Minister in being generous in the elasticity of the administration. for the benefit of Scotland. My noble Friend, I think rightly, came to the conclusion that it would be better for Scotland and better for administration if he refrained from attempting to define the offers which had been made—and which will be lived up to—in statutory form in the Bill. He therefore did not proceed to do so and my own view is that Scotland will be better off in these conditions in the future than would otherwise be the case.
  Let us see what this Amendment which has come to us from another place means. Subsection (1) provides that
  "British European Airways Corporation …shall, with the approval of the Minister"—
  "With the approval of the Minister"— which seem to be pursuing us; I thought there was objection to that—
  "constitute an Associate (to be known as 'The Scottish Associate'), the members of which shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and shall have their offices in Scotland."
  All that provides is that the Minister— the Great Britain Minister—shall appoint the Scottish Board after, it is true, consultation with the Secretary of State. It goes on to provide that the functions of the Scottish Associate shall include the following:
  "(a) to advise the Minister and the three Corporations upon all questions affecting air transport in, from or to Scotland."
  That is amply covered by the undertakings which have been given in respect of the Scottish Advisory Committee.
  "(b) to provide such air transport services internally in Scotland and such other air transport services as the Minister may from time to time after consultation with any of the three Corporations allocate to it."

  687
  Therefore the Scottish Associate would provide only such air services internally and such other air transport services as the Minister would from time to time give them, and the Minister would only give them after consultation with the appropriate Corporation. So the Minister ties it down again and the whole thing is the creature of the Corporation which is a Great Britain affair.
  Thirdly they are enabled to
  "Perform such other of the functions which any of the three Corporations have power to perform as the Minister may from time to time direct."
  The Amendment continues:
  "The provision of working capital for, and the making of loans to, and the fulfilment of guarantees given for the benefit of the Scottish Associate shall be purposes for which each of the three Corporations may borrow money under the powers conferred by this Act."
  What does that mean? It means that the Scottish Associate would be 100 per cent. the financial creature of the Corporations or one of the Corporations. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly, that is what it means and that is what it says, and I will come to the general summing up in a moment. Therefore it seems to me that this is all make believe; it really is nonsense, and if I were a Scottish Member I would sooner have what was promised by the Parliamentary Secretary and myself and by my noble Friend than this humbugging proposal which really creates a subsidiary to an English Corporation which would have the Scottish Associate by the throat the whole time so that it could not move an inch without the permission of the English organisation or the English Minister. The matter was left, in my judgment, entirely in the Minister's hands. He could, in fact—I do not suggest for a moment that he would— make this provision a dead letter, if he wished to. I hope that that observation is acceptable to hon. Members. I will repeat it. In my view, by the Amendment which the Conservative Party are supporting, the matter would be entirely in the Minister's hands. The Scottish Associate would be a very creature of the Minister, who could, in fact, make the provision now before the House a dead letter. If hon. Members can say that is the kind of thing which is consistent with Scottish pride, it is a pity. At any rate, the mover of the Amendment
  688
  in another place actually used similar language himself.
  My hon. Friends have been arguing on the side of reality, because substantial provision has been made to meet the views and the wishes of Scotland. I do not believe that a great service of this kind, which is international in character, ought to be broken up into watertight compartments or by national boundaries. Nevertheless, I sympathise very much with the wish of Scotsmen and of Scots Labour Members to see that Scotland has a proper and effective voice and power of persuasion in the running of this service. Therefore, we have come to them, at their request, with substantial concessions by way of undertakings in the administration of the Bill. I think those undertakings, in themselves, are reasonable. I do not believe that the Amendment will improve the situation. It is not a dignified proposal. I ask the House to support my hon. Friend in disagreeing with the Amendment.
  12.8 a.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford): I am sure that the whole House will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on assuming tonight these even more considerable responsibilities which have fallen to him, consequent on the departure of the Prime Minister. It enables us to have the pleasure of seeing him late at night and, unlike Cinderella, he is enabled to watch what the House of Commons looks like after midnight. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the White Paper associated with the name of Lord Swinton and mentioned that there was nothing in it about Scotland. I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary did not, as he had done on other occasions, and as he has been busy doing earlier this evening, acquaint the right hon. Gentleman with the true facts of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman does not realise that it was expressly laid down in the Swinton plan that subsidiary companies could be formed. There was no particular reason to mention Scotland.
  Mr. Morrison: For Scotland?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly.
  Mr. Morrison: Did your White Paper say for Scotland?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, because it is only this Government which, for the first

  689
  time for many years, draws attention to Scotland by persistently ignoring it. Hitherto, every part of the United Kingdom has been equally considered. Now, the exclusion of Scotland becomes very noticeable.
  Perhaps I may develop my point. In Lord Swinton's White Paper, two things could happen, over and above the three Corporations provided for. Anybody who had already had a company operating could have a financial interest in one of the three corporations. This is where I come to the right hon. Gentleman's omission. Alternatively they could set up a subsidiary to work under one of the three corporations. For example, Scottish Airways could themselves have operated a 100 per cent. subsidiary under British European Airways Corporation. All that was possible under the Swinton plan, and that was why there was no need, in that White Paper, to mention Scotland expressly. The Portsmouth Airways, which are conducting a highly important undertaking, had already applied to become a subsidiary under B.E.A.C., and there was no reason whatever why a Scottish company, already functioning, should not, on behalf of Scotland, become a subsidiary under the new corporation. If the right. hon. Gentleman had read the White Paper he might perhaps have known that. He voted for it in the Cabinet, but he was no doubt so busy telling other people to "Go to it" that he did not have time to read his own Cabinet's conclusions.
  That is the first answer to the right hon. Gentleman's charge that he goes as far, and that his Government go as far, in supporting Scottish aviation as did their predecessor. The second argument is this. It is notorious that the White Paper of Lord Swinton and the Coalition Government was in the nature of a compromise. It was a compromise made under the stress of war with a large number of people whose passion for centralisation was, very mercifully, theoretical and now has, alas, become a practical danger. One of the consequences of this passion for centralisation was the setting up of the three corporations. So much for the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Swinton White Paper. I need not detain the House much longer on the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, except to say that in Scotland while they have the gravest memories of un-
  690
  employment in the postwar years, they recall the way in which the first Coalition Government in 1931 drastically reduced the unemployment figures for which the right hon. Gentleman and his previous Socialist Government were responsible.
  The right hon. Gentleman made one or two glib references to what he called superficial nationalist speeches. He then proceeded to turn to his back benchers and congratulate them on their own nationalist efforts. That was the rather pathetic way in which, for the benefit of Scottish opinion, he tried to associate his own back benchers with responsibility for any agreements made. Equally his attempt to show the proposal which we are now considering as making the Scottish corporation which we want, as merely a creature of the Minister, scarcely bears examination. It will be in precisely the same situation as the other corporations, and it has been said that they are all creatures of the Minister. But having once conceded the principle of this Bill, we are very anxious to try and make it work, and if these three corporations are themselves in a ridiculous situation, why should not a fourth corporation, and one entirely justified by argument, be set up?
  The last argument used in the main part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech refers to the desire of the Government benches for an international agreement. I hope I may be allowed, in passing, to draw attention to the fact that the United States of America has now given notice to terminate the international air agreement on 25th June, 1947; a curious follow-up of the setting up of a Socialist and internationalist Government in Great Britain which, we were told, would internationally bring order into the air. Scotland expects little from the right hon. Gentleman. It expects little from a Government in which, for the first time in my memory, no Scotsman sits in the Cabinet. But it is entitled to a slightly better answer to some of the arguments that have been advanced from this side of the House and which, I believe, were advanced from all sides of the House when Scottish candidates were seeking election a year ago.
  I defy any Scottish Member to deny that when questions arose as to Scottish aviation in the future he did not use words somewhat similar to those used by Lord Pethick-Lawrence which have been

  691
  quoted from this side of the House earlier in the Debate. We are anxious that a subsidiary should be set up, a subsidiary which we call an associate, using the word in Clause 14. No reason has been advanced why this should not be done— none whatever. The White Paper introduced by Lord Winster expressly provided that such a thing might happen. I will quote the words used by the noble Lord when introducing the White Paper:
  "It may well be found that additional corporations, or subsidiaries of these three corporations, are desirable."
  So, obviously the Government did not regard the creation of another corporation, which we would have preferred, or a subsidiary, as we are now prepared to accept in order to get agreement, as wrecking the main purpose of the Bill. In another place no arguments of any value were advanced against this proposal, and we have had no real arguments here.
  May I finally, for the Opposition, recapitulate what our arguments are? It is expressly provided in the Government's own White Paper that a corporation or subsidiary may be set up. There is no reason whatever why it should not pool aeroplanes as far as possible and certainly pool employees with the other corporations. There is no reason whatever why it should be an uneconomic business. It could be a 100 per cent. subsidiary formed under British European Airways Corporation and the stock could be owned by B.E.A.C. It would not compete in any way with other air routes. In another place the argument was advanced that the three corporations would not compete with each other because they would be functioning on different routes. Equally, the Scottish corporation would function on a different route. It would deal with internal air transport in Scotland—a very complicated and highly important business in that country of poor
  communication—and also in airways in and out of Scotland to foreign countries, not, of course, between Scotland and England, but with Scandinavian countries and other places where there is a crying need for a direct air route. It would not compete in any way with any existing routes and it would be quite possible to have economic working. It would not lead to uneconomic competition with the other corporations.
  We have been offered alternatives, the futility of which is obvious to the House. There is the alternative of a Scottish division with a very small personnel living in Scotland as an alternative to the resident board we have asked for. There is the alternative of an advisory council. Scotsmen, not limited to those who represent Scottish divisions in Parliament, have a lively memory of the Advisory Council for Scottish Industry and how their advice on this Bill has been completely disregarded. It is not necessary to tell us that having disregarded an earlier advisory council the Government are now going to listen to one set up under this Bill. We have had evidence in the last few weeks of the way in which His Majesty's Government are prepared to give all that they are asked for by the Government of Southern Ireland. We have seen the British Government accept a minority status in a corporation running between Southern Ireland and Great Britain. Scotland, on the other hand, has been cold shouldered and all her pleas have been ignored. I do not think that will be altogether lost on Scotland as a reward to her for all she did in the war.
  Mr. Whiteley Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes. 228; Noes, 104.

  Division No. 274.]

  AYES

  [12.20 a.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Callaghan, James

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Binns, J.

  Champion. A. J.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Boardman, H.

  Cooks, F. S.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Collick, P.

  Austin, H. L.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Collins, V. J.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

  Barton, C.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Crawtey, A.

  Battley, J. R.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Daggar, G.

  Berry, H.

  Burke, W. A.

  Daines, P.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Levy, B. W.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Deer, G.

  Mack, J. D.

  Shurmer, P.

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Diamond, J.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Dodds, N. N.

  McLeavy, F.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Donevan, T.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Marquand, H. A.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Stamford, W.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Messer, F.

  Steele, T.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  M'ddleton, Mrs. L.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Folick, M.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stokes, R. R.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Strauss. G. R. (Lamboth, N.)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Monslow, W.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Swingler, S.

  Gibbins, J.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Murray, J. D.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Gilzean, A.

  Nally, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Grierson, E.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  O'Brien, T.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Gunter, Capt, R. J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Guy, W. H.

  Orbach, M.

  Usborne, Henry

  Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Paget, R. T.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Hale, Leslie

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Walkden, E.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Harrison, J.

  Parker, J.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Haworth, J.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Weitzman, D.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pearson, A.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Holman, P.

  Perrins, W.

  West, D. G.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hoy, J.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Price, M. Philips

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Wigg, Colonel G. E.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Wilkes, L.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Randall, H. E.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Irving, W. J.

  Ranger, J.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Janner, B.

  Rankin, J.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Willis, E.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Rhodes, H.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Kenyon, C.

  Robens, A.

  Wise, Major. F. J.

  King, E. M.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Woods, G. S.

  Kinley, J.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Royle, C.

  Yates, V. F.

  Lang, G.

  Sargood, R.

  Layers, S.

  Scollan, T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Mr. Collindridge.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Birch, Nigel

  Eccles, D. M.

  Hurd, A.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Fletcher W. (Bury)

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Gage, C.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Carson, E.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Haughton, S. G.

  Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Darling, Sir. W. Y.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Hope, Lord J.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  694

  695

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Pete, Brig. C. H. M.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Touche, G. C.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Turton, R. H.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Bromley)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Mariningham-Buller, R. E.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Scott, Lord W

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Snadden, W. M.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Spearman, ACM.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mellor, Sir J

  Spence, H. R.

  York, C.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Sir Arthur Young and

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Mr. Drewe.

  Question put accordingly: "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 104.

  Division No. 275.]

  AYES

  [12.30 a.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Messer, F.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Gibbins, J.

  Mitchison, Maj G. R.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Monslow, W.

  Austin, H. L.

  Gilzean, A.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Barstow, P G.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Murray, J. D.

  Barton, C.

  Grierson, E.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Battley, J. R.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Berry, H.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Guy, W. H.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Binns, J.

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  O'Brien, T.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hale, Leslie

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Boardman, H.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Orbach, M.

  Paget, R. T.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Harrison, J.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Haworth, J.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Parker, J.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Pearson, A.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hoy, J.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Callaghan, James

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Perrins, W.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Price, M. Philips

  Cocks , F. S.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Collick, P.

  Irving, W. J.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Collins, V. J.

  Janner, B.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

  Randall, H. E.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Ranger, J.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Rankin, J.

  Cawley, A.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Kenyon, C.

  Rhodes, H.

  Daggar, G.

  King, E. M.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Daines, P.

  Kinley, J.

  Robens, A.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshirs)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lang, G.

  Roberts W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Lavers, S.

  Royle, C.

  Deer, G.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Sargood, R.

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Levy, B. W.

  Scollan, T.

  Diamond, J.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Donovan, T.

  Mack, J D.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mckay, J. (Wallsend)

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

  Shurmer, P.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  McLeavy, F.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Simmons, C J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Mann, Mrs J.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Margeand H. A.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Follick, M.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C.A.B.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Wilkes, L.

  Steele, T.

  Usborne, Henry

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Vernon, Maj. W F.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Stokes, R. R.

  Walkden, E.

  Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

  Willis, E.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Warbey, W. N.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Swingler, S.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Weitzman, D.

  Woods, G. S.

  Taylor, H. B. (Hansfield)

  Wells, P, L. (Faversham)

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

  Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Yates, V. F.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  West, D. G.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Mr. Collindridge.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Wigg, Colonel G. E.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hope, Lord J

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Birch, Nigel

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt,-Col. W.

  Hurd, A.

  Pete, Brig. C. H. M

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Carson, E.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Raikes, H. V

  Clarke, Col. R. S

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt-Cdr. Hon. L. W

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Rayner, Brig, R.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Darling, Sir W. Y

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Spence, H. R.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W

  Lindsay, M (Solihull)

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Drayson, Capt G. B.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Fletcher W. (Bury)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Touche, G. C.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Turton, R. H.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Gage, C.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Bromley)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Haughton, S. G.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Ma-shall, D. (Bodmin)

  York, C.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Meller, Sir J

  Hollis, M. C.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Sir Arthur Young and Mr. Drewe

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL AVIATION BILL

    CLAUSE 4.—(General powers of Minister in relation to the corporations.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 38, leave out from beginning of line 6, on page 4, and insert:
    "The Minister may, after consultation with any of the three Corporations, give to that Corporation directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by that Corporation of their functions in relation to matters appearing to the Minister to affect the National interest and the Corporation concerned shall give effect to any such directions."
    12.35 a.m.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This wording follows the wording of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, and it has been thought desirable to accept it.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Use of aircraft registered in His Majesty's dominions.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 11, leave out "the Chairman of."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is consequential on the previous Amendment. As consultation will now be with the corporation, the word "Chairman" should be omitted.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Corporations not to be exempt from taxation, etc.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 30, leave out from "flying" to end of Clause.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This also is consequential, as the words proposed to be left out constitute a particular direction, and would not now be in keeping with Clause 4.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Exchequer grants to associates of the three corporations.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 27, leave out "comply," and insert "complies."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This corrects an error in grammar, though whether it is a transformation of the subjunctive into the indicative or of the plural into the singular I am not quite sure.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Limitation of Exchequer grants.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 3, leave out "any," and insert "the."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is to correct a slip in the drafting of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Reserve funds.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 21, leave out from "fund", to end of Clause, and insert:
    "(2) The management of the said fund, the sums to be carried from time to time to the credit thereof, and the application thereof, shall be as the Corporation concerned may determine:
    Provided that—

    (a) no part of the said fund shall be applied otherwise than for purposes of the Corporation; and

    (b) the power of the Minister to give directions to the Corporation shall extend to the giving to them, with the approval of the Treasury, of directions as to any matter relating to the establishment or management of the said fund, the carrying of sums to the credit thereof, or the application thereof, notwithstanding that the directions may be of a specific character."

    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    700
    This brings the Bill into line with the wording adopted in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Accounts and audit.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 29, at end, insert:
    "being a form which shall conform with the best commercial standards and which shall distinguish between the provision of air transport facilities upon scheduled journeys, the provision of air transport facilities otherwise than upon such journeys, and the carrying out of aerial work which does not consist of the provision of air transport facilities."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    As I explained in Committee, there will be some difficulty in regard to the precise allocation of cost between scheduled journeys, charter journeys and other forms of aerial work. We think, however, that it is possible to accept this Amendment, and I recommend its acceptance.
    Sir W. Darling: Would the Parliamentary Secretary satisfy my curiosity about the definition of the term "best commercial standards"? Will there be a commercial standard in the nationalisation operation upon which the Parliamentary Secretary is engaged?
    Mr. Thomas: To be frank, they are not words I should have put into the Bill myself. They were suggested in another place. It may be presumed that any accounts presented by a public corporation will conform to the best commercial standards. I do not, however, feel disposed to make a fight for a particular form of words.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Annual report and periodical returns.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 5, leave out "generally."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The word "generally" can be omitted without any loss to the Bill, and I recommend the acceptance of this Amendment.
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 8, at end, insert:
    "(3) The report for any year shall set out any direction given by the Minister to the Corporation during that year unless the Minister has notified to the Corporation his opinion that it is against the national interest so to do."
    Mr. Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It would be quite reasonable that where there has been a divergence of opinion between the Minister and the Corporation it should be inserted in the annual report. As it is a reasonable requirement I suggest the House should accept this Amendment.

    CLAUSE 23.— (Reservation of certain air services to the three corporations and their associates.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 20, leave out "section," and insert "Act."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is now necessary because of the fact that there will be references to scheduled journeys in the Bill otherwise than in Clause 23.
    Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 31, at end, insert:
    "or
    (c) in accordance with arrangements for the time being approved by the Minister as being in the public interest, to carry a party of passengers and their baggage (if any) upon a series of three or more journeys organised as a tour for the common enjoyment of those passengers."
    Mr. Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    There have been, in various places, discussions about round tours; and strenuous efforts have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by their friends in another place, to secure that private charter operators should be able to enter this field. My noble Friend did not feel able to accede to that request in the form originally proposed. He was confronted in particular with the difficulties of international agreements. The question of charter operators is one that is giving
    702
    great concern to many governments and the subject will have to be denned by the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation. He has, however, seen his way to consent to the proposal that charter companies may be permitted to conduct round tours with inclusive arrangements for board and lodging if he certifies that they are in the public interest. In this form I hope that the House will agree with the Lords Amendment.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Amendments and adaptations of 2&3 Geo. 6. c. 61.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 34, at end, insert:
    "(3) The said Act of 1939 shall have effect as if, after Subsection (1) of Section fourteen thereof, there were inserted the following Subsection: —
    '(1A) Without prejudice to their powers under the last preceding Subsection, the Corporation may, with the consent of the Treasury, create and issue Airways Stock which is to be allotted as consideration for the acquisition of any other undertaking or of snares or stock in any other undertaking.'"
    12.45 a.m.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment has the effect of bringing the borrowing powers of B.O.A.C. into line with the borrowing powers of the other Corporations under this Bill. If these words were not inserted in the Bill it would not be possible for B.O.A.C, as it is for the other corporations, to issue stock for the acquisition of other undertakings.
    Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

    CLAUSE 26.—(Power of Minister as to acquisition of land, etc.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 29, leave out "Subsection (1)" and insert "Subsections (1) and (3)."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the omission of Subsection (6) which is the next Amendment I propose to move are interdependent. It is a rather complicated subject, and I doubt whether the House would wish me to go very fully into this

    703
    at this late hour. The point is that land not needed immediately for the purposes of civil aviation might come into the possession of the Minister and it might be necessary for him to take it on lease and manage it or to assign the lease. Upstairs in Committee I dealt with this point, but I find that we did not deal with it with complete satisfaction. The point is this. We thought then that Subsection (3) of the Air Navigation Act, 1920—as it is amended, of course, by Section 25 of the Air Navigation Act, 1936—would be unnecessary in view of Subsections (4) and (5) of Section 26 of this Bill and we provided in Subsection (6) for its repeal. We now find that repeal may cast doubt on the powers of management and disposal of land available to the Minister after this Bill becomes law. It is accordingly proposed by the omission of Subsection (6) to restore Subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Air Navigation Act, 1920, to the Statute Book. If it remains on the Statute Book it will, however, require Amendment, because under the Subsection the Minister can take land on lease only for purposes of civil aviation. Those purposes must be extended to cover such matters as the lease of a portion of a farm severed by the perimeter of an aerodrome, which it is necessary for the Minister to manage in order to keep it in good condition, or to cover land which is not required directly for an aerodrome but for rehousing persons displaced in the construction of an aerodrome. Accordingly it is proposed to provide in Subsection (3), as in Subsection (1), of Section 15 of the Air Navigation Act, 1920, that the expression "purposes of civil aviation" shall include any "purposes connected with the discharge of the functions of the Minister."
    12.50 a.m.
    Mr. Turton: I regard this as a most unsatisfactory Amendment. I also regard the Parliamentary Secretary's speech as extremely ingenious, but I do not think he has got at the dangers which would ensue if this Amendment were accepted. I gather that in another place it was passed over as rather a complicated matter that required no discussion. Under Section 25 of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, Subsection (2), the Secretary of State has full power to manage the land that is
    704
    vested in him; that Subsection (2) is now retained and always has been retained in Clause 26, and there has been no issue between any part of the House as to that fact. But I have always hitherto taken the view—and we have agreed on this— that Subsection (3), which gives the Secretary of State additional power to take land on lease and to trade in that land, is highly undesirable at the present time when land is urgently required both for housing and for food production. I thought we were here in complete amity and agreement, and now suddenly, for some reason, we have this new Amendment brought down to the House on the ground that the Minister requires more power to manage land he has taken over.
    Mr. Thomas Mr. Thomas indicated dissent.
    Mr. Turton: I am only trying to quote the speech the Minister made, and I paid very careful attention to what he said in order to ascertain what was meant by this sudden proposal to delete a Clause of the Bill, which, from Second Reading to Report, has been supported without challenge by him. I would wish that the House might realise that at the present time there are 253,000 acres of land that are sterilised because either he or one of his colleagues who deal with travel by air have their clutches on them. If those acres were growing wheat they would provide a bread ration for 21 days on the present scale. I should be very reluctant at this hour of the night to agree to additional powers to sterilise land and to empower the Minister, when he has it in his clutches, to trade in it and use it for other undesirable purposes. If the Government want to nationalise land let them bring in a Bill to do so and we will deal with it properly. [Interruption.] I am glad to find that there are some hon. Members who even at this hour are alive to their opinions, but I think that this Amendment, brought in at a very late hour and aimed at altering the whole purpose and provisions of this Bill, is highly undesirable. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider this and if he re-reads the speech his colleague made he will see that his colleague did not understand the wording in Subsection (3) of the original Bill. For those reasons, I hope the House will not agree with the Amendment.
    12.54 a.m.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will speak again, since this is a subject of great importance and complexity, as the hon. Gentleman has said. I think there is a misunderstanding. It is not intended to give the Minister power to manage land on any extensive scale; the provisions are limited to purposes connected with the discharge of the functions of the Minister. I have told the House exactly the objects in my noble Friend's mind, and I am sure the House commends the objects. If a portion of a farm, not needed for the purposes of an aerodrome, comes into the Minister's possession, clearly it is in the interest of agriculture that the Minister should be empowered to farm it until he can dispose of it. Again the Minister might require land for the purpose of housing people who are displaced on account of the building of an aerodrome. These are the only two purposes we have in mind, and the Amendments proposed are only machinery for achieving those objects. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken the very best legal advice we can on this subject.
    Lords Amendment. In page 16, line 40, leave out Subsection (6), and insert:
    "(6) Where any person having an interest in land (hereinafter referred to as 'the grantor') grants or agrees to grant to the Minister any right (whether in perpetuity or for any other period and whether capable of subsisting as a legal estate or not) in or in relation to that land (including a right to enter upon that land, a right to carry out and maintain works on that land, a right to instal or maintain structures or apparatus on under over or across that land, and a right restrictive of the user of that land) the grant or agreement shall be binding upon any person deriving title or otherwise claiming under the grantor to the same extent as it is binding upon the grantor, notwithstanding that it would not have been binding upon that person apart from the provisions of this subsection."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Though this appears as a new Subsection in place of Subsection (6) it is in fact a new subject and deals with a rather technical point of conveyancing. The object is to enable a person who voluntarily grants to the Minister a right over land to bind the land in the hands of his successors, notwithstanding that he
    706
    could not do so under the ordinary law. Certain of these rights, such as the setting up of radar beacons, are not known to the ordinary law, and unless a proviso of this kind is in the Bill, he would not be able to bind his successors in title. It is not unreasonable that he should be able to bind them, because this fact would be taken into account in the consideration which the Minister would pay for the right.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Power of Minister of Transport to stop up and divert highways, etc., in the interests of civil aviation.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 26, leave out from beginning to "as", in line 27.
    12.56 a.m.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment, and the next I propose to move, are connected and derive from an attempt made in Committee and on recommittal to meet a point put by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), whose advice on this part of the Bill we very much value. We find that we have done an injustice to the point he wanted to make. It is a question of the compulsory acquisition of land to provide substituted rights of access and new culverts where old culverts have been made unusable. We met the point in what is now Subsection (3) of the Clause. But an order made in accordance with this Subsection would be subject to special Parliamentary procedure, a complication which is not desirable. Accordingly, we now propose to meet the hon. Gentleman's point in a different way. We propose to remove from Subsection (3) the words originally inserted to meet him, and we propose to meet him in another way by adding to Clause 28 a specific provision authorising the Minister of Transport to acquire land compulsorily for these purposes under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. Under the new proposal the order would be subject to special Parliamentary procedure only in the cases envisaged in that Act.
    Sir W. Wakefield: What is the special Parliamentary procedure to which the Minister referred?
    Mr. Thomas: It is defined in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945.
    Mr. Turton: I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the point which we made.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Supplementary powers of Minister in relation to land.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 36, after "as", insert "including".
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is necessary, as otherwise the Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, would be greater than is intended.

    CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions as to displacements from land)
    Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 9, leave out "civil aviation purposes", and insert:
    "purposes connected with the discharge of his functions."
    12.59 a.m.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is one of four Amendments which are desirable for a purpose similar to the one I mentioned on Clause 26, to extend "civil aviation purposes" to "purposes connected with the discharge of the Minister's functions." Under Clause 32, the Minister has the obligation of securing the provision of reasonable accommodation for persons displaced in consequence of the building of aerodromes and he has to secure its provision in advance of the displacement. In order to do so, it may be necessary to acquire land not directly needed for the aerodrome and to displace the persons living on it in order that it may be prepared as a re-housing site. The benefits of this Clause should extend to those persons.
    Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    CLAUSE 36.—(Air Transport Advisory Council.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 44, leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3), and insert:
    "(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the constitution of an Air Transport Advisory Council consisting of a chairman, who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and who shall be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing, and such number of members appointed by the Minister (not being less than two nor more than four) as may be determined in accordance with the Order.
    Of the members of the Council appointed by the Minister, at least one shall be a person of experience in the operation of air transport services, and at least one shall be a person of experience in the operation of other transport services.
    No member of any of the three Corporations, and no person employed by any of the three Corporations, shall be qualified to be a member of the Council.
    (2) It shall be the duty of the Air Transport Advisory Council to consider any representation from any person with respect to the adequacy of the facilities provided by any of the three Corporations, or with respect to the charges for any such facilities:
    Provided that the Council shall not be required by this subsection to consider any such representation if, in their opinion, it is frivolous or vexatious or if, in their opinion, the matters to which the representation relates have been already sufficiently considered by the Council, or if, in their opinion, it is inexpedient that they should consider the representation on the ground that the matters to which it relates are for the time being regulated by any international agreement to which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a party.
    (3) It shall be the duty of the Air Transport Advisory Council to consider any question which may be referred to the Council by the Minister, being: —

    (a) a question relating to facilities for transport by air in any part of the world, or relating to the charges for such facilities: or

    (b) a question which in the opinion of the Minister requires consideration with a view to the improvement of air transport services.

    (4) When the Council have considered any such representation or question as aforesaid, they shall report to the Minister upon their conclusions, and shall make such recommendations to the Minister in connection with those conclusions as they think expedient.
    (5) The Council may appoint such assessors as they think expedient for the purpose of securing that they are properly advised with respect to matters affecting the interests of persons who use air transport services, or of any class of such persons, and the interests of technical, professional, industrial and commercial bodies (including those of organised labour) directly concerned with the provision of air transport services."
    Amendment, read a Second time.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in

    709
    subsection (5), line 1, after "may," to insert "with the approval of the Minister."
    These words are proposed because in the redrafting of this Clause we have endeavoured to meet the many points of view that have been put to us. I find, after consultation with the hon. Gentlemen whose suggestions have resulted in what is now Subsection (5) of the proposed Amendment by another place, that they would be more satisfied if the words "with the approval of the Minister" were there inserted.
    1.2 a.m.
    Mr. Bowles: I would like to have your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether I may make a general speech on the lines that I disapprove of the Amendment introduced in another place, to which the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has now moved an Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It will be in Order and more appropriate if the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) speaks when the Question before the House is the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."
    Mr. Bowles: I first would like to give the House a little of the history of this matter. I do not apologise for raising this matter at this time of the night as the position, to my mind, is completely unprecedented in the annals of Parliament. There was, in Standing Committee B, a long discussion on the constitution of the Advisory Council which the Minister proposed to set up under this Bill. There was a good deal of discussion, mainly on the Amendment moved by the hon Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), and, with the permission of the House, I should like to read one or two of the extracts from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee. The Minister in charge, the Parliamentary Secretary, in the first few pages of the report, resisted the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, and also those proposed by the hon. Member for West
    710
    Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). I think it is only fair, if I might, to read out one or two quotations from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
    He said:
    "It would therefore be undesirable to specify in detail the classes of person who should be represented on the Council, as otherwise the membership could not be kept small."
    That was the first resistance to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. The next was when the Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "I quite agree they are all very good persons, but they are not persons who ought necessarily to be on the Advisory Council."
    I am not, in this speech, proposing to go into the merits of the Amendment moved in the Standing Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the object of this Advisory Council
    "is to represent the ordinary travelling public. It is not intended to represent the point of view of the pilots or operators … What we need … are persons of sound commonsense and good judgment who will represent the point of view of the travelling public."
    He went on later:
    "For two reasons, however, I should find great difficulty in putting these words into the Bill. One reason is that it must be kept a small body and therefore it is not desirable to fetter the Minister by asking that he shall have regard to particular interests. The second is that it is to represent not those interests but the travelling public … Therefore, I trust that the Committee will agree that, within the ambit of Government policy, which is not now the Swinton policy, this is the kind of Council that we should have. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree not to move the Amendment."
    Then the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) twice in his speech affirmed the quotations I have just made. He said:
    "The Parliamentary Secretary said while he has immense sympathy he does not agree that either of these two things should be done."
    Later he said:
    "The Parliamentary Secretary said that we did not want the workers, but the users, represented."
    Up to that point it had obviously been resisted on the part of the Government and obviously, also, the Amendment moved later by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. Then in column 526, the Parliamentary Secretary says:

    711
    "I am quite willing to have this matter considered again. We might wish to adopt our own form of words, because I think it may be necessary to specify other bodies which might have to be brought in. I am prepared to have the matter considered again and to introduce an Amendment at a later stage to cover the principle of the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend for West Middlesbrough. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire will not press his Amendment in the light of this assurance."
    Then the Attorney-General says:
    "The Government are quite prepared to accept the proposals in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesborough (Mr. Cooper). We invite the hon. Member not to move his Amendment. We undertake on the Report stage to put down an Amendment in substantially the same form but we wish to consider exactly what organisations shall be consulted, and to ensure that all of them are covered."
    In the next column the Attorney-General says:
    "We accept the general principle of the Amendment, but we want to look at the words to ensure that there is no overlapping with what is proposed in Clause 19 and that the words are sufficiently wide to cover all representations which it may be desirable to include."
    At the end, the Parliamentary Secretary says:
    "I have accepted the principle of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friends. Time has elapsed considerably, and I should like the Committee to come to a decision." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946, c. 514–531.]
    Accordingly the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford was withdrawn and my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough did not move his Amendment. On the Report stage the Minister, having been pressed in the Standing Committee, put down an Amendment as promised in the Standing Committee on the lines of the Amendments of the hon. Members for Mid-Bedford and West Middlesbrough. When it was moved the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was an Amendment to carry out the undertaking given in Standing Committee, and on the Report stage it was accepted. Then, on Third Reading, the House accepted the Bill with this Amendment in. In all parts of the Committee upstairs, the Government, owing to pressure, agreed to accept the Amendment in principle, and carried out the promise to include it on Report.
    712
    I hope that the position up to there has been clear. But what happens next is that the Minister redrafts the whole of this Clause, which, in effect, goes back to the general policy of not having these general interests represented or consulted by not having regard to the interests of those in the organisation. Subsequently, at the bottom of the Amendment it says that there will be a panel of assessors consisting of some of the interests. This is curious, but I should like to know why it was done. This was done to discourage the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, from moving the Amendment in another place, and I suggest that this is a very serious matter indeed, especially as in the House of Commons the Government gave an undertaking which they carried out. Then we find that the Government have gone back, for reasons unknown to me, on an undertaking given in this House. I suggest that there are serious constitutional issues arising from this, because Ministers might be influenced by another place to leave out provisions in the Commons, or in order to give something away in that other place.
    I have thought that there has been a tendency recently for Ministers in another place to ask the Government to allow something to be given away in order to ease the passage of the Bill. That, I think, is very serious. Here, in the House of Commons, we have agreed to the merits of the Amendment in principle, and accepted them on the Report stage here. There is, therefore, no need to talk about the merits, but I do not want to take our attention off the matter before the House. It does seem to me, quite frankly, that this is a form of blackmail arising from the existence of another place, and I think it will be found that to take the line of least resistance often involves oneself in trouble later on. We find in this case that there is a changing of legislation by this House of Commons in order to ease the passage of the Bill elsewhere. It used to be said that another place was only a sub-committee of the Tory Party when it was in power, but I do beg of the Government to realise that we on this side of the House are not prepared to allow legislation passed here to be tampered with in any way in another place. I feel so strongly about this, as do other hon. Friends, that I propose to go into the Division Lobby

    713
    tonight to vote against this Lords Amendment.
    1.15 a.m.
    Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry to have to detain the House and to interrupt the galloping progress we have made with these Amendments since we passed the controversial terrain of Caledonia, stern and wild. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has said, this matter is one of a major principle and I think it is important that the House should clearly understand what it is it is being asked to do by the Parliamentary Secretary. Clause 36 of the Bill, which lays down the formation of the Air Transport Advisory Council, as originally drafted went to some pains to define the functions of the Council but said nothing about the position of the Council. When this came to be considered upstairs both sides of the Committee felt that the omission of any description of the constitution of the Council was a mistake. It was clear that both sides of the Committee felt it very strongly, not only because the subject was itself intrinsically important but for a second and more important reason, which I hope the House will allow me to put.
    There have been many and divided opinions about the administrative structure of this industry, whether there should be one corporation or three, whether there should be full-time directors or part-time directors, and so on. Many strongly held opinions have been expressed one way or the other about these points, but the fact is that no one knows what is right about the administrative structure of this industry. It is a new industry and must have something of an empirical approach about it, although we may find that by its decision this House, on the administrative subject was perhaps, in its great wisdom, quite right.
    Upstairs it was thought—and it seems, if I may say so, a sensible point of view— that we ought to maintain a certain amount of elasticity in this matter to cover ourselves against the possibility of having made a mistake. And we all saw, on both sides of the Committee, in the Air Transport Advisory Council, the instrument of this elasticity. We felt that if this Council was a real body composed of competent people in sufficient numbers for the full discharge of its functions and was given adequate powers for such a discharge of functions, but we did not get the adminis-
    714
    trative structure, the work of the Council would create inconvenience. We considered this was a matter of major importance and both sides of the Committee thought something should be done in Clause 36 to define the constitution of the Council. This attempt to define the constitution was done in two Amendments to which my hon. friend the Member for Nuneaton has referred. I hope I may be permitted to go into some detail about them. The first was moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). This proposed that the Council should consist of a small number of people, and the chairman should be a barrister of not less than seven years' standing. This view was opposed not only by the Parliamentary Secretary, but by my hon. Friends on the back benches and by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The Parliamentary Secretary opposed it in very cogent words indeed. He said that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford had made it plain that the Council he desired was something different from that proposed in the Bill. What he wanted, in fact, was part of the Swinton Plan, and it was quite appropriate to that plan which envisaged regular scheduled services operated by persons other than the proposed corporations. The Government's policy had changed since the General Election, and this was a welcome departure from the ideas of the Swinton Plan.
    On this subject of the composition of the Air Transport Advisory Council, it is not often that I say anything in commendation of hon. Members opposite, but I am bound to say that the Committee was united about a single object, namely, to make the Council an effective and real Council. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford heard a number of arguments put against his Amendment, and, largely on the grounds of the smallness of the Committee and so on, was good enough to say that he had been impressed by my hon. Friends and myself and by the Parliamentary Secretary, and therefore withdrew his Amendment.
    I come to the second Amendment, which was moved by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). This Amendment set out to make the Air Transport Advisory Council a very different body from that visualised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. It specified that the Minister, in appointing this

    715
    Council, should have regard to a number of defined interests. I will not describe them in detail, but they included commercial interests, technical interests associated with the industry, and the interests of employees, including organised labour, and so on. The Parliamentary Secretary began, almost, one might say, out of habit, by resisting this Amendment, but undoubtedly he was impressed by arguments in favour of it which came from all sides of the Committee. No one spoke more effectively than the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who said:
    "I think that the Advisory Council should be constituted as broadly as possible and with a view to the employees being effectively represented on it. I should like to see the British Airlines Pilots' Association, and the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators represented. By using these organisations to the absolute maximum, and by bringing not only the pilots but the representatives of the engineering staffs and radio operators, the Council can learn much from the men who are doing the work. I think that in view of the inexperience of the directors of the Board, as at present constituted, they will be well advised to accept these organisations into the Council."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946, c. 512.]
    The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) put forward another argument in favour of a diverse and effective Council. He asked, and everyone on the Committee agreed with him, that we should give the Board power to appoint permanent or ad hoc sub-committees which, among other things, would have the right to fly to remote parts of the world to investigate complaints brought to their attention. No one resisted that. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone. The House can see what a fine family party we had become by this stage. The Parliamentary Secretary said he had been asked whether the Council would be able to move round to other parts of the world, and that such matters would normally be decided by the Council itself. He went on:
    "It will regulate its own procedure, and if it wishes to go around it will be able to do so. It is certainly our expectation that the Council will have its own headquarters in London, but will move round this country, at any rate, and it would be free to go to other parts of the world to make inquiries if it desired to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946, c. 527.]
    716
    It is clear from what I have said, that the intention of the Amendment was well understood by the Committee and the Parliamentary Secretary; namely, that the Council should be a reasonably broad one, sizable enough to be split up into effective committees, and that it should include all those interests— technical, commercial, the manufacturers and the interests of labour. It may be argued that organised labour in the industry is, anyhow, reported on the joint staff committee set up under Clause 19, and, indeed, at the stage at which the Parliamentary Secretary was opposing the Amendment, before he had his very welcome change of heart, he did, indeed, argue that we ought not to ask for representation of the employees on the Advisory Council because they were reported on the joint staff committee, but the fact is that these two things do not in any way conflict.
    May I give a couple of examples to illustrate the point? The Air Transport Advisory Council is there to consider representations about facilities, about fates and about complaints about the service. Is it right that people should be able to complain to the Council about alleged misbehaviour on the part of employees of the Corporation, who are not reported and cannot be heard? Clearly, it is not right, and it would be all wrong if these complaints came along and the Council considered them and then had to have a row with the Joint Staff Committee.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? Could he say whether that argument really holds good, in view of Subsection (5) of the Amendment?
    Mr. Mikardo: Yes; I have read the Amendment with very great care indeed, and I see nothing in it to conflict with it. I will come to Subsection (5) in a moment.
    The second example which I give is this. Suppose there was a demand for a reduction in fares on a certain route, and it was established that the reduction could only be effected by reducing the wages of the employees. What is going to happen is that such a demand will be heard by the Air Transport Advisory Council, on which no employee representation exists, if we accept this Amendment. It may be that the corporation, advised by the Air Transport Advisory Council, might agree

    717
    to cut the fares, and then, again, they will be faced with a first-class row with the joint staff Committee. Is it not much more sensible to have all this argued out? As the hon. and gallant Member for Macclefield (Air-Commodore Harvey) said, anyhow, the experience of pilots and ground engineers would be very valuable indeed on this Council.
    There is the merit of the proposal, and it is so clear that even the Parliamentary Secretary came round to recognise it. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton has reminded the House, the Parliamentary Secretary finally said that he accepted the Amendment in principle, but would have a look at the wording, because the Amendment specified certain interests, and the hon. Gentleman said he must be very careful not to leave anybody out. The Parliamentary Secretary said they would have a look at the wording and introduce an Amendment on the Report stage. Everybody on the Committee was satisfied with that, and then, when we came to the Report stage, the Parliamentary Secretary said he was now going to honour a pledge given to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, and he did it by saying that subject to a very tiny change, the wording of the Amendment was all right. So the Parliamentary Secretary moved an Amendment in almost precisely the same terms as that of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. We then had this situation. Without discussion—half-a-column in the OFFICIAL REPORT shows that—the Parliamentary Secretary moved it formally and there was no objection from either side of the House.
    We now have this situation, that the House has expressed a unanimous opinion upon this question; firstly, that it does not want a small committee with a barrister of seven years' standing as its chairman, and, secondly, that it does want a Council which is composed of all these various interests. Off goes the Bill with our blessing to another place. In another place what happens? The Minister scraps the agreed Clause and introduces another Clause which does these two things: Firstly, it reduces the council to from two to four people, with a barrister of not less than seven years' standing as chairman—introducing, in fact, the Amendment of the hon. Gentle-
    718
    man the Member for Mid-Bedford, which he himself abandoned after admitting that he had been convinced it was all wrong; secondly, it removes the obligation, in picking the Air Transport Council, to have regard to the interests which every hon. Member on both sides of the Committee, and every hon. Member on both sides of the House on Report stage, agreed should be taken into consideration in selecting the personnel of the Air Transport Council.
    I do not know to what extent this unprecedented concession, as my hon. Friend called it, this amazing use of another place to flout the unanimous expression of this House—for it is no other—was a craven giving way on the part of the Minister to the fear of opposition in that other place. He began by saying he was moving this Clause in order to remove from himself the wrath of Viscount Swinton. Then, after a powerful speech by Lord Strabolgi, he denied in equivocal terms that he was moving the new Clause in order to placate Viscount Swinton. I do not know to what extent it was a yielding to opposition. This much is clear, that if he was trying to yield to an actual or threatened opposition, he leaned over backwards in doing so. May I explain what I mean by that? Viscount Swinton put down an Amendment on the Order Paper. The Minister, in purporting to go some way to meet the Amendment of Viscount Swinton, went very much farther than anything for which Viscount Swinton was asking.
    There are three separate proposals. This House agreed that the Minister, in choosing the members of the Air Transport Council, shall have regard to certain interests. Viscount Swinton was proposing that the Minister should choose his Air Transport Council by different means; that the council should set up a committee, composed of people who represented these various interests. The proposal of the Minister goes much farther away from the original agreement of this House, and says— coming to Subsection (5)—that the council shall be composed, not with regard to the interests on which we agreed but by other means, and the council may, if they think it expedient, appoint some assessors, chosen with regard to other interests. I put it to the House that the Council, if they think it

    719
    expedient, appointing some assessors, is farther away from the decision of the House than Viscount Swinton saying the council may have a committee which is composed of these interests.
    This evening the Parliamentary Secretary has introduced a further Amendment, thinning down this so-called concession still further, because now the position is that the council may, only with the agreement of the Minister, appoint some assessors. We therefore have this present position under Subsection (5), that if the Council are willing to say—as few people are honest enough to say—"We really do not know enough about our job; we had better have some assessors," and if they can get the Minister's agreement to that, they can appoint some "stooges" who -will have power to sit on their deliberations, not having a vote at all. To suggest that this goes any way to meet the pledged word of the Parliamentary Secretary and to meet the unanimous decision of the Committee or of this House is nothing short of a farce. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton that this is an unprecedented situation in which the power of this Chamber, representing as it does the voice of our people, is being set at nought by a gathering of some two or three score gentlemen in another place, who have risen on the ladder of fame, for the most part, through their grandfathers starting at the bottom. If we allow this to go through without raising our voice in protest, we shall be doing something to undermine the power and prestige of this House and we shall be doing something, as my hon. Friend said, to build up trouble for ourselves over and over again on matters from another place even more serious and even more fundamental. I do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with me, but I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will agree with this point, for which our party has stood for many, many years and on which we dare not give way. I am only sorry that we lack the all powerful reinforcement of the voice of the Minister of Fuel and Power. I feel that if he were here, his voice would not be lacking in support of the prestige of this House against this wanton interference by another place with this unanimous finding.
    1.36 a.m.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I feel, in view of the speech made by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), that a few remarks are necessary. In the first place, whether we like it or not it is the intention of the Government to set up a monopoly, which is being established without regard to the rights of the smaller people, who will have to go into it. That has been made clear in the Debate on a previous Amendment from another place. The fact is, that if we are to consider this properly there are two things of which we must be certain. The first is that the rights of the employees under this Bill are safeguarded; and the second is that the rights of the public are safeguarded.
    With regard to the first, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Reading. It seems to me that on a question relating to service and other such matters, which are purely intrinsic to the working of the Corporation itself, there are adequate safeguards already under Clause 19, and I cannot agree, as far as the internal workings of the Corporations are concerned, that there is any need for further safety. It seems to me, however, that the position regarding the public is much more unsatisfactory. If Members will look back to the Bill as it left us for another place, they will see that under Clause 36 (3) the Minister of Civil Aviation not only was able to suggest but was able to dictate exactly what could be discussed, when it could be discussed and where it could be discussed. It is quite clear from (a) that if he happened to think that a question was inconvenient he could prevent it from coming before the Advisory Council. Similarly under (b) if there was any question he wished to rule out of order all he had to do was to see that the precious Order of his, which is going to make Clause 36 operate, is so drafted that the question he fears or may dislike or his successor may dislike, cannot be brought before the Council.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I heard the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) say just now that he did not agree with the argument put forward. Apparently, therefore, he

    721
    does agree with the Amendment under consideration by the House. I should like to ask whether he offered the advice he is now offering to the House on the Report stage when the Amendment was agreed to unanimously.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am afraid that on that question I must claim the privilege of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that afterthoughts are often better than those first expressed. That is the position as this Bill left the House, and it seems to me that the Amendment moved in another place meets all those objections. It means in fact that this Advisory Council will be responsible, not only to the general public in detail but to this House in particular; it means not only that anyone, no matter what his status or position, can raise question and complaint to this House, but it means further that the Transport Advisory Council must report to the Minister and the Minister must be responsible to this House for whatever complaints are raised. In that connection I would point out that the Minister is guarded against, first, frivolous or vexatious questions, second, anything that may have been already sufficiently considered by the Council and, thirdly, he cannot be tackled on any question which may be subject to an international agreement at the time it is raised. With these safeguards the public have at last something which they have never had in this Bill before—an adequate means of representation. That is a thing which, as the hon. Member for Reading has pointed out, has been denied before, but even His Majesty's Government at the moment may be permitted to have the wisdom to learn from another place and realise that their first thoughts, swelled by their confident majority or whatever it may have been, are not the final stage. We on this side welcome that. We have, by accepting this Amendment, achieved something which will mean that however much we may regret this monopoly—for which we can see no need and no useful purpose— at least its chief dangers and evils are somewhat offset by the concession that the Government have made at this late stage.
    1.43 a.m.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I do not want to go into the merits of this Amendment, but I feel that something
    722
    must be said on the general thesis expressed by the two hon. Members who spoke from the other side of the House. Their proposition, as I understand it, was this. A certain proposal, made in this House and carried, went to another place. The Minister responsible in that other place altered the proposal and gave it a different form. If the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) does not like that new form, let him at least have the courage to blame his own Minister.
    Mr. Bowles: I blame the whole Government.
    Mr. Stewart: Let him have the courage to blame his whole Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has."] May I be allowed to conclude my argument? That is only half of what the hon. Member said; he said he did blame his own Government partly, and apparently he did blame his own Minister, but he concluded his speech, as did the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), by laying the blame not on the Government but on the Second Chamber. Certainly I am one of those who would say that the will of this House must be supreme; that, after all, was the whole point of the Parliament Act of 1911, and I have never myself thought to give away one ounce of the authority of this House. But the purpose of the Second Chamber is to reflect upon and to reconsider the Bills that are passed by this House. Governments on many occasions, including this Government have found out that reflection in that other Chamber, has sometimes brought about changes.
    Mr. Bowles: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to remember very much what I said. I said that Lord Winster did not move the Amendment to make the Bill better but because, if he moved it, Lord Swinton would not move his.
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman said something rather different later on. The Parliamentary Secretary answered by saying that the Amendment of the Minister was more than they asked for. The hon. Gentleman finished by saying that this was blackmail on the part of the House of Lords. That was an expression of sheer lack of courage on the part of the hon. Gentleman. For any change to which he objects the whole responsibility rests on the Government. The

    723
    hon. Member knows that if the Government had decided to stick to their guns, nothing that the House of Commons did would have made any difference. It would merely have meant that the Whips would have been put on, and the Government's docile majority would have marched wherever they were told.
    1.46 a.m.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Many hon. Members who have not followed this Bill closely must be wondering what all this is about. The narrative of events has been given. With portions of it I have no complaint to make, but I should like to give my own narrative and I shall confine it to the facts. There are certain facts that I should like to add to those which have already been given. Clause 36 as originally drafted laid down that:
    "His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the Constitution of an Air Transport Advisory Council consisting of such number of members appointed by the Minister as may be determined in accordance with the Order."
    To that Subsection my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. G. Cooper) put down an Amendment, to add at the end that the Council should, in particular, be "representative" of the interests of certain specified producing and consuming interests. He withdrew this Amendment, and a new Amendment appeared under his name which proposed that in the appointment of members to the Council the Minister should "have regard" to the same specified interests. The Amendment was considered in Committee on 27th June. At the same time an Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) to provide that the chairman should be a barrister or solicitor of seven years' standing appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and so on. I resisted the Amendment, not because I thought there was anything wrong with the substance of it—for I said it was the Minister's intention to have a legal chairman—but because I saw little meaning in "seven years' standing" and because I did not want the Minister's choice fettered. There is no objection in substance, and in another place we found it possible to accept the principle of the Amendment with a few changes; for example, we added "advocate" to ensure that a Scotsman might
    724
    be appointed. In the same debate I gave good reasons for resisting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough. But on that occasion as on many others during the passage of the Bill, we endeavoured to meet the various points put to us. In this House we learn, or try to learn, to rub shoulders with each other and to get along with each other. We endeavoured, therefore, to do what we could to meet him. I was fortified by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who said that this was "a very tiny coin." He said: "It does not ask that this Council shall be a representative body—it is a very tiny coin—but that the Minister shall have regard to the interests of these people." I have pointed out also that my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough had withdrawn his Amendment asking for representation and had substituted an Amendment asking only that the Minister should "have regard." I should be the last person to try to diminish the force of these words. If they are put into a Bill, they clearly have a meaning, and must be respected. They appear in many other Bills, these words "have regard to," and I should not wish to diminish their force, but obviously they do not mean as much as the words in the Amendment withdrawn by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough. In accepting it in the Committee I did use the words quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), but I made it quite clear that we were rejecting the idea of a representative body because I said:
    "The hon. Member was really advocating what has already been rejected by the Committee, namely, an Air Transport Board. This however is not implied in the Amendment. It is true that by it the Minister has only to have regard to certain bodies."— [Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946, c. 526.]
    Then I used the words, "I am quite willing to have this matter considered again," which have been quoted already. Then my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General—
    Mr. Leslie Hale: My hon. Friend is quoting from the Report. Would he apply his mind a moment to the words of the Attorney-General:
    "The Government are quite prepared to accept the proposals in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). We invite the hon. Member not to move his Amendment.

    725
    We undertake on the Report stage to put down an Amendment in substantially the same form, but we wish to consider exactly what organisations shall be consulted, and to ensure that all of them are covered. We also wish to consider the relationship between Clause 19. in its amended form, and Clause 36."
    Then in reply to another hon. Member, the Attorney-General said:
    "We accept the general principle of the Amendment, but we want to look at the words to ensure that there is no overlapping with what is proposed in Clause 19 and that the words are sufficiently wide to cover all representations which it may be desirable to include."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946, c. 529–30.]
    So that was quite a clear and unequivocal undertaking. Is that undertaking being now completely withdrawn and repudiated by the Parliamentary Secretary, who made it?
    Mr. Thomas: I really do not know why my hon. Friend should have interrupted. I was in the middle of a sentence to the effect that the Attorney-General had given a similar assurance, and the whole burden of my remarks, if I may be allowed the same latitude as has been allowed to other hon. Members, is that every undertaking has been fulfilled. But I am not going to be content with a single sentence to say so; I want to develop an argument. It is not disputed that the undertaking was fulfilled on the Report Stage, and we may be regarded as having agreement on that point. What happened next was that this Bill went to another place. [Interruption.] It is possible, I believe, to move Amendments on the Third Reading, but we do not now normally do so in this House. The Bill went to another place, and in that other place a large number of Amendments of some importance and complexity were put. Among them were three Amendments put down by Lord Swinton to Clause 36. They at once presented my noble Friend with a great problem. It is not an easy matter to steer a Measure—a nationalisation Measure— through another house with over 700 peers of a different political persuasion. [Interruption.] It is not always easy to steer it through a House where the Government have a large majority.
    These Amendments appeared on the Order Paper. Some of them would have wrecked the policy of the Bill and had to be resisted completely. With others compromise was possible. It is impossible always to get the exact form of words one
    726
    wants. We cannot do that even in this House, much less in dealing with another place. What my noble Friend did was to redraft the Clause, observing the spirit of all the undertakings given in the Commons and at the same time helping the passage of the Bill through the other Chamber. The relevant words can be studied by anybody who cares to do so. They are contained in Subsection (5) of the new Clause as it has reached us from another place.
    In the Bill as it left this House it was laid down that the Minister in making his appointments to the Air Transport Advisory Council should have regard to certain producing and consuming interests. In the Bill as it has now reached us from another place it is laid down that the Council may appoint such assessors as they think expedient for the purpose of securing that they are properly advised with respect to matters affecting the interests of persons who use air transport services, and so on through the same catalogue of specified persons. The spirit of the subsection is exactly the same as that of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough.
    The words have been changed to some extent, but even in the wording there is not a great deal of change. The spirit of the undertaking has been completely met. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Hon. Members can study it themselves. What they cannot deny is that my noble Friend in redrafting the Clause regards himself as having met the undertaking. It was his belief, and still is his belief, that he has fulfilled that undertaking entirely. I am bound to say I think he is right. In political matters it is not always possible to get every comma one wants. Sensible people do not trouble about commas so long as they get the substance. Hon. Members have secured the substance of what they want.
    Mr. Mikardo: Will my hon. Friend allow a single question? Is he trying to tell the House that the change from having Members on the Air Transport Advisory Council to the right only of choosing assessors is the change of a comma?
    Mr. Thomas: If my hon. Friend asks my opinion, I think that the provision has been amended, so far as it has been amended, in the direction he desires. I believe the appointment of assessors from

    727
    these classes of persons puts these classes of perons in a stronger position than otherwise. In the original form the Minister was to "have regard" to these classes. Now assessors may be appointed from these classes. The assessors will sit with the Council. They are to all intents and purposes members of the Council. If matters came to a vote they would, presumably, not vote, but there would seldom be a division.
    Mr. Mikardo: How many assessors?
    Mr. Thomas: There is no limit put on the number. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member is going to legislate on suspicion we should never make any progress. That is my contention, . that the undertaking which was given was a very limited undertaking and that it has been fulfilled. The spirit of that amendment has been entirely kept in the drafting changes which this Bill has had to go through in the two Houses. What has been said is in effect that this House should never agree to any changes made in another place. If so, what are we doing tonight? I would point out that there have been more important changes this evening before the House than this one, especially in Clause 23. I can only say that this is a very unrealistic attitude for hon. Members to adopt—[Interruption.] I think that some of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening have behaved like spoilt children. It is a habit of spoilt children when they are given a red rattle to demand a blue one, but that does not get them very far.
    Mr. Bowles: Lord Winster said in another place:
    "These Amendments to Clause 36 are designed to meet the point of an Amendment to the same Clause standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I trust that the noble Viscount will consider that in substance they do meet his point."
    Now, who is spoilt?
    Mr. Thomas: Well, here are the documents for anybody to study if he pleases. The undertaking which was given has been kept in the spirit and almost to the letter, and all I can say is that if they expect more than that they are behaving in a most unrealistic attitude.
    Before sitting down, I would like briefly to refer to some remarks by the hon. Member for Reading. He spoke of my noble Friend using the House of Lords
    728
    to flout the House of Commons. I think he must agree that my noble Friend, of his own volition would not have made any change. When he says that all sides of the Committee upstairs agreed, what he really means is that hon. Gentlemen from the Conservative Party in the Committee naturally seized every opportunity of voting with a Labour minority in the hope of defeating the Government.
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: May I ask one question? I am a rather new Member, and I want to know if this is a precedent. If I am able to obtain an assurance such as this in Committee, can I or anyone else in future rely on its being carried out?
    Mr. Thomas: No assurance given by any Minister in this House can prevent us from having an Amendment in another place.
    2.4 a.m.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I speak with some reluctance, but I think that the House has never been treated with such contempt as has just been shown. Not one word of answer has been given, but there has been a complete repudiation of the undertaking which was given upstairs, and in respect of such undertaking the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) withdrew an Amendment. The hon. Gentleman withdrew it, but there has not been one word of explanation to this House of how this Clause came about.
    And then in response to some measure of debate he gets up and says, "Well, of course, no undertakings given by a Member are proof against the vote of the House''. This is a Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, a Government which I think is the best Government for 40 years and may yet be the best Government of all time. It is a tragedy to have such an utterance from the Front Bench.
    Mr. Thomas: I do not recollect those were the words I used.
    Mr. Hale: The words used not two seconds ago were "The hon. Member knows no undertaking given upstairs can be proof against the vote of the House".
    Mr. Thomas: No. The phrase I used was that "there was no guarantee that an Amendment would not be moved in another place."
    Mr. Hale: Amendments moved by their own Minister, by the Minister for Civil Aviation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer this question. Does he suggest that the Minister of Civil Aviation representing the Government in another place, was forced by the thought of a hostile majority to move an Amendment and is he suggesting the Minister did it of his own volition?
    Mr. Thomas: I have already said that the Minister did not do it of his own volition. It was to meet the exigencies of the occasion, and in particular to prevent this great nationalisation Measure being delayed towards the end of the Session. If there was a three months' delay in getting the passage of this Bill the consequences would be serious to civil aviation.
    Mr. Hale: As this is the reason I, at once, accept the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary. I, at once, withdraw what I said about him. Now that we have a full explanation we can face the issue. It is plain this great nationalisation Measure could not go through and would not have gone through, because of the hostile majority in another place. If this is the official explanation of the Government, and the Parliamentary Secretary gave this explanation deliberately, in answer to a question by me, we on this side of the House have a right to face up to it. We have a right to say we will not permit this austere anachronism to continue much longer, where the position is that our Ministers are not able to carry through great Measures of nationalisation. If this is the explanation as given by the Parliamentary Secretary I am bound to accept it. He says the noble lord the Minister did not wish this Clause to go through: he says the Government did not wish this Clause to go through now, but were compelled by a hostile majority— what is described as 700 peers, though this strikes me as a rather large attendance—to pilot it through.
    One can appreciate the position in which the noble Lord would feel in these circumstances. I do not know what was the proper remedy but he might have followed the Roman custom and bared his bosom to the sword. Perhaps he would get the Parliamentary Secretary to hold the weapon for him. One can imagine the unhappy circumstances of the Parliamentary Secretary: with the prospect of immediate and not undeserved promotion,
    730
    he might find himself in something of a quandary It may be that in the nick of time, as we see it on the films, the Lord President may rush in with an equivocal formula, shouting "Hold, hold, I can explain this to the House." I have such a faith in the ability and in the resources of the Lord President—I say this with all sincerity—that I thought he would come down to explain this. I was quite prepared to accept his explanation but I do not really think anyone out of Bedlam can accept the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary. I was not talking about the last explanation. The last one but five struck me as the least offensive. That was the one in which he said he regarded this as the same Clause. It has been re-drafted and re-amended; there may perhaps be a comma here or a semi-colon there, but it really is the same Clause. Of course, he says, we would have to interpret "may" as "shall", but he was told by the legal advisers that there was no difference at all between these two words. What really is the position? I have tried to find out what an assessor is. I first examined Dr. Johnson's Dictionary, and worked down to Webster's. Nobody knows what an assessor is. Milton, who gives the best definition, says he is one who sits by another as next in dignity. But once he gets there, nobody knows what he does; and no one knows under this Clause.
    It is a serious matter, and I am sorry it is being treated with hilarity, though that may be due to the lateness of the hour. Here are two assessors who may or may not be sacked by the Ministry, or, if not sacked, may not be allowed to advise. I do say that there should be an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. That question is vital. If an hon. Member in Committee upstairs moves an Amendment of substance which is fundamental to Socialist policy, and fundamental to the carrying out of Socialist ideas, and if it is said to him, "Will you please withdraw, will you please not force it," to what extent is he, in the future, to be able to rely on undertakings given? I am sorry that, in quoting, I quoted the words of the learned Attorney-General, because he does not come into this at all. Because he was there, as he has been at these Committees, and displayed great ability, learning and consideration, I do not wish to criticise him in this matter

    731
    at all. He did crystallise the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary, and did make clear what it was desirable to make clear.
    But an undertaking was given. It is now being repudiated. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. I do not know whether we are going back on that, but the last explanation was that the Parliamentary Secretary did not agree with this Clause, because it was not the Clause he wanted. Why has he forced it on us? If it is not the Clause he wanted, it must differ from the Clause he did want. I am sorry,, at this time of the night, to take up this time over what I believe is a constitutional issue of importance. I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Members on the Front Bench for some explanation of why a specific undertaking has been repudiated, and what expectation we may have as to this procedure in the future. If it be that the final explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary was the correct one, if it be, as it may well be, that, knowing what was going to happen in another place, the Minister tactfully and wisely effected a compromise rather than have his Clause defeated, then I say—conscious of what I am saying—that the sooner this business can be ended the better, and the sooner we are able to run our affairs on the basis of pure democracy the better it will be.
    2.15 a.m.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: I suppose there comes in the career of almost every Member of Parliament a moment when he has to decide whether to speak out or to hold his peace. That occasion has arrived tonight for me. The decision is the most difficult because I do not believe that anything I am going to say will alter the course of this Bill one iota, nor do I believe that the substance of this particular Amendment is very important either way. But I do happen to believe that the Government, on this occasion, have broken faith with us who worked with them on the Bill upstairs. I think it is the more regrettable because it appears to me that the Government cannot understand how they have broken faith, or why we think that they have done so. I do not believe that there was any question of a deliberate breach of
    732
    faith in another place. I am quite certain that the Minister there was doing his best to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. Nor do I deny the facts related by the Parliamentary Secretary when he gave it as his opinion that this Amendment has not altered the spirit of the original Amendment. Quite clearly, in the opinion of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, it is not a fundamental change that has taken place.
    I would however like to remind the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and the House, what, in my opinion, the change has, in fact, meant. It will be recalled that the first event here was an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), in which he asked that the Council should be composed of four members. That was eloquently and rapidly overthrown, and the Amendment was withdrawn. Then we discussed an Amendment which we, on the Labour side proposed, which asked the Government to create an Advisory Council on which would be reported a great number of different interests. In the course of the argument with which it was supported, this phrase was frequently used—"We desire to give the Minister elbow room." Our difficulty is this. We wanted various bodies to be represented on the Council as members of that Council. On the other hand, we did not want to tie the Minister by defining precisely the size of the Council or the exact bodies which should be represented. It was quite clear—and it can be checked up—that, when we put forward that Amendment, we were thinking of a Council of between 15 and 25, of that sort of order. I will not bore the House by quoting the references, but it was clear that that was the size of which we were thinking. As has been related, the Government accepted the principle of our Amendment, and they did, very rightly, move, on the Report stage, an almost similarly worded Amendment. Then the Minister, in another place—
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I appreciate the spirit of my hon. Friend's speech. I ask him if he will say whether at any time I gave any encouragement that, under the Clause, as amended, there would be very large representation.
    Mr. Usborne: I cannot precisely pin down the Parliamentary Secretary to the wording used, although I think he must

    733
    have realised what was in our minds. I do not deny that the Government did not want that, in the first place I agree about that; but what I say categorically is that the majority of the Committee wanted it. As good democrats, the Government compromised on that issue. I say, therefore, that the Government did what I think was the right thing in accepting the advice which we wanted to give them. Thus, having adopted a Clause which defined the Council in terms which must have meant a Council of from 15 to 25, we rind that the Minister of Civil Aviation, in another place, has moved a Clause which now brings the Council back to a minimum of three and a maximum of five, almost precisely the figures in the original Amendment, moved by the Opposition, which was so decisively defeated in the first instance. If that is not a change, and a fundamental change, I do not know what is. The tragedy of all this is that this is a fundamental change, a change in spirit—which is what is meant by "fundamental change." We believe that is what happened; but the Parliamentary Secretary apparently cannot understand why we hold that point of view, nor why we complain of their action.
    2.21 a.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The House has been discussing this Amendment for quite a long time, and I would hope that we might now be able to come to a conclusion. I make no complaint that the discussion should have taken place. Indeed, it was probably inevitable that it should. But it has gone on a fair time; I think the House is seized of the issues on the historical side of the Amendment, and, with some observations from myself, I would hope that perhaps the House would be good enough to come to a conclusion. Quite frankly, I cannot enter into all the detail and historical matter which has been dealt with by hon. Friends in the course of the Debate, i was not a Member of the Standing Committee; I do not know all the details of what took place. I have not read every word of the speeches made on the Standing Committee, therefore the House will forgive me if I cannot go into that side of the matter; indeed, it would not be competent for me to do so, and would be rather impudent were I to seek to do so.
    I gather the Standing Committee had a fairly exciting time as it went along, and
    734
    that there were certain differences of opinion which manifested themselves on the Committee, and difficulties did arise. But at this stage we have this Amendment before the House, and the question which it seems to me the House has to decide is a practical question, the references to the past having been ventilated—and I understand the feeling behind them. The real question the House is going to vote on is, whether or not the proposals in the Amendment from another place are more appropriate, better and more suitable than the words in the Bill when it left this House. It is a question of merit between the two versions of the provisions in this Clause. On that point, with very great respect to some of my hon. Friends who have views otherwise, whose views I respect, my own conviction is that this proposed new version is better than the version which left this House. Whatever the reason for it, whether my noble Friend was the true author, or whether he was the author subject to force majeur from Viscount Swinton, I think it is a better version. The version of Clause 36 which went to another place provided that:
    "His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the constitution of an Air Transport Advisory Council consisting of such number of members appointed by the Minister as may be determined in accordance with the Order.
    (2) In the appointment of members of the Air Transport Advisory Council the Minister shall have regard to all appropriate interests, including the interests of—

    (a) the technical, professional, industrial and commercial bodies, including those of organised labour, directly concerned with the provision of air transport services; and

    (b) those bodies which appear to the Minister to represent the persons who use air transport services, or any class of the said persons."

    If the Minister is to have regard to all those bodies and classes of people a certain situation will arise. One must attach some importance to the words "having regard to." If they are in the Statute they cannot be ignored by the Minister thereafter. If the Minister in constituting the Advisory Council would have regard to the desirability on the appointments of an appropriate, interest, including those
    "technical, professional, industrial and commercial bodies, including those of organised labour, directly concerned with the provision of air transport services; and those bodies which appear to the Minister to represent the persons who use air transport services, or any class of the said persons."

    735
    He would get a very large Advisory Council and also a body which was primarily a body representing sections of the community with interests upon the Advisory Council. I admit an argument can be brought forward to sustain that view. I think it was open to the criticism that it would tend to make the Advisory Council an aggregation of interests of one sort and another.
    Under the scheme as it comes back from another place this possibility of the interests that are really concerned being taken into adequate and high powered consultation with the right of argument is brought into line, while a coherent advisory body is created consisting of a
    "Chairman who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor"
    with legal qualifications, and
    "such number of members appointed Minister (not being less than two nor more than four) as may be determined in accordance with the Order."
    That gives a fairly small, coherent body. In order to come to the ideas of some of my Friends, which is that they want certain interests in on the ground floor of the Advisory Council or as near the ground floor as may be possible, the Subsection provides:
    "The Council may appoint such assessors as they think expedient for the purpose of securing that they are properly advised"
    with regard to various matters.
    This, to a great extent, is where those interests which were mentioned in the original version are brought in. Therefore, the difference is that such interests can be brought in as assessors as are required from time to time in so far as their interest is relevant or helpful with regard to the inquiry that the Advisory Council may be conducting, but it avoids all being on the main body. It brings them in as they are required as assessors, and the position of an assessor is, I think, representative; that is to say, the assessor is there to represent and to urge a point of view of interest to the decision which ought to be the decision of the Advisory Council. It is not so that the assessor will not have material influence. Hon. Members of this House have acted as assessors from time to time, and they know that assessors have considerable influence on these bodies.
    736
    I think that is the more democratic and, if I may say so with respect, a more public-spirited way than the method suggested—I admit that the method was proposed by the Government—when the Bill left this House. Therefore, I would say with great respect to hon. Members of the House as a whole, that what we have to do now when we go to a vote or at any rate agree to the Amendment from another place possibly without a vote, is to decide which is the best version. For the reasons I have indicated the revised version, or the Clause as it has come back from another place, is on the whole an improvement on the Clause as it left this House. I, therefore, ask the House to agree to the advice which has been given.
    Mr. Bowles: Before my right hon. Friend sits down will he tell the House whether the Government's view now is that it is either better, or the same, or worse than it was before; and has he not a single word to say on the constitutional issue involved?
    Mr. Morrison: On the constitutional issue, if this House, on the advice of the Government, or without that advice—at least, we get into another constitutional difficulty if the House sets aside the advice of the Government—decides to disagree with another place, I would say that certainly the will of this House should prevail. There may, however, be occasions when, in circumstances in which it is possible to reach a compromise, an arrangement may be come to for good reasons which does not seriously damage the Bill. But on the constitutional issue I say, without hesitation, that in a real tussle between this House and another place I am for this House all the time; I always have been and always will be. Having said that I still maintain that the real issue before the House tonight is the merits of the two versions, and I honestly think that, on the merits of the case, the words as they come back from another place are rather better than when they left this Chamber.
    2.31 a.m.
    Mr. Pritt: I only seek to speak after the Lord President because I had risen several times before. I suggest to the House that the real issue is not that put by the Lord President, which of these two sets of words is the better. If it were, my own

    737
    inclination would be with the hon. Gentleman who has been raising this matter so steadily, but the real issue is between words suggested in another place, and words which went from this House, sealed with a definite undertaking by the Parliamentary Secretary. The clash is between words which the Government here have really obliged themselves to stand by, and words forced upon the Government in the ordinary course of controversy in another place, where, no doubt, the noble Lord deserves all our sympathies and makes us, by his example, resolve never to get
    into such a position ourselves. When we have two sets of words that, with the seal of this House upon the one group in a particular sense, it really is a clash-not perhaps an all important clash, but a very definite clash—between this House and another place, and I appeal to the Government to say that it is such a clash and that they should not give way.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."
    The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 30.

    Division No. 276.]

    AYES.

    [2.35 a.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Harrison, J.

    Rankin, J.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Haworth, J.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Rhodes, H.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Robens, A.

    Barton, C.

    Holman, P.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Berry, H.

    Hoy, J.

    Sargood, R.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

    Binns, J.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Irving, W. J.

    Shurmer, P.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Janner, B.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Boardman, H.

    Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Kenyon, C.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    King, E. M.

    Steele, T.

    Burke, W. A.

    Kinley, J.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Champion. A. J.

    Lavers, S.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Symonds, Maj. A. L.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Mack, J. D.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Collick, P.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    MoLeavy, F.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Daggar, G.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Daines, P.

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Marquand, H. A.

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Marshall F. (Brightside)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

    Mayhem, C. P.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Deer, G.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Monslow, W.

    Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Ede, Rt. Han. J. C.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Murray, J. D.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Farthing, W. J.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    West, D. G.

    Forman, J. C.

    Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Micholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Wilkes, L.

    Gibbins, J.

    O'Brien, T.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Gilzean, A.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Willis, E.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Wilson, J. H.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Pearson, A.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Grierson, E.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Woods, G. S.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Perrins, W.

    Yates, V. F.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Plans-Mills, J. F. F.

    Gunter, Capt. R. J.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Guy, W, H.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Mr. Collindridge and

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Randall, H. E.

    Mr. Simmons

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Ranger, J.

    NOES.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crews)

    Collins, V. J.

    Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

    Baird, Capt. J.

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    Haire, Fit-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Hale, Leslie

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

    Palmar, A. M. F.

    Usborne, Henry

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Price, M. Philips

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Messar, F.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Walkden, E.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Wiónes)

    Wyatt, Maj. W.

    Nally, W.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

    Stokes, R. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

    Paget, R. T.

    Swingler, S.

    Mr Geoffrey Cooper and

    Mr. Mikardo.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 42, after "Parliament", insert:
    "provisions for the payment out of such moneys of expenses incurred in connection with the appointment of assessors by the Council."
    2.40 a.m.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I think it will be agreed that if there are to be assessors, as we have now decided, the expenses incurred in connection with their appointment should be paid. This makes provision for it.
    Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 43, at end, insert:
    "The procedure of the Council shall be such as to secure that no member of the Council shall sit to consider any representation or question which it is the duty of the Council to consider, if, in respect of the matters to which the representation or question relates, he has any special interest such as may tend to interfere with his impartial consideration of the representation or question."
    Mr. Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The object of this Amendment is to ensure that no man shall be a judge in his own cause.
    Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 9, at end, insert:
    "and each of the three Corporations shall keep the Council informed of all services which are provided by them or which they intend to provide, and of the charges which the Corporation make or propose to make for any such services."
    Mr. Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment will facilitate the work of the Council by keeping them informed of the air transport services provided by the Corporations.
    Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 34 at end insert new Clause B.—" (Management and administration of aerodromes.)
    .—(1) In the management and administration of any aerodrome vested in him the Minister shall make such provision as he thinks necessary to ensure that adequate facilities for consultation are provided for the local authorities in whose areas the aerodrome or any part thereof is situated, and for other local authorities whose areas are in the neighbourhood of the aerodrome, and for other organisations representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated.
    (2) The Minister shall appoint for each such aerodrome an officer who shall be responsible to the Minister for all services provided on the aerodrome on behalf of the Minister, including signalling services, flying control services, and services connected with the execution of work."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    There are two Subsections here, embodying in the Bill what has for a long time been my noble Friend's policy. The first Subsection ensures there shall be local consultation with regard to aerodromes, and, in particular, with the local authorities and such bodies as the chambers of commerce. The second provides that there shall be one person responsible for everything at the aerodrome.
    Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
    Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 36, at end, insert new Clause C.—"(Exclusion of discrimination.)
    .—The Minister shall not provide any of the three Corporations with aerodrome facilities in connection with the operation of any charter service unless he is satisfied that comparable facilities are available, or can be made available if required, to persons other than the three Corporations in connection with the operation of a similar service, and are so available, or can be made so available if required, upon terms and conditions not less favourable than those upon which the facilities in question are provided by him for the Corporation concerned.
    In this section the expression "aerodrome facilities" means any facilities connected with the use of an aerodrome, and the expression "charter service" means any service provided on charter terms."
    Mr. Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    My noble Friend and I have frequently given undertakings that in charter work there shall be no discrimination in favour of the corporations as against private operators. We have now, as far as possible, put that undertaking into the Bill in this Clause.

    CLAUSE 40.—(Compensation of officers.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 19, at end, insert:
    "(4) In this section the expression ' war service ' means service in any of His Majesty's forces and such other employment as may be prescribed by regulations made under this section."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a definition conforming with other definitions in the Statutes.
    Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    CLAUSE 46.—(Registration of certain orders in the register of local land charges.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 32, leave out "orders", and insert "instruments."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This will have the effect of requiring directions given under Clause 29, which imposes restrictions on land, to be registered in the register of local land charges. The word "instruments" covers both orders and directions.

    CLAUSE 49.—(Interpretation.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 18, after "or", insert "other."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is necessary because an estate of land is itself an interest in land.
    Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 35, at end, insert:
    "'scheduled journey' has the meaning assigned to it by section twenty-three of this Act."
    Mr. Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    As "scheduled journey" now appears at least twice in the Bill, we have thought it desirable to include the term in the definition Clause. It is a term which will be of great interest to Charter operators and its inclusion will facilitate reference.

    CLAUSE 50.—(Application to Scotland.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 19, at end, insert:
    ' (b) in subsection (6) of section twenty-six after the words ' grant or agreement shall,' there shall be inserted the words ' on being recorded in the appropriate register of sasines';"
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment provides the adaptation to Scotland of the Amendment accepted to Clause 26, page 16, line 40.

    CLAUSE 51.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 13, at end, insert:
    " (d) the following subsection were substituted for subsection (6) of the said section—
    '(6) The powers of compulsory acquisition of land exercisable by the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland under subsection (3) of section two of the Roads Act (Northern Ireland), 1937, shall include the power to acquire lands compulsorily, in accordance with the provisions of the said subsection, for the purpose of providing or improving any highway which is to be provided or improved in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) of this section, or for any other purpose for which land is required in connection with such an order, and the said Act shall have effect accordingly.
    The powers conferred on the said Ministry by this subsection shall be exercisable in relation to any land notwithstanding that such land is the property of a statutory undertaker or is declared by any other enactment to be inalienable.'".
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    743
    This Amendment provides the adaptation to Northern Ireland of the Amendment received from another place to Clause 28, page 20, line 15.
    Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 46, at end, insert:
    "(14) Any reference in this Act to an Act of Parliament shall be construed as including a reference to an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland; and in this Act the expression ' enactment ' includes an enactment of that Parliament."
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Northern Ireland draftsmen have for long contended that the phrase ''Act of Parliament," when used in an Act of the United Kingdom, does not include an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament unless that is specifically stated. Accordingly, we make that provision here.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, which are to cease to have effect.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 46, line 19, at end, insert:
  "In subsection (2) of section thirteen, the words 'under this Act'."
  2.50 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment".
  The effect of this is to enable the British Overseas Airways Corporation to borrow money temporarily, not only under the Act of 1939, but for discharging their functions under this Bill as well. (Special entry.)

  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions relating to certain orders.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 10, leave out from "Minister" to end of paragraph, and insert:
  "may, if he thinks fit, make the order."
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment".
  Paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule was included to meet the request of the hon.
  744
  Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), but the words which we accepted from him are suitable only where the Order is made by an inferior authority and not by the Minister himself. This Amendment adapts the language to cases where the Minister makes the Order himself.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. (Several with Special Entries.)
  Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Mr. Mikardo, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Mr. Ivor Thomas: Three to be the Quorum.— [Mr. Ivor Thomas.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reason for disagreeing with one of the Lords Amendments to the Bill reported, and agreed to: To be communicated to the Lords.

  ESTIMATES
  Ordered:
  "That the Select Committee have power to appoint a sub-Committee to visit Austria and to hold sittings in Vienna and in the British zone of occupation, for the purpose of further examining the Estimate for the Control Office for Germany and Austria, and of examining the Army Estimates, so far as they relate to the cost of maintaining British forces in Austria."—[Mr. Kirby.]

  CUMBERLAND DEVELOPMENT AREA (FURNESS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Michael Stewart.]
  2.55 a.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: I apologise to the House and to our admirable servants for keeping them up so late as this, but perhaps the fact that the trains have gone may lead to my having the indulgence of the House for a few moments. In the Coalition Government there was passed an Act creating development areas. Briefly, a development area is a part of the country which has suffered for a very long period from unemployment and it is desired to help it by bringing new industries of a suitable character into it. When the Bill was before the House, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then

  745
  President of the Board of Trade, said the purpose of the Measure was to provide a better balance between heavy and light industries, and the Bill gave powers to the Government to influence industries into the areas. By giving licenses and adding priorities, the Government were enabled to encourage industries to go there. It became extremely attractive to industrialists to go into these development areas.
  I have the honour to be the Member for the Lonsdale Division, which, though largely agricultural, contains a number of small towns, the principal of which are Ulverston, Dalton and Askham. Dalton and Askham border on the bigger town of Barrow-in-Furness. I will not speak about Barrow-in-Furness, for I have informed the Member for this constituency, who, although he sits on the opposite side of the House, is working together with me for the constituency as a whole. My constituency contains many people who work in Barrow, and when there is serious unemployment in Barrow they are gravely affected. It is because I apprehend that those who live in this district are likely to suffer serious unemployment in the next few years that I venture to raise this matter now. The point is that we are exactly the kind of area which has an unbalanced economy. The part of the constituency called the Furness district depends for employment very largely on the heavy industries of Barrow, particularly in the dockyards. There are no light industries to mitigate the severity of severe unemployment when it comes.
  We have asked the President of the Board of Trade to bring the Furness district into the Cumberland district which adjoins. He has resolutely refused and that is why we have brought the matter to the House. The West Cumberland depressed area contains a population of 200,000 persons. The Furness district contains a population of 100,000. Unemployment in the Cumberland area is 2,800-odd, and in the Furness district 1,600-odd, and a higher number relatively among women. The Minister, in this case the President of the Board of Trade, has said that the reason he cannot accede to our request is that unemployment is small. I hope, however, that it is registered in the mind of the Minister who is to reply that, if small, it is nevertheless greater relatively, and in the case of women
  746
  actually, than it is in the case of the West Cumberland area. I have no fear of the limited amount of unemployment which we have now, but serious unemployment would arise if the heavy industries received a setback.
  That brings me to my real point. It the Government wait until there is a setback in the heavy industries, if they take a chance of that and then say that now there is plenty of unemployment they will make it into a development area and help it by sending industries to that area or encouraging industries to go there, it will be too late. It will take two or three years to get a few light industries into this district, and if we wait until there is unemployment it will be too late. We in Furness, and especially in Dalton, suffered 25 to 30 per cent. unemployment in years gone by. It is not enough to say that we have a policy for full employment; we have yet to see how it works out. Since we are resorting to the method of development areas and encouraging trade to go there, will the Minister include our district in that great district lying next to it now, before it is too late? It is a great handicap to a district like ours to be next door to a great development area like West Cumberland, because the great area draws, through priorities, upon materials and labour, and that makes it difficult for the other area to get the materials which may be needed by industries which come into it. As another way to help an area like ours, which needs light industries, will the President of the Board of Trade see in what way he can encourage the rural industries, of which a few still remain in many of our country districts?
  3.3 a.m.
  Mr. Monslow: I have only a few minutes in which to supplement what the hon. Member has said. It is true that the economy of the Furness area is definitely unbalanced. It has depended, as the hon. Member has said, upon heavy industry, notably Vickers, Armstrong, Ltd. In fact, the whole area has been depending on heavy industry—heavy engineering, shipbuilding and repairing, iron and steel. In 1938, 35 per cent. of the insured workers of Barrow, Dalton and Ulverstone were employed in the engineering industry, including marine engineering. Eleven per cent. were employed in shipbuilding and repairing, and 9 per cent. in iron and

  747
  steel manufacture. Owing to the type of industries in the area, there was little scope before the war for the employment of female labour. During the war, women were employed in shipbuilding and engineering, and also in the steel plant at Barrow. The situation has rapidly changed for the worse. The figure of unemployment among females is about 1,500.
  It may be said by the Minister who replies, that the prospects of employment for men are, on the whole, satisfactory; but I urge the Minister to realise that there is an urgent need for the introduction of suitable industries for the employment mainly of women, and for men who can no longer work in the heavy industries. Such industries would have the advantage of contributing to the need for diversifying the industrial structure of the area. The Barrow Development Committee has rendered yeoman service to the town in its endeavours to attract new industries, but its efforts have counted for naught because they have not had development rights. I could, if I had the time, give particulars of numerous firms who have sought, and been desirous of obtaining, factory space in Barrow, so satisfied are they with the type of labour available, but owing to the lack of these development rights, we have been unable to accommodate these firms. We are now witnessing the large figure of female labour on the employment exchange register.
  I urge the Minister to realise the urgent necessity of including Barrow in the ambit of the West Cumberland development area. If we had had development rights, which would in effect mean some measure of financial assistance for the erection of factories, we could accommodate these firms and absorb all our female labour. There is another aspect of this problem. I find each week that skilled engineers are being discharged from Vickers, Armstrong, Ltd., and that these men are accepting work in other parts of the country. Obviously, they do not appear on the live register of the employment exchange at Barrow. I am confident that these men would remain in Barrow if work was available to them rather than leave their homes to seek work elsewhere. I had thought it was Government policy to bring work where unemployment is, and not to uproot the homes of people who have little
  748
  or no opportunity of obtaining a house. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the situation in the light of the representations made by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and myself, and, if he is unable to put us in the development area that he will give consideration to some means by which light industries, at least, can be developed in Barrow to obviate the misery which will follow protracted unemployment.
  3.9. a.m.
  Mr. Marquand (Secretary for Overseas Trade): This Debate will have served a very useful purpose if it gives wide publicity, which I hope we shall receive from the Press, to the fact that the district of. Furness needs, and is anxious to secure, a greater diversity of industry, and, above all, if it gives publicity to the statements made by both the hon. Members who have spoken, about the availability in that area of an abundance of female labour. There are employers all over the country who are short of female labour and who are anxious to know where they may go to find it. There are employers with orders on their books for years ahead, and who could, indeed, take more orders if they had the labour with which to produce the goods they are asked to produce. In June last, according to my information, there were 1,336 unemployed females in the Barrow, Dalton and Ulverston area, and I wish to draw the attention of employers in the country who are looking for female labour to this available source.
  The Board of Trade has been helping the area to secure a greater diversity of industry, and at Ulverston, a factory built for Armstrong-Siddeley during the war has been allocated to Messrs. G. C. Wade and Co., who hope to employ 1,000 workers on bicycle and furniture manufacture. One-third of them will be women workers. Then there is an electrical engineering firm in that district, established just before the war, which expects to continue to employ 400 workers, mainly women. There are two firms in Ulverston planning extensions, and they hope to employ a further 250 or 300 women. Other firms, too, are interested in the prospect offered by this district. I am unable to mention names, because it would be unwise to do so until firms have definitely agreed to come to any given area. However, I can assure the House that there are firms showing

  749
  considerable interest in the fact that this industrial area has labour available.
  It is true that the neighbouring district of West Cumberland has been able, as a development area, to offer special inducements to industry to go there. But the female labour surplus in the West Cumberland development area has almost entirely disappeared; it has been catered for by the new industry that has been introduced, and firms proposing to employ mainly female labour will not, in future, be offered inducements to go to the West Cumberland area. Therefore, the Barrow district, about which we are speaking tonight, need not fear any longer that it will suffer from the superior competitive power of the West Cumberland area in attracting employers who wish to employ female labour. The fact that Barrow and its neighbouring smaller towns are not in a development area will not prevent the Board of Trade from recommending to the Ministry of Works, if suitable employers come along, that the necessary licences for building factories should be granted.
  Sir I. Fraser: Could the hon. Gentleman say "and priorities"?
  Mr. Marquand: I understand that if a licence for the building is granted, it carries with it a priority in the receipt of the necessary materials to carry out that building. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that we should pay some attention to developing rural industries is, I must confess, one which I had not heard before. I will undertake to look into it. Certainly, if labour is available for industrial occupations in the rural areas we shall be glad to try to use it.
  The argument which the hon. Member for Lonsdale put forward about the West Cumberland area is not a powerful argument necessarily for scheduling the Furness district as a development area. The argument of contiguity could not be accepted as decisive, because if we were to proceed on those lines, logically the development areas would never have any boundaries at all. It stands to reason that there must always be some area just on the boundary of a development area, which may feel it is a little adversely affected. However, I think the assurance
  750
  I have already given about the inducements which may be offered firms likely to employ female labour should reassure the hon. Member on that point. A characteristic of a development area is the decline of its basic industries, evidenced by the growth of male unemployment. In the Barrow, Dalton and Ulverston district in June of this year there were only 620 unemployed male workers. We do not believe that the long-term prospects for male employment in this area are bad.
  The hon. Member for Lonsdale said: "Do not wait until it is too late." He gave us no reasons for the fear that seemed to be in his mind, that some day, somehow, unemployment would descend again upon this area. So far as we can see, looking a reasonable degree ahead, we see no reason to suppose that there will be heavy unemployment among the male workers of this area. It is unfortunate that in this area men are so heavily dependent upon one large employer, but we cannot plan the diversity of industry in the way we should like to see beyond the labour force in the area. We cannot provide for a greater diversity of male labour if there are only 620 unemployed and no great reason for believing that that number is likely greatly to increase. We believe that some of the unemployment existing amongst male workers in that area is due to the period of reconversion and will tend to disappear. I am glad to say that orders for the British shipbuilding industry generally are plentiful, and it looks to us as if in the future there may rather be a shortage than a surplus of male labour in this area.
  To sum up: It seems to the Board of Trade that the long-term prospects for the basic industry of this area are good; that the total of unemployment is, after all, not large; that some success has already attended our efforts; and we have no intention of relaxing those efforts. The Board of Trade is definitely striving at this moment to try to increase the number of industries and diversify the character of the industrial make-up of that area, bringing into it firms which will employ the female labour.
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Three o'clock a.m.

  PASSPORTS (PERSONAL CASE)
  PASSPORTS (PERSONAL CASE)
  U.N.R.R.A. SUPPLIES (PILFERAGE)
  U.N.R.R.A. SUPPLIES (PILFERAGE)
  GREECE (CIVIL SERVICE PURGE)
  GREECE (CIVIL SERVICE PURGE)
SHIPPING
  East Scotland—London
  East Scotland—London
  Cargo Spaces, Singapore
  Cargo Spaces, Singapore
  Pilotage, Firth of Forth
  Pilotage, Firth of Forth
  Wisbech Port (Diversions)
  Wisbech Port (Diversions)
RAILWAYS
  Through Facilities
  Through Facilities
  Schemes, Hove
  Schemes, Hove
  Wagon Repairs, L.N.E.R.
  Wagon Repairs, L.N.E.R.
  Loss from Strikes
  Loss from Strikes
  Livestock Consignments (Strike Period)
  Livestock Consignments (Strike Period)
  Pooled Accounts
  Pooled Accounts
  Waiting Room, King's Gross
  Waiting Room, King's Gross
  Macclesfield—Birmingham
  Macclesfield—Birmingham
  Stroud Station
  Stroud Station
  Level Crossings, Gloucester
  Level Crossings, Gloucester
  Overcrowding, Bradford
  Overcrowding, Bradford
  ROAD OBSTRUCTIONS (LIGHTING)
  ROAD OBSTRUCTIONS (LIGHTING)
AGRICULTURE
  Grey Squirrel Clubs (Cartridges)
  Grey Squirrel Clubs (Cartridges)
  Threshing Machinery (Restrictions)
  Threshing Machinery (Restrictions)
  Soil Sterilization Machine, Oxfordshire
  Soil Sterilization Machine, Oxfordshire
  Hunting and Riding Horses
  Hunting and Riding Horses
  Flax (Prisoner-of-War Labour)
  Flax (Prisoner-of-War Labour)
  Fishmeal
  Fishmeal
  Colleges and Institutes (Ex-Servicemen)
  Colleges and Institutes (Ex-Servicemen)
  Unused Land (Grass)
  Unused Land (Grass)
  Veterinary Staff
  Veterinary Staff
  Price Review
  Price Review
  Wheat Deliveries (August and September)
  Wheat Deliveries (August and September)
  Marginal Fanners (Costs)
  Marginal Fanners (Costs)
  Prisoners of War
  Prisoners of War
  Potash
  Potash
  Agricultural Workers (Armed Forces)
  Agricultural Workers (Armed Forces)
  Wire Netting (Gardens and Allotments)
  Wire Netting (Gardens and Allotments)
  County Hall, Dorchester (Release)
  County Hall, Dorchester (Release)
  Women's Land Army (Radnor)
  Women's Land Army (Radnor)
  NEWFOUNDLAND (GRANTS)
  NEWFOUNDLAND (GRANTS)
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE ACT)
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE ACT)
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDER
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDER
  CANADIAN EX-SERVICEMAN (REPATRIATION)
  CANADIAN EX-SERVICEMAN (REPATRIATION)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Government Surplus Stores, Scotland
  Government Surplus Stores, Scotland
  Spectacle Lenses
  Spectacle Lenses
  Lead (Toy Trade)
  Lead (Toy Trade)
  Release Clothing
  Release Clothing
  Motor Gars (Priorities)
  Motor Gars (Priorities)
  Wire Netting
  Wire Netting
  Electric Kettles
  Electric Kettles
  Scrap Film Sale
  Scrap Film Sale
  Government Typewriters
  Government Typewriters
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Paint Shortage
  Paint Shortage
  Clothing Supplies, Aberdeen
  Clothing Supplies, Aberdeen
  Yugoslavia (Trade Agreements)
  Yugoslavia (Trade Agreements)
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Newspapers (Coast Resorts)
  Newspapers (Coast Resorts)
  Leather Exports
  Leather Exports
  Cotton Purchases
  Cotton Purchases
  Retail Licences
  Retail Licences
  Flannel Shorts, Norwich
  Flannel Shorts, Norwich
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  Import Licences
  Import Licences
  Sports Clothing (Coupons)
  Sports Clothing (Coupons)
  Potash
  Potash
  Tourist Trade (Development Organisation)
  Tourist Trade (Development Organisation)
  Rationed Goods Deliveries, Northern Ireland
  Rationed Goods Deliveries, Northern Ireland
  Peat (Export to U.S.A.)
  Peat (Export to U.S.A.)
  Front Line Towns (Supplies Allocations)
  Front Line Towns (Supplies Allocations)
  Furniture (Departmental Orders)
  Furniture (Departmental Orders)
  Agricultural Implements (Exports)
  Agricultural Implements (Exports)
  Medical Overalls
  Medical Overalls
  Wool Subsidy
  Wool Subsidy
  Cloth Export Allocations
  Cloth Export Allocations
  Textile Labour Shortage
  Textile Labour Shortage
  Poles (Allocation)
  Poles (Allocation)
  Utility Cloth
  Utility Cloth
  U.N.R.R.A. Exports
  U.N.R.R.A. Exports
BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
  Wireless Licences (Evasion)
  Wireless Licences (Evasion)
  Annual Report and Accounts
  Annual Report and Accounts
  Governors
  Governors
  TAXICABS (NIGHT FARES)
  TAXICABS (NIGHT FARES)
  TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS (EIRE)
  TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS (EIRE)
  POLISH ARMED FORCES (WAR GRATUITY)
  POLISH ARMED FORCES (WAR GRATUITY)
POST OFFICE
  Air Mail (New York-London)
  Air Mail (New York-London)
  Telephone Service, Tunbridge Wells
  Telephone Service, Tunbridge Wells
  ARMED FORCES (RECRUITING CAMPAIGN)
  ARMED FORCES (RECRUITING CAMPAIGN)
  BRITISH ARMY (RELEASE DEFERMENT, C.M.F.)
  BRITISH ARMY (RELEASE DEFERMENT, C.M.F.)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PENSION FUND)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PENSION FUND)
  MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (GRANTS)
  MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (GRANTS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Horses (Rations)
  Horses (Rations)
  Cereal Products (Consumption)
  Cereal Products (Consumption)
  Rodent Control
  Rodent Control
  Bread (German Prisoners)
  Bread (German Prisoners)
  Canadian Wheat
  Canadian Wheat
  Rationed Commodities (Statistics)
  Rationed Commodities (Statistics)
  Flour
  Flour
  Canteens (Housing Estates)
  Canteens (Housing Estates)
  Meals in Establishments Order, 1946
  Meals in Establishments Order, 1946
  Barley Water
  Barley Water
  Pig Offal, Denmark
  Pig Offal, Denmark
  Ironstone Quarrymen (Cheese)
  Ironstone Quarrymen (Cheese)
  Soviet Wheat Supplies
  Soviet Wheat Supplies
  SOAP RATION
  SOAP RATION
  SANITARY FIRECLAY WARE (PRICE CONTROL)
  SANITARY FIRECLAY WARE (PRICE CONTROL)
  B.O.A.C. (MEDICAL OFFICERS)
  B.O.A.C. (MEDICAL OFFICERS)
  NAVAL STOKERS (RELEASE)
  NAVAL STOKERS (RELEASE)
Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF TORQUAY ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Torquay and laid before the House on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CAMPBELTOWN WATER, ETC., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 38:
Saving for Emergency Restrictions on Borrowing.
38. Nothing in this Order shall authorise the exercise of any power of borrowing money or the making of any issue of capital otherwise than in compliance with the provisions of the Local Authorities Loans Act 1945 or of any Defence Regulation within the meaning of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act 1945 for the time being having effect by virtue of that Act.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "or of any Order made under the Borrowing (Control and

1027
Guarantees) Act, 1946." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is made at the instance of the Treasury, and is necessary in view of the passing of the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, 1946. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 38, page 16, line Io, at end insert ("or of any Order made under the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, 1946.")—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15) Bill read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Bill read 3ª (according to Order) and passed.

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE VISCOUNT CRANBORNE had given Notice that he would call attention to recent developments in the international situation; and move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel certain your Lordships will not expect any apology from me for initiating this debate on the international situation. The moment, I think, is clearly ripe for such a review. Some very considerable time has passed since we last had a general debate on foreign affairs in your Lordships' House. I think a visitor from Mars might jump to the conclusion from that that it was an indication that everything was going happily and well, and there was no problem that needed our attention. I only wish that were the case. But, as you know, the reason for our hesitancy was exactly the opposite. The situation during recent months has been so tangled and delicate that anyone with any spark of responsibility might well hesitate to say anything which would make the task of the Foreign Secretary more difficult. Nor within recent weeks has any milestone been passed which would provide a natural occasion for a debate.
Week after week we have read in the newspapers of an unending series of negotiations; negotiations between the Foreign Secretaries of the four Powers, between their deputies and between
1028
officials. But these interminable discussions have up to now brought us no great degree nearer a solution of the main problems with which we are faced. Each body of negotiators, after days of sterile and often, I am afraid, acrimonious negotiations, seem to have adopted the same course and "passed the buck" to somebody else, and in due course the "buck" has been passed back again. To some extent, I am afraid, that procedure is still going on. In recent weeks we have had further long discussions among the Foreign Ministers. We must admire their patience, their industry and their public spirit. On this last occasion, at any rate, judging from the reports I have seen in the newspapers, some progress has at last been registered, but again there has been evidence of inability to agree on many of the most vital issues. In those circumstances the Government will, I am sure, not complain if we feel the time has come not only to ask for a report on what has passed but to express our own views on the tangled situation with which we are faced.
What conclusion must be drawn to-day by any objective student of foreign affairs from all this long series of inconclusive talks? It is, I think, this—and it is better to say it quite frankly. There is one predominant problem facing the world to-day which overshadows all others and which colours all others; there is one question to which no one has yet found the answer. That problem is Russia, her policy and her relations with the rest of the world. We all want to co-operate with Russia within the framework of a world organization. We fought with her in the war, and we want to work with her in the peace, but up to now any solid basis of understanding seems, unhappily, to be lacking. It is to this vital issue that I propose, if I may, to devote the main portion of my remarks this afternoon, and I make no apology for concentrating on it, because it has so great a bearing on the transactions of the Peace Conference which is just about to meet.
Before I pass to this main theme, there are one or two other questions (much more limited, though important in themselves) on which I would like the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to give a reply if he is able to. I realize the delicacy of the situation and therefore I do not want to press him unduly, but

1029
I would like a reply if I can have it. The first question concerns Spain, with special relation to the discussions that have been taking place on the Security Council of the United Nations. What is the exact position which has been reached on the Security Council regarding the report of the sub-committee which was appointed to make recommendations regarding the Spanish problem? I must confess that I personally am somewhat bewildered by the orgy of vetoing of all and every proposal which seems to be taking place on the Security Council.
How do matters stand now? I am afraid that this is one question on which up to now the United Nations have not shown up to very great advantage. They started off on the wrong leg—with the report of the sub-committee. That, I am afraid, was—I was going to say a very muddled, but I will content myself with saying a somewhat unfortunate document. After all, one would have thought that there is one essential point which must be cleared up before the United Nations decide to tackle the problem at all. That is not whether we approve of Franco or whether we like his form of Government. To that I suppose there will be only one answer given in any part of your Lordships' House—we do not approve of Franco and we dislike intensely his form of Government. But that in itself does not justify intervention by the United Nations. The United Nations, as an organization, are not concerned with the internal affairs of any State unless they become a danger to international peace.
The one vital question to which it was the duty of the sub-committee to give an answer was: Is peace actively threatened by the present régime in Spain? What was the answer given? I am afraid that, to me at any rate, it was a very equivocal one. They could not say that it constitutes an actual danger; they seem to have reported in effect that it constitutes a potential danger—whatever that may be—and they gave extremely hazy reasons even for that. The impression which was given (I hope I am not being unfair to this very distinguished committee) was that they decided on the nature of their conclusions before the inquiry began and that they stretched the wording of the Charter to accord with those preconceived conclusions. If that is true (and I hope
1030
I am not being unfair) it is an extremely dangerous precedent. That seems to have been recognized by some of the members of the Security Council itself, and in consequence we have had the rather unedifying spectacle of contending groups of great Powers vetoing each other's proposals.
The Security Council (on which all our hopes are based and which has done so well up to now) has become something in the nature of a laughing stock over this question of Spain, and no one is benefiting except General Franco himself, whose position in his own country has been steadily strengthened by what has happened. I take it that this matter will be raised in some form or another at the next General Assembly, and I hope His Majesty's Government will press for a decision as to whether the existence of the Franco régime in Spain represents a situation which is a definite threat to international peace. If it does, we must, of course, take all necessary measures—not merely the withdrawal of Ambassadors, but all measures which are necessary to remove that threat. But if it does not constitute a definite threat to international peace, I feel sure it would be wiser to allow the Spaniards to work out their own salvation. Apart from everything else, I am quite certain that would be far the best way of getting rid of Franco himself. The present policy of pinpricks is merely bolstering him up and is doing no good.
And now I would like to say a word or two on the question of the Austrian Tyrol. We have all read with great interest the statement of the Foreign Secretary in another place on Thursday last. May I say here how deeply we all are grieved to hear of his unfortunate illness and hope for his speedy recovery. It seems that a provisional settlement has been reached by the four great Powers on the basis that the Southern Tyrol is to remain part of Italy. We must all recognize the immense difficulties with which the negotiators have been faced and the myriad factors that they have had to take into account, and perhaps we should not cavil at the settlement of any problem in the present difficult times. But I must say that I personally cannot feel happy about the nature of this particular decision.
The original decision, after the last war, some twenty-five years ago, to give the Southern Tyrol to Italy, was generally

1031
regarded, I think, as one of the worst blots on the peace settlement of that time. It was not justified either on ethnographical or on geographical grounds. It seems a sad business that it should have to be perpetuated after this war. I know that many other noble Lords desire to speak on this particular aspect of foreign affairs and I will, therefore, merely confine myself to saying that I personally wish, for every reason, that the Southern Tyrol had been restored to Austria. I hope that the subject will receive further full examination by the twenty-one nations participating in the coming Conference, and I would urge His Majesty's Government, if the Peace Conference decides to support the decision which has been provisionally reached by the four Powers and if the Southern Tyrol is to remain part of the territories of Italy, that they should at any rate insist that a large measure of local autonomy should be given to it, and I hope that an assurance to this effect will be obtained from the Italian Government before any final decision is taken.
Now I return to the main problem about which I wish to speak, namely, the problem of Russia. Here I know very well that I am treading on delicate ground, and there are no doubt some noble Lords who will feel that it should have been avoided altogether. But if you are not going to mention Russia in a debate on foreign affairs you might just as well not have a debate at all. If we are frank with ourselves, we all know that there is not one single question which has been discussed in all the long negotiations between the Foreign Secretaries and between their deputies to which a solution would not long ago have been found had it not been for the attitude of the Russian delegates. I do not say an ideal solution would have been found, but some solution, some firm ground from which we could move forward to a more general settlement. Over many months, it has been the Russian delegates that have prevented agreement on Trieste, on the Italian Peace Treaty, on the Italian Colonies, on Germany, on Austria, on Persia, and on the Danube. On all these great issues solutions might have been found satisfactory to Great Britain, to the United States, to France, and I believe to the United Nations as a whole, but each time Russia has stood in the way. It is true that as a result of these last
1032
discussions in Paris the outlook to some extent, at any rate on certain problems, appears to be more hopeful.
On Trieste, for instance, I understand a provisional agreement has been reached by the four Powers. I think we must congratulate the Foreign Secretary himself that a solution has been found on this very thorny subject. I do not say that all of us are entirely enthusiastic about the nature of that settlement. The record of international administration in the past has not been a very encouraging one, and in this particular case, where the relations between the Italians and the Yugo-Slavs are so terribly strained, it will require statesmanship of the highest order if that delicate balance is to be maintained which is very necessary if success is to be achieved. But we must recognize that this settlement was probably the only one on which agreement could have been met; and after all, Trieste is essentially an international port. It serves the whole of Central Europe, and it is a suitable subject for a new international experiment of this kind. One can only hope that that experiment will succeed. A very heavy responsibility will rest on the Italians or the Yugo-Slavs or on any other nation which adopts an attitude likely to stop that settlement.
But if we can welcome the advance which has been made over Trieste there are, of course, other problems on which very little progress has been made and where a very deep divergence still exists between Russia and the other Powers. I understand that draft treaties have been prepared for settlement with Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary, on certain aspects of which—I am not quite clear which aspects—agreements have already been reached between the four Powers; and these are to be submitted to the twenty-one nations in Paris. We all hope that these treaties will be approved. But I understand from the Press that the four Powers are still so far from agreement on Austria and Germany that the future of these countries is not even to be under discussion at the Peace Conference. That news is very disappointing, and particularly so in respect of Austria. After all, Austria occupies a key position in Central Europe, and so long as there is no settlement there and so long as the Control Commission continues and the Allied forces of various countries are

1033
maintained there a return of the whole of Central Europe to peace-time conditions must be seriously delayed and prejudiced.
The general attitude of Russia to the Austrian question is, I think, particularly disturbing. We are bound to ask ourselves in these circumstances what it is which makes Russia take the attitude she does on all these various problems. That is a question, I suppose, not merely confined to your Lordships' House but which is being asked by every thinking man and woman in this country and in the rest of the world. If we could only understand Russia's motives, we might be half way to a solution of our difficulties. I wish to discuss this exceedingly delicate question in no controversial spirit. None of us wants a quarrel with Russia, and what is more we see no reason for a quarrel. But we cannot ignore what appears to be a determination on her part to cut off Eastern and Central Europe as much as possible from the West. What is the explanation of that? There are those who see in the attitude of Mr. Molotov a deep-rooted suspicion of Great Britain and the United States, and believe that he is obsessed—fantastic though it may seem—by the conviction that the United States and this country are engaged in some Machiavellian plot to encompass the destruction of Russia. There are others who have been driven to the conclusion that Russia is animated by a spirit of naked, ruthless imperialism. There is yet a third school of thought who consider that Russia is playing a waiting game in the hope that, with the passage of time, she will grow stronger and others weaker. That, of course, is imperialism in another form. It is a sort of delayed-action bomb.
It may well be that one or other of these explanations may be right, but personally I should be most reluctant to write off Russia as an imperialist Power with whom no accommodation can be reached. That would be, for one thing, the counsel of despair. Nor do I believe that imperialism is necessarily the correct explanation of the present Russian attitude. I am going to be bold enough this afternoon—and it does show very great boldness—to suggest another alternative explanation and hazard a guess that what is wrong with Russia at the present time is not so much imperialism as isolationism, an isolationism not merely territorial
1034
but psychological. After all, there is nothing so very surprising about such a development in Russian policy and Russian thought. Isolationism is a disease to which all nations are subject when they feel strong and self-sufficient. They do not see why they should modify a policy which suits their own interests to conform with the interests of other nations less powerful. They regard themselves as a law to themselves.
There were many examples of this in the past. It is not confined at all to the present situation. There was a time in the last century when we ourselves hankered after splendid isolation: and after the last war the United States had a very bad attack of isolationism. Fortunately, I think to-day we are both of us cured, and I hope permanently cured, of this great evil. We in Great Britain have come to realize that we cannot isolate ourselves from other countries. Not only are we cooped up in a small island which is singularly vulnerable to modern weapons, but we also have territorial interests all over the world, and anything which happens anywhere affects us. International harmony has therefore become a prime objective to the British people, to whichever section of the community they belong, and they are willing to co-operate with anyone else to ensure it. The situation in the United States is not, of course, the same as ours. Their territorial interests are confined to one quarter of the globe. But their economic and commercial interests are world-wide, and any trouble which occurs anywhere is likely to affect those. To the United States as well, international harmony has become of paramount importance. Both the great English-speaking countries, therefore, have become internationalist in outlook. They recognize themselves as members of a community of nations, with all the limitations to their own national policy which that implies. And of course the same applies, to an even greater degree, to the smaller nations, who know perfectly well that they will not be able to stand on their own feet.
But Russia is—and we must recognize it—in a different situation, She is probably the only country which can still harbour an illusion that she can go her way and snap her fingers at the rest of the world. She had already, before the war, vast territories stretching from

1035
Vladivostok in the East to Minsk in the West, from the Arctic circle to the frontiers of India and Turkey. She has now, as a result of the war, added to these territories a fringe of satellite States bringing—as Mr. Churchill said in a recent debate—her sphere of influence in the West to a line stretching from Stettin to Trieste. She may well have come to the conclusion that it is possible to build a sort of Great Wall of China round this huge area, and let the rest of the world fend for itself. There always was, as your Lordships know, a sort of xenophobic clement in Russia, and that element may well have come to the top. It would indeed be an ironical comment on history if Russia, which has been hailed as the great apostle of internationalism, should so rapidly become the last defender of isolationism. But this is not impossible. It would explain her attitude over Eastern Europe and her unwillingness to allow any interference with that area from outside her walls. It would explain her unwillingness to regard Germany on both sides of the wall as a single unit. It would explain her refusal to export grain across the wall from the Russian zone to the western zone.
It is true that Russia does not confine her whole attention to countries within her own sphere of influence. But it is a well-known characteristic of isolationist countries that, although they do not regard the rest of the world as essential to them, they do regard themselves as essential to the rest of the world, and adopt an attitude in conformity with that assumption. That appears to me—I suggest with all deference to your Lordships—the true explanation of the Russian attitude. She is isolationist, in the sense that, to her, Russian interests are paramount, and she does not recognize any other. On that basis—and no other—is she willing to become a member of the United Nations, or any other international body. But on that basis international collaboration is extremely difficult, and that is the problem which we are up against. The question before us all, as I see it, is how the rest of the world is going to deal with this situation. We do not want to drive Russia further into isolation. As good internationalists, as I think we all are, we believe that that would be deplorable, both for her and
1036
for ourselves. The one thing which we most desire is to see Russia a loyal and co-operative member of the community of nations.
But how are we going to attain this? I believe that there is only one way and that is to convince Russian statesmen that isolationism is not a beneficial policy for any nation, however great, and that they are not right in thinking that Russia can do without the rest of the world, or that the rest of the world cannot do without her. That means, in practice, that we must be prepared, if necessary, reluctantly and without ill-humour, to go ahead without her in areas outside the Russian wall, as she has gone ahead without us in areas inside the wall. It may indeed be that no such drastic measure as that will be necessary. This Conference of twenty-one nations, which is meeting for the first time to-day, may disclose a change of heart in those responsible for Russian policy. Should that be so, I am certain that there will be no one who will wish to press matters unduly. We always envisaged, I think, in the days of the war, when we used to have debates in your Lordships' House, that there might be a situation after the recent conflict, very different from that which existed in 1919, and that peace might have to be made by stages. Should material progress be made in this Conference, in one or another area, I do not think that we should be impatient if everything is not settled. It may be that we shall have to exercise considerable patience in that respect. But if once again no material advance of any kind is made with the main problems, I feel—and I say this quite frankly—that we ought to delay no longer, and that we ought to take necessary measures to regularize the position outside the Russian sphere with or without Russian co-operation. It is really indefensible—as I think Mr. Bevin said at the recent Labour Conference—that one nation should keep us forever at war with other nations.
We have already tried the alternative policy of waiting on Russia. We and the United States have done our utmost to show our desire for close and cordial consultation and collaboration. We have called Russia into consultation on all and every point. We agreed to her proposal for a veto on the Security Council of U.N.O.—a proposal which we all disliked intensely. We provided very big

1037
stores of foodstuffs from the hard-pressed stocks of U.N.R.R.A. for areas within her sphere of influence. We have gone as far as we possibly could—some people think we have gone rather too far—to meet her over Poland. But all this, up to now, apparently, has been regarded only as a sign of weakness. It has evoked no really useful response from her side. To continue to hold up the whole reconstruction of the world, to continue to allow that, would only be to prolong the present unhappy situation. If we do that we shall only continue to drift and drift, with lamentable results to Europe and to the rest of the world in general.
In any case, as I think, there are certain steps which could be taken, and should be taken now, whatever the future may bring. First, I think we ought to tackle the problem of Western Germany. We have held up long enough on that. As I understand it, the policy of His Majesty's Government, up to now, has aimed at the restoration of Germany as a single unit. Personally, like others of your Lordships I expect, I never liked this policy. It has seemed to me that it was the great defect of the Versailles settlement, of the general settlement after the last war, that while it weakened or broke up all other European Powers, it left Germany virtually untouched—a great, virile nation dominating her smaller neighbours. By doing this, we only paved the way for another war, which, in due course, came to pass. It is not impossible that the same thing will happen again. I do not believe, and I am sure that many of your Lordships do not either, that the German danger is entirely over. So far as I can see, from what I have read, there is, up to now, no sign of a change of heart in the German people. They are just the same as they have been during the last fifty years. I profoundly believe that unless they are broken up into smaller units, they will still constitute one of the greatest perils that Europe has to face. It is easy to say: "Look at Germany now, a defeated and broken nation," but that situation may very rapidly change.
Of course, it is true, and we must recognize it, that there are powerful economic arguments in favour of a united Germany. It has seemed undesirable to cut off the food-producing areas in the East from the industrial, consuming areas in the West.
1038
No doubt that has had a considerable influence on the attitude of the Government here. But, with the erection and maintenance of the Russian wall across the centre of Germany, this argument surely has a great deal less validity than it might otherwise have had. I hope that His Majesty's Government will find it possible to urge on our Allies the desirability of taking steps to federalize Western Germany, with, of course, if necessary, some central economic link, and to devise boundaries to the Western States which, from the ethnographical, religious and cultural points of view, are most homogeneous and most likely to endure as separate States. I have lately got the impression that the American Government are already thinking rather on these lines. I hope we shall discuss this matter with them and support them if they make any proposal of that kind.
One other step. I believe the time is now ripe to bring about a closer association of the nations of Western Europe. Indeed, I suggest that this should be an essential corner-stone of our foreign policy. I know that in the past there were those who tended to fight shy of making such a move, for fear of arousing the suspicions of Russia. I cannot, personally, see why she should have those suspicions. The nations of Western Europe would only be doing what she herself has already done in Eastern Europe, and what has been done by the American nations under the Treaty of Chualtepec. There are extremely powerful reasons in favour of following the same course in Western Europe, reasons over which there is no controversy of any kind, which are self-evident, and, I think, unanswerable. Western European countries inevitably stand in a rather peculiar relationship to each other. They have the same culture, the same traditions and are bound to each other by a thousand links of commerce and mutual interest. It is natural that they should want to draw closer together and draw full advantage from their geographical proximity.
Moreover it is not merely in Europe that these nations stand to gain by the conclusion of an agreement of this kind. There is another and wider aspect which was brought forcibly to my notice when I was at the Colonial Office and the Dominions Office. It so happens that the nations in question include nearly all the

1039
great Colonial Powers—France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal. They and the British Commonwealth control between them most of Africa and a considerable part of the territories in the Far East. Were it possible to set up the machinery to develop these areas, to co-ordinate communications and to concert measures for the improvement of health and the general conditions of the native population, then the advantage to the world would be incalculable. Up to now a combined policy for Africa, for instance, has always seemed to be a distant and unattainable ideal; but such a close association as I am now advocating would bring it within the range of practical possibility. And the same, of course, applies to the Far East. I believe that this conception which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has preached so eloquently on many occasions contains the germ of a combined foreign and imperial policy for the nations concerned, which is calculated to confer immense benefits, both upon themselves and upon the world at large. Such an agreement between us and our neighbours is not aimed against any other nation. It is merely the recognition of a mutual interest by certain nations in certain parts of the world, and, I would have thought, would tend to strengthen and buttress the United Nations. I hope that His Majesty's Government will press forward this policy by every means in their power.
I have come to the end of what I have to say to you. I have spoken extremely frankly to-day, and I may be told that it was very indiscreet to make such remarks on the eve of a Peace Conference. I am quite unrepentant because I believe that the time has come for frank speaking. It is much better to say now what has to be said than to say it later when tempers are more inflamed. At the same time, I hope that your Lordships will not gain the impression that I am advocating dividing the world into two opposite camps. The very opposite is my purpose. As I see it, the danger of the present situation is that Russia should be allowed to hug these two illusions—first, that she can do without the rest of the world, and, second, that the rest of the world cannot do without her. So long as she remains under that illusion I believe that the situation is bound to deteriorate, and Russia will sink deeper and deeper into
1040
isolation. It must be our object, and the object of our Allies, to wake her to realities and to show her where her true interest lies—that is, in becoming a loyal and co-operative member of the community of nations. As soon as she holds out the hand of friendship and co-operation, we should be ready to grasp it. That is the policy which, with all due deference, I recommend to His Majesty's Government and to your Lordships. I believe that it is the only wise policy for ourselves and for the United Nations; and as such it can be properly supported by every thinking man and woman in all parts of the globe. To allow matters to continue to drift, as they have drifted in recent months, will not only impede our recovery from the war but will invite disaster, complete and absolute, for the United Nations, for Russia herself and for the world. I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think we should express our gratitude to the noble Viscount who has put this Motion on the Paper. Perhaps it may seem a little odd that we should discuss foreign affairs on the very day on which the first Peace Conference opens in Paris. It may be thought it is too late to expect our opinions to be taken into account, but I personally do not consider that that objection has any validity. After all, the first few days of a conference, and especially the first day, are largely devoted to formalities; it must be some time before a conference of this size can settle down to real business. I have termed it the first Peace Conference because the Conference which meets to-day has a very limited objective. It has only to deal with the peace treaties with Italy and with what are known as the satellite Powers. Such treaties are obviously of great importance, but what I may term the major problem of European settlement, the arrangements to be made for Austria, and the peace treaty in relation to Germany, still remains the main problem to be solved. On the whole, I think that the plan adopted by the Foreign Ministers is prudent, although I could have wished that Austrian affairs had made more progress and that they were on the agenda for this Conference. In any event, I hope that this Conference will eliminate one set of problems, and that the Foreign Ministers will be able to

1041
devote the whole of their time and energy to those greater problems that I have mentioned.
I think that over-much delay in a final peace settlement is to be avoided. On the other hand, it is equally true that too much should not be attempted at one stroke. As the noble Viscount pointed out, there was a phrase in use at one time, "Peace by stages." That phrase has rather fallen into desuetude, but it did express the policy which I believe is the most effective and the wisest method of procedure. The noble Viscount who opened this debate dwelt much on our relations with the Soviet Socialist Republic, and I think rightly so, because it is quite clear that in this relationship may lie the key to the future peaceful development of the world. Clearly, none of us who take part in this debate have the slightest wish to embarrass or to make more difficult the very arduous task of the Foreign Minister—whom we all wish the speediest recovery—or the Prime Minister, who is temporarily taking his place. I will only observe that the recent proceedings of the Foreign Ministers in Paris did prove that if Article 5 of the Anglo-Soviet Alliance is executed, even partially, on both sides—that is, that Russia and ourselves work together "in close and friendly co-operation for the organization of security and economic prosperity in Europe"—then immediate progress will be made. If either party to the Alliance refuses that co-operation we come to an immediate deadlock. That co-operation necessitates mutual give and take.
Except in one or two cases, I am not prepared to criticize the decisions which the Foreign Ministers reached and which will be presented to the Conference in Paris. It is true some of the decisions are by no means what we should have liked, but the need for the maintenance of the Anglo-Soviet alliance is so great that I feel we should make all reasonable concessions, provided, of course, that the Russians will make concessions on their side, unless those concessions run counter to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations, because these are the touchstones which Liberals apply on the questions of foreign policy.
Before passing to specific cases I want to emphasize that co-operation does not
1042
imply in any way an identity of political philosophy or ideological outlook. As I have pointed out before, Republican France and Tsarist Russia—two utterly opposed political systems—worked closely and in a friendly way in foreign affairs during the period before 1914. I do not believe that the philosophy and the ethics of Communism can ever be reconciled with the philosophy and ethics of the Western Christian civilization, but this is a struggle which can only be determined in the realm of the mind. It need not, and should not, have any effect on the material arrangements to be reached under the peace treaties. The struggle can only be settled ultimately by the freest interchange of ideas and of individuals. The peoples of the European countries must therefore strive their utmost to that end.
That brings me to a point on which I venture to express some disagreement with what the Foreign Secretary said in his speech to the Labour Party Conference at Bournemouth on June 12. He stated that he had not pressed unduly for an alliance with France or with the Western Powers because he had been anxious all the time not to create a division in Europe. If emphasis is to be laid on the word "unduly" my criticism loses much of its force. Otherwise surely it is right that alliances, or, if you like it better, understandings should be come to by peoples of similar political and ethical outlook. The ideological division of Europe is there already. Association between ourselves and France and the smaller Western Powers would not deepen it.
I hope, therefore—and here I share the view of the noble Viscount—that His Majesty's Government, will make every effort towards a formal strengthening of the ties which link France, Western Europe and ourselves. The French, through M. Gouin, some time ago made a definite offer to conclude an alliance. We appear to be still holding back. There may come a time when we shall find that road, which to-day is still open, closed, and that to my mind would be at least a serious setback, if not a disaster, to our Western civilization.
I should like to say a few words about Austria and the Danubian area. The Foreign Secretary stated in his speech in another place on June 4 that what he

1043
could not and would not contemplate was that this country which for six years fought against the enemies of freedom should, as a result, be squeezed out of an international body, the very object of which is to maintain the navigation of these rivers, for the freedom of which we all fought. Although this highly-important and, if I may say so, admirable declaration refers definitely to our interest in the navigation of the Danube, yet it also implies a direct British interest in that whole region. Had we emphasized that interest and made it clear in 1939 it might well have facilitated a combination between the Danubian States, which would have acted on the one hand as a check on German aggressive intentions, and on the other hand would have provided Russia with that guarantee of her western frontier which she so ardently desired before the breaking of the flood in 1939.
To-day it is true that there are difficulties between ourselves, Soviet Russia and the United States of America about this region, but I still think and believe that a solution may be found since agreement is as much in the Russian interest as it is in ours. We cannot, however, seek that agreement at the price of being "squeezed out," any more than we desire to deny to Russia a legitimate interest and access to those European spheres with which we are in closer proximity than she is. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will strongly endorse the position taken up by the Foreign Secretary about the Danubian area. But I find that attitude rather difficult to reconcile with the decision taken about the South Tyrol. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the solution of the Danubian problem depends in no small measure on the strengthening and consolidation of Austria's position, and that Austria must and will be weakened if the admitted blunder of the 1919 Peace Conference as regards the South Tyrol is perpetuated. I have read very carefully, as I suppose most of your Lordships have, the debate in another place on this question, and in particular I have read the speech of the Foreign Secretary in his own defence. Frankly, I was not convinced by his arguments.
It will be generally admitted, I think, that the South Tyrol ought to belong to Austria if the Atlantic Charter is to be
1044
applied to such cases—as I feel it ought to be. There is no doubt that the province is ethnically Austrian. I feel that it was a mistake on the part of Italy to lay claim to the whole province. It weakened their case for the retention of a large part of Venezia Giulia. Much has been said about the economic difficulties. These could have been overcome. Austria would certainly have been willing to give every guarantee and every assurance about the power stations and so on. I would like to put to your Lordships a question which occurs to me: Would this decision about the South Tyrol really have been taken if Austria had had a patron among the three big Powers? I very much doubt it. I earnestly hope that the final word has not been said and that it may be subject to review at the Paris Conference.
But if the decision of the Foreign Ministers is reluctantly accepted—as it may be—by the Powers represented at the Conference, then I trust that at least some provision will be made, as the noble Viscount suggested, for the full autonomy of the province, for the freest exercise of linguistic and religious freedom and the return to their land of those inhabitants who preferred German to Italian dictatorship in 1939. These people did not want to leave their children and homes; they were faced with a cruel choice. The fact that they opted to go to Germany, and did not wish to remain under Italian rule, should not be allowed to stand in the way of their return to their homeland should they so desire it. If such autonomy is granted, then in my view this should be placed under the guarantee of the United Nations. It is a special case, and I do not think it would in any way imply the international protection of minorities as a general system. That system, though excellent in theory, led to very grave abuses during the years preceding 1939.
I wish I could share the rather optimistic point of view of the Foreign Secretary that economic advantages and a higher standard of living are likely to diminish what I may call extreme nationalist tendencies. It sounds so reasonable that this should happen, but my experience has led me to the conclusion that the hope is not likely to be fulfilled. We endeavoured, after the last war, to make the Poles and the Germans co-operate in

1045
Upper Silesia by drawing the most ridiculous frontier line. It went through coal-mines, it went through houses, and it went through farms. If ever there was a case where economic forces demanded co-operation and conciliation, this was it, but it failed because of nationalist sentiment. The old standing racial hatreds or dislikes were too strong, and the Governments concerned encouraged their hostility. It may be I am very pessimistic, I hope I am, but I am quite clear that it will be a very grave mistake on the part of those responsible for making the treaties of peace if they under-estimate the strength of national sentiment and try to concentrate too much on the material advantages.
It seems to me that Italy has received rather harsh treatment at the hands of the Foreign Ministers, and insufficient recognition has been given to the country for her period of co-belligerency. The nation as a whole is being made to undergo an excessive punishment for what has been well termed the wickedness and the folly of one man, and one man only. I did not think that the settlement proposed for Venezia Giulia and Trieste takes sufficiently into account the ethnic position. The best that can be said for it is that, had Trieste and the surrounding territory remained Italian, it might have been possible for the Yugoslav Government and others to starve the port, which, certainly, I agree should serve as a huge international emporium. Of course, if this argument is valid it may well be that international control is the only solution for the present, but it will surely depend on the final agreement made both as regards the port and the surrounding zone.
I am not going to detain your Lordships much longer, because there are many noble Lords who wish to speak, but I cannot refrain from saying a word or two about Germany. While a review and a revision of the Potsdam decisions are necessary, if we are to build up a comparatively prosperous Europe within the next ten years, we must remember that the Potsdam decisions have never been fully executed. The economic unity of Germany has never been established, and the more I think over the German problem, the more convinced I am that the only practical solution, and one which incidentally ought to allay French fears, is
1046
that of a loosely federated Germany, the Rhineland and the Ruhr being treated as a separate State. Of course, there must be international control over the products of the latter, but, otherwise, Germany should remain an economic unity. There is no contradiction of principle between a loosely federated Germany and economic unity—and economic unity, as I say, is a definite decision of the Potsdam agreement.
I have practically finished, but there is one last word I want to say which belongs to quite a different category of the subject—the committee on the control of atomic energy. To my mind, it is essential that any international body which is set up to control the use of atomic energy shall be free from the veto system. Sanctions against the user of the atomic bomb must be immediate, automatic, and overwhelming. To subject a Committee of Control to the veto would really be the height of unwisdom and might easily lead to catastrophe. We have seen how the use of the veto can be abused, even if it is legally admissible, in the proceedings of the Security Council. Therefore, I earnestly trust His Majesty's Government will make no concession whatever about any extension of the veto system to the control of atomic energy.
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government to state what is their long-term policy for Germany in special relationship to the settlement of the western boundaries; and move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand it would be convenient to the Minister who is going to reply if I speak now in the general debate. The Ministers' Peace Conference starts in Paris to-day, and there are very few people who do not wish its deliberations to be attended with success. I would like to express sympathy with Mr. Bevin, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, at being unable to be at the Conference, and to express the hope that he will soon be able to assume his seat there. It is surprising to learn that, while the Conference will be dealing with many problems of Eastern Europe, the question of policy towards Germany, which is the subject of my Motion to-day, will not be considered at this stage of the Conference. Having regard to the necessity for having a settlement of Germany and its boundaries,

1047
one can only deplore that it has been set aside for future consideration. Although I am not dealing to-day with Germany otherwise than generally, I wish to express the same regret with regard to Austria, which has been torn asunder and is being trampled upon, through apparent lack of co-operation on the part of the Allies, especially of Russia.
It is nearly a year and a quarter since Germany was defeated and unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Forces, but what progress have we and our Allies made towards Germany's settlement during that period? I venture to suggest that we have not very much to congratulate ourselves upon, although I would like to express my appreciation of the efforts which have been made by our military forces and by our Military Governments and my acknowledgment of what they have accomplished in the most difficult circumstances. Whilst it is true that we have laboured hard to carry out certain duties, such as disarmament, cleaning up the concentration camps, and dealing with a great many displaced persons, there are, still a great many things that have to be done.
Whilst we have assisted in the distribution of German populations, we cannot be very happy as to the way in which we have done it. Whilst we have dispensed with the services of a great many well-known Nazis, and have reinstated a certain amount of local government; whilst we have distributed food to the Germans in our zone (and here I may remark that this has been insufficient because we have had insufficient ourselves, and what we have done has been at great sacrifice to ourselves); whilst we are expending more than £80,000,000 per annum of our taxpayers' money in occupying the British zone (and this is a very serious burden to our finances)—whilst we have done all these things, we still cannot say that a great deal has been accomplished towards the reintegration of Germany itself.
Those are the points on the credit side. What do we find on the debit side? We find in economic matters in Germany only chaos, and the final resuscitation of German economic conditions is essential to the welfare of Germany in Europe. This deplorable situation far overshadows any other action we may have taken in
1048
securing the peaceful settlement of Germany. That is the position to-day. What are the factors which have led up to this position of economic and political chaos? In my view, put shortly, they are, first, the division of Germany into four separate and distinct zones under the four principal Allies, thus putting Germany under four different forms of civil and political administration; secondly, the failure of the Big Four Allies to agree on the main principles of civil, political and economic administration in their respective zones, or to be sufficiently co-operative in these and other respects; and thirdly, the failure to come to any decision on the future western boundaries of Germany from the point of view of the security of the neighbouring countries, France, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. France is particularly sore about this and, in my opinion, she has good reason for being sore. Moreover we have not yet dealt with the future control of the Ruhr, that danger spot of Germany with all its implications in regard to the economic recovery of Europe as well as of Germany. There is further the determination of Russia to impress her ideological and Communistic views not only upon her own zone but upon the other three zones as well, thus causing unnecessary and uncalled-for political differences and difficulties in all zones. Finally, we have the apparent antagonism on the part of Russia—a point which has been very eloquently brought out by my noble friend Viscount Cranborne—against any general form of German settlement, including the settlement of Germany's western boundaries; and, moreover, Russia's apparent reluctance even to discuss it.
Those, then, are the principal factors underlying the difficulty in determining any long-term policy for Germany. If I were asked what is the adverse factor most difficult to circumvent I would unhesitatingly reply "Russia." Russia has evinced a non-co-operative spirit ever since V-Day. I am not going into the reasons for this. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was very expressive upon that point. I have examined it from every angle and I ask myself: Why has Russia adopted this attitude? I can find no valid reason for it. If one examines the question one finds that Russia has got more out of this

1049
war than any country in the world. She surely cannot want to fight another war so soon after the gigantic and exhausting war which she, together with her Allies, has just successfully completed. I do not believe that for a moment. Russia has, moreover, made sure of her present and future security on her own eastern boundaries, because although these boundaries were provisionally fixed at the Potsdam Conference, I cannot for a moment imagine that Russia will surrender those boundaries again. Yet in spite of all this, and of many other well-kown advantages which I need not enumerate here, Russia goes on wriggling and procrastinating diplomatically, and holding up solutions to all important issues affecting the whole Western world, and she does this, it seems, whenever she has an opportunity.
While Russia continues to do this the position in Germany and in some parts of Europe grows worse every day, politically and economically, thus providing coincidentally a better field for the spreading of Russia's particular form of doctrines and political nostrum. I venture to suggest that we have had enough of this procrastination in regard to Germany and other parts. This country is tired of it, the United States is tired of it and France is tired of it. If Russia will not co-operate, let the Western world, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has suggested, from now on play its own hand in the West and make its own arrangements for marching out of the slough into which it has been flung by the war. Let us in the West do this quite amicably, so far as Russia is concerned, but let us do it all the same and let us do it firmly and quickly. To my mind, Russia in advancing her own interests has played a game of poker with us long enough. Let us now call her bluff and look after our own interests before it is too late and before we lose the game altogether.
What I am asking His Majesty's Government to do is to say what is their long-term policy for Germany, in order to settle these problems, and what their proposals are for determining the western boundaries of Germany, so as to secure the neighbouring countries, France, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg and our own country, from future aggression from Germany. I do not believe that the danger from Germany is settled once and for all. We must not, as we did after the
1050
last war, refrain from taking any measure whatsoever that may prevent another terrible war with Germany in the future. I am perfectly aware that His Majesty's Government are face to face with a most difficult and complex task. I will concede this to them: that when they do enter the Peace Conference on this question and discuss these issues they will have to enter it to a certain extent in an elastic and negotiating frame of mind. Before they enter the Conference they should, I submit, have decided upon a definite long-term policy which, so far as they possibly can, they will pursue and bring to fruition, and it is on what that long-term policy is going to be that I am asking the Government to throw some light to-day. I am quite aware that at this stage they may not find it easy to give full details of what that policy will be, but I think this House and the country are entitled to some indications of the lines upon which they intend to treat this important subject.
I observe that an official Parliamentary committee which went to Germany this month has now reported upon its visit. That report is most valuable and interesting; it contains important comments upon present conditions in Germany and makes certain recommendations, perhaps the most vital one being that in which the committee strongly urges the early economic re-integration of the zones of Germany now occupied by the various Powers. The report also recommends the settlement, as soon as possible, of a long-term policy for Germany. I believe there are very few persons who will quarrel with those recommendations. Indeed, we know that the American Government, through their Secretary of State, have already offered to link up the American zone with any other zones for the purposes of economic integration, and it has been reported in the Press that our Government or our zonal authorities are discussing that proposal at the present time. I do not know whether the same thing is happening so far as the French zone is concerned, but I sincerely hope it is, because it seems to me to be quite obvious that we must all stick together in the future and that it will be of the greatest advantage to have the closest collaboration that we can have with France.
There is a faction in this country which believes that the only method of achieving economic re-integration is by establishing

1051
a unified Germany with a unified German Government at its head. I am one of those who belong to another faction which considers that that solution would be fraught with great danger, because not only would it clothe Germany once more with full economic and political control over all her former territory but it would run counter to ensuring a proper and definite control over the Ruhr and the Rhineland, which are the danger spots and which have been the jumping-off grounds for former German aggressions. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when he replies, will tell us that His Majesty's Government are not in favour of a unified Germany but in favour of a federalized Germany, which is, I believe, the best method of approach to this subject and which has already been suggested by the two noble Lords who preceded me. Under such a scheme of federalization it would be convenient to appoint International Commissions for the Ruhr and the Rhineland to control the economic affairs of those provinces, and it would be the duty, amongst other things, of the International Commission for the Ruhr to make certain that the coal products of the Ruhr were used not only for the recovery of Germany but also for the recovery of Europe. But alongside that, I think it is absolutely vital that these International Commissions should have the backing of the Armies of Occupation, which, so far as I can judge, should remain there for at least another twenty or twenty-five years in order to make sure of securing the re-entry of a peaceful Germany into the consortium of Europe.
But there are two important qualifications in connexion with the federalization of Germany which I wish to make. First, I would suggest that so far as possible the old German States, with their old boundaries, should be resuscitated, for those States, that is to say, Bavaria, Wurtemburg, Hanover, the Rhineland, Hesse, and so on, have long traditions of State government, and their citizens would, I believe, be more likely to be cohesive than if entirely new States were created and cut out of sections of other States. Secondly, I suggest—and this is, I think, also of great importance—that the federal capital of a federalized Germany should be established as an entirely new town and capital centre, on the
1052
analogy of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and Canberra, the capital of Australia, where they went out into the countryside and created entirely new centres, divorced from any other towns in those countries. In that way I believe that the German Federal Government would create for its capital city a fresh and new atmosphere which would not be in any way influenced by the traditions of some existing towns in Germany.
If Russia will not co-operate in these proposed arrangements, I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will decide, in collaboration with the Americans and the French, to set up a federalized Germany in their three zones, leaving it open to the States in the Russian zone to join in at a later date should that be possible or desirable. I think all must agree that some measure of this kind for the re-integration of the economic conditions of Germany, for dealing with certain of their common affairs (because they must have a certain amount of common affairs, such as the Post Office and so on, outside the actual economic measures), and at the same time for relieving the Military Government of the great burden of local administration, is absolutely essential if we are to re-create Germany under decent conditions. We ourselves cannot afford to go on taxing the taxpayers of this country to such a large extent as £80,000,000 a year, and something must be done to relieve us of that burden. This solution would, at the worst, without the Russian zone, enable three-quarters of the population of Germany to start going again on a peaceful economic basis on terms that would preclude her from committing further aggression. It is along some such lines that I hope His Majesty's Government and the other Western Governments will act.
Finally, I wish to emphasize that if Russia will not co-operate, the Western Allies should proceed at once to settle their own problems in the Western world, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has just indicated. Russia has settled and is settling her problems on her side of the world, irrespective of any contrary views which we may hold in the West, and we should, I suggest, do likewise on our side. Do not let us quarrel with Russia over any of this. There is no need to do so and none of us wishes to do so, but we do wish to live our own lives. There is

1053
an urgent need that we should settle those problems lest worse befall, and it is we in the West who are now most concerned about this.
4.0 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART, who had given Notice that he would call attention to the trials of German war criminals and move for Papers, said: My Lords, in the course of last month, Lord justice Lawrence said of the trial at Nuremburg, "This already lengthy trial is being prolonged beyond all reason," and I think few would have been found to dissent from him. What we are doing is magnificent, but will it prove in the end the best way against evil? In a passage in Mr. Harold Nicolson's last book he seemed to deprecate prophecy in international affairs. I hold on the contrary that accurate phophecy is the only true test of worth in that field. I venture, therefore, to chance my arm again and to say that it may well prove to be the verdict of history that we have been latterly, with the best will in the world, tending to defeat our own ends in the very protraction of the trial of which Lord Lawrence complained. I say that for this reason. During the course of the war I made several speeches in your Lordships' House pointing out that what we would need was a very quick and drastic purge, otherwise so many ruffians would escape that European security would be compromised. I still think that that is likely to happen. Perhaps this is a test case. I might ask His Majesty's Government whether they would be willing, fifteen months after VE Day, to publish a short return of the number of members of the Gestapo who have been liquidated. I think it might prove very interesting.
But there is more in it than that. Before these trials took place we were given to understand that superior orders would not be accepted for the remission of sins. That was a very sensible decision. Why should we be more German than the Germans? It is laid down in Article 47 of their Code that orders are not to be carried out which visibly exceed the usages of war. That principle was very clearly recognized by Kaltenbrunner's counsel in the course of the trial. I have seen one or two cases which lead me to doubt whether the principle is always being practised, but I would like to say at once that these are matters
1054
in which I am most insufficiently informed. I am only going on what I have seen in the Press, and in many cases the reports have either been lacking or have been more jejune in their nature. A case I have in mind is that of the German General who was responsible for the murder of a number of our Commandos in Norway. I think there was no doubt of his responsibility—and again I speak, as always, subject to correction—yet he was acquitted, I believe on the ground of superior orders, and was apparently returned to his undiminished estates. Moreover, as far as I could gather from the Press, I am not sure that anybody was executed for that outrage. In that case, a considerable amount of murderous vermin has been let loose on the world. Is that right?
Again, I saw a case where a number of S.S. men had been convicted for complicity in the murder of a number of men from the Second Special Air Service Section. They got sentences ranging from two to ten years. Two years for complicity in murdering British soldiers! Is that really adequate? Again I say, what sort of creature shall we be loosing on the world in a very short time? The most flagrant case of inadequate information was the Wuppertal case. We were considerably stoked up for a long time by being told that four British girls had been burnt alive, and that only one German was to be hanged for it. It turned out afterwards that three more were to be hanged, but that was only because as a sort of side-line they had been murdering British airmen too. So the long arm of coincidence was brought in to reinforce the short arm of the law. Shortly after that we were told that the evidence of the burning alive was quite inadequate, but we only learned that by a casual letter to The Times. Even then, there was no doubt the four girls were murdered, and only one German was to be hanged, a camp doctor. What was the matter with stringing up the camp commandant? If he is not responsible, I do not know who is. Again what sort of people are we going to let loose on the world? It is not unnatural that some of us should be a little disquietened. I have no doubt there is a most cogent explanation for this, but I wish that in future we might be given more facilities for judging for ourselves—in other words,

1055
fuller details might be communicated to the Press.
The noble Viscount who introduced the debate to-day brought in the subject of Franco. Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word on that. We all of us detest that régime, and I have quite a special grievance. In the course of the war I received a considerable rebuff in this House for suggesting that neutral countries had no right to give asylum to wanted Germans. I referred specially to Spain and the Argentine. I do not know if anybody is really very satisfied with the condition of things in that respect. I certainly am not, and I am very sure—departing again into the realms of prophecy—that unless we can render those people more harmless than they are at present we shall have a lot of trouble with them in the future. The noble Viscount referred also to the possibility of measures against the Franco Government, and in particular to the rupture of diplomatic relations. Well, I see no objection to that. I do not think there is much in the argument that you strengthen a man's position by breaking off diplomatic relations. Economic relations are another matter, they are more delicate. But I have seen a good number of ruptures in my life, and I cannot help being reminded of that famous quotation from a famous poem, The Jackdaw of Rheims. The quotation is this:
"Never was heard such a terrible curse
But what gave rise to no little surprise
Nobody seemed one penny the worse."
If anything of that nature is contemplated, I think a little thought should be given to what it really means. The rupture of diplomatic relations means that you remove your Ambassador, or perhaps the entire ambassadorial staff. You do not remove your Consuls, 'because they have got to look after British subjects and British interests. In other words, you remove an elderly gentleman with a lot of gold braid on his chest and leave a lot of less elderly people with less gold braid on their collars. That does not seem adequate. The noble Viscount said that he hoped we should be given a little further enlightenment as to the actual degree of military danger which threatens us from Spain. I am always ready to believe the worst of Franco, but meanwhile it may possibly serve to allay any
1056
Immediate panic in New York—Which is rather an emotional place—if I remind the House that our Elizabethan ancestors had a proverb which said, "May my death come from Spain," meaning that if it did, we should all live to be as brilliantly old as Mr. Shaw.
There are one or two other matters I wish to touch upon briefly. First, may I say a word about Poland? I saw in yesterday's Press an announcement that M. Mikolajczyk had received a virtual ultimatum, the sense of which was, "Come to heel or be suppressed." Again in this morning's papers I saw that his ministerial functions had been very arbitrarily curtailed. In the case of Poland, we have both a grievance and an obligation. We consented to the annexation by Russia of nearly half Poland's former territory on the explicit undertaking that there was to be freedom in the rump. That undertaking has not been fulfilled. I am putting it mildly. We have every responsibility in that we encouraged M. Mikolajczyk to go back on the faith of these unfulfilled promises to take part in the government of his country. How has he been treated? He has been persecuted and abused from the very start. I do not think that I have ever listened to such an uninterrupted spate of Billingsgate. As to his Party, members of it have been assassinated, arrested, beaten up and terrorized because they will not align themselves with the Communist minority. I think that we have some special obligation in that respect.
On the last occasion when this matter was rather briefly discussed in your Lordships' House I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, said very truly that we should recognize that Russia had a different conception of freedom and elections. I will say that she has—I quite agree with Lord Lindsay. But I do not think that is an answer, because Russia received her payment in her own coinage in this bargain, the coinage of annexation. She knew there would have to be a quid pro quo, and if that "quid" was to be worth anything at all it would have to be in our coinage that is in our conception of freedom in elections, otherwise it would stand to reason that we had paid a devil of a price at someone else's expense and got nothing in return. And that, briefly, is what has happened. I

1057
hope that our representatives in Warsaw will not weary in representation and, if need be, in making protest. I know a great many people will say: "What is the good of that? You will only cause irritation." I hope you do not believe that. I hope you will rather believe that it does the prestige of this country no good for it to be thought that we are letting down others who have always looked to us as the embodiment of fair play.
I was rather perturbed to notice that in the last debate on foreign affairs which took place in another place a good many Members suggested that we should wash our hands of everything that goes on in the Eastern bloc. Paradoxically this business of washing one's hands has always been a dirty one ever since the days of Pilate. I even noticed that the suggestion was made that there should be a Monroe Doctrine for Central and Eastern Europe. I wish Members would refresh their memories on what the Monroe Doctrine is and was in its origin. It originated mainly at our suggestion at the time of the liberation of the former Spanish colonies in South America at the beginning of the last century. The doctrine has been expanded and redefined very often since then, and you will find the best definition of it, I think, in the correspondence between the Secretary of State, Mr. Olney, and the late Lord Salisbury in connexion with the Venezuelan boundary dispute at the end of the last century. I have not seen that correspondence for the last forty years, but it shows explicitly, I believe, that the United States are expressly inhibited from establishing anything like a protectorate in South America, and that they are also expressly inhibited from interfering in the internal affairs of any country in South America. So if there had been or could be a Monroe Doctrine for Eastern Europe all Russian policy would have been in constant violation of it, and it would have acted as the greatest possible cramp on the Russian style.
I am sure that that was not the intention of the gentleman who put forward this idea. Indeed, I very seldom read through the whole of a debate on foreign affairs in another place without finding some modest reason for the existence of the House of Lords. I say that with all deference to the Minister of Fuel and
1058
Power, who recently had a few hard words for us. I do hope that he will not dissipate his resources by adding gratuitous fuel to imaginary flames. He may need it for other purposes in the winter. I hope meanwhile that he will take my modest attempt to assist his friends as a generous response to his strictures.
I must pass on to another matter on which I have already spoken copiously in the past. I am extremely glad that this matter has been taken up by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I refer to the subject of the integration of Western Europe. Naturally, I will not go again over the ground which I traversed in my speech many months ago. But this question is one of the most vital that now confronts this country, and yet in all the months that have elapsed since I made that speech, so far as I know, not one step forward has been taken by this country. I know that some sensible economic progress has been made between the Dutch and the Belgians, and I hope that they are on their way to something like a customs union. But from the country that should have provided a lead, that is this country, there has been nothing. If this subject had not been raised by other speakers, I was going to say that I am naturally too reasonable to expect the noble Lord who is to reply to tell me much about it this afternoon. But it is my intention, if nobody else feels disposed to do it, to put down a Motion on the subject after the Recess, and if no substantial progress can be reported then to press it to a Division.
Like the noble Earl, I was very much perturbed by that one passage in Mr. Bevin's otherwise admirable speech at Bournemouth in which he said something to the effect that he had not pressed on with an Anglo-French alliance for fear of irritating Russia. That is really pushing caution to the point of paralysis. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to put down this Motion because I saw in the Press yesterday that General de Gaulle had made a speech on the subject at Bar-le-Due. That place will be familiar to your Lordships because its name appears on the containers of all the best French jam. The General certainly produced a nice pot of jam for me, because he advocated very strongly an Anglo-French alliance. The General made an excellent speech, and with nearly all of

1059
what he said on the subject of Europe I heartily agree. Generally speaking he went forward with a firm and resolute tread, but in the last few strides he faltered. I do not think that we could reasonably expect him to be familiar with one of our great literary classics, Through the Looking Glass, in which the White Queen says that the rule is that it is: "Jam to-morrow, and jam yesterday—but never jam to-day."
The General fell into the old heresy of suggesting that you could not go forward with an Anglo-French alliance until all the difficulties had been cleared away. That is the doctrine of what I might call "Bar-le-Duc to-morrow," and to-morrow never comes. I have been urging a contrary doctrine ever since the trouble in Syria. I have said let us have first things first. Let us first have an alliance and all these things will be added unto us later. The thing is to get a move on and you will then find that many other difficulties, even those of the Rhineland and the Ruhr, will straighten out. I say it again to-day. I say to our French friends, "You will have to come down off the fence; that is no place for a great and dignified nation, and what you have to do you may as well do quickly. Make a virtue of necessity." The same goes for us. I hope that we shall get ahead with that alliance as quickly as possible. This should be the first step in the integration of Western Europe.
I must now say a word about another matter which previous speakers have mentioned and on which I also put down a Motion many months ago—that is the matter of the South Tyrol. I set forth very fully all the arguments why the South Tyrol ought to revert to Austria, and with all deference I do not think that any answer was attempted. I do not think there is an answer. Even Mr. Bevin's speech in the House of Commons last week was a defence but not an answer. And now look at the ridiculous position into which we have got. In the South Tyrol, where Italy has not a leg to stand upon, she gets the "swag" of 1919; in Trieste, where she has an unanswerable case, she loses all. Is not that rather odd? I attended nearly all the ambulant post-war conferences of the first world war. At nearly all those conferences my opposite number was the head of the French Foreign Office, who had a great
1060
reputation as a statesman and a wit, Philip Berthelot. As we "whacked off" communiqué after communiqué saying that all participants were in complete accord—and may God forgive us—he used to say, "Voyez vows; tout s'arrange, mais mal." Everything is settling itself; but badly.
Whilst I condemn the settlement of the Tyrol I would not like it to be thought that I am unsympathetic to the general case of Italy. We promised Italy that if she worked her way home, there would be something pretty decent for her at the barrier when she gave up her ticket. Later we told her that she had worked her 'way home. Well, what a home! The house is standing all right, but with the exception of one ill-gotten strip, all the garden has gone, and the view has vanished. If I were an Italian to-day I could imagine that the British sing, "There is no place like home," as a lamentation rather than as a doxology.
I cannot leave that part of the world without some animadversion on the extremely raw deal which Austria has received from Russia under the guise of reparations. Everything Germany ever stole, still belongs to Germany! It is as if your house has been burgled, the thief is ultimately caught, and the property recovered. Then you are told, to your astonishment, that the property does not belong to you but to the thief. But precisely because he stole it, the property therefore belongs not to him, but to the policeman who arrested him. And the policeman says, "You will be severely punished if you make the least fuss." I do not think that the Kremlin really expects any just or sane man to take seriously that clanking chain of reasoning. This is the old story of might and right, of the wolf and the lamb, with the wolf turned into a bear. This, like the decision about the South Tyrol, is a way of punishing Austria for not having voted Communist.
I must make one other observation on an impending outrageous claim and that is the claim of Bulgaria to Western Thrace. Throughout my youth Bulgaria was the bane of the Balkans; she was the stalking-horse of the Germans and the Austrians before the first world war, and at their behest held up Balkan unity. She was the culprit of the second Balkan war, and has since fought two wars on

1061
the wrong side. That record cannot be lightly overlooked. I am not going to be diverted by any quibble that she only fought against our only ally, Greece. I think nowadays there is some tendency to forget that Greece was our only ally at a time when her Communist critics were doing what they could for the other side. I am ready to forget the Bulgarian past, but not ready to reward it. I hope that His Majesty's Government will not for one moment entertain such an impudent claim. It should be dismissed without discussion. I say that with the more conviction in that there is still no freedom in Bulgaria. The Opposition are still harried, oppressed and suppressed, and I dare say that some of your Lordships have noticed the case of the veteran Socialist leader, Pastukhov, already in his seventies, who has been sent to gaol for five years—which may be a life sentence or a death sentence—merely because he ventured to criticize some of the acts of the ruling clique. One of their most reputable writers, Kunef, has been savagely beaten up and thrown into gaol without trial. The same fate impends another Socialist editor, Ivanov, who has been handed over by the deputy Public Prosecutor "for trial and punishment." Note the last two words, "and punishment"—before he is even found guilty. Therefore, I am a little surprised when I see that Mr. Mack, M.P., tells us that the administration of justice in Bulgaria is just as good as it is here. There is a song in the new Cochran-A. P. Herbert revue of which three lines run:
"You don't pay a peer
A thousand a year;
There's a lot to be said for the Lords!"
And, by golly, there is!
Finally, I would like to say just a few earnest words on this great conclave now gathering in Paris. From the end of the shooting war I have always maintained publicly that the Big Three—or Big Four as it became—was an anachronism and might become something worse, since it would inevitably operate to prevent smaller Powers from having an adequate say in the things that belong to their peace. I claim that that prophecy also has been fulfilled. Is it not incongruous that we should be drifting into the era of the small man but the big Power, so ordered and ordering that the small Power becomes ever smaller? I hope that
1062
those who have retained their liberty will make themselves heard in no uncertain tone, lest at last the legend of Tithonus be fulfilled and the voice of the small Powers become no greater than the voice of the grasshopper, as the consort of Dawn dwindles to an accompaniment of a sleepy afternoon.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, there is a certain disadvantage in a debate of this nature in that it comprises such a vast number of different subjects and different settlements of those subjects, that it is almost impossible for a real debate to take place. The discussion must necessarily resolve itself more or less into a series of speeches on the subject of foreign affairs which have very little relation one to another. For that reason, I am not going to attempt to traverse the very interesting subjects that have been raised, not even the immensely important suggestion that has been made that we ought—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who has not been able to stand this House a moment longer than he was addressing it—to adopt integration of Western Europe. We may call it what we like; but what it means is some form of alliance. I fully agree with what my noble relative said at the beginning of the debate, that if the Russians made it impossible to work the system of a real international settlement of all decisions by declining to agree to them, vetoing any decision reached, there would obviously be no other course open to those who still believe that some international action is necessary to preserve peace than to take some action which will be quite independent of Russia. I fully agree. Indeed, is seems to me to be obviously true. At the same time, I do feel that it would be a most unfortunate result of the development of the present situation. I cannot bring myself to believe that the formation of a Western European alliance would not be followed by the formation of an Eastern European alliance. If that were so, you would have the old and very well-known situation of alliance and counter-alliance, and I am afraid that that has not in the pat resulted in peace.
For those reasons, without disagreeing with anything that fell from the noble Lord, I very earnestly trust that we shall make the most determined efforts to obtain real co-operation with Russia, and

1063
only in the event of those efforts failing and such co-operation becoming quite impossible, must we then look for some other solution which would, in my judgment, not necessarily be free from risk and serious danger.
After all, I do venture to remind your Lordships—although it is probably quite unnecessary to do so—that there is one particular issue before us which is more important than all the details which we have been discussing this afternoon. That issue is: Can we save civilization? That is the real issue we have to meet. I know it has become almost hackneyed to say that; nevertheless I venture to say it, and I am quite certain that everyone who considers the matter will agree that if there is another world war, it is impossible, so far as any prognostic can take you, to expect that civilization will be saved. I think, even without the advent of the atomic bomb and other horrible weapons, it would have been extremely doubtful in the old circumstances whether the nations of Europe could possibly survive another world war, considering all the strain which the last war, as we have seen, put upon them. But, with the addition of these new and terrible weapons, it would not seem to be possible for them to survive. Therefore, it seems to me, the whole issue is: How can we preserve the peace? I believe everybody really admits that peace must be preserved, that that must be the essential feature of our policy, and I think that most people go on to say that, granting all the criticisms that may be made of the Charter drawn up at San Francisco, the United Nations Organization is still our best and indeed, I think, our only hope of maintaining that essential requirement. I am not going to elaborate all that. It has been known for months past.
So far as my own opinion is of any value at all (which is very little, no doubt), I think that, on the whole, the present Government have pursued the right, the just and the proper policy in their great efforts to secure peace. The great problem with which we are now faced is whether the United Nations Organization really can secure peace. No doubt the central difficulty is the motive power of the machine erected at San Francisco. Will it work at all? Will the veto make it practically impossible to work it? That
1064
is the real issue which we have to meet at this moment. I hope that some way round may be found, but I must say that this is becoming a matter of very great anxiety. And it is surely somewhat ironic that this new organization—the whole purpose of which was to put teeth into the machinery for peace—is in danger of breaking down because those teeth will not bite. That seems to me to be the tremendous problem we have before us.
Only on one aspect of that problem do I intend to trouble your Lordships—I hope for a very short time. In spite of all criticisms, I think that the proceedings at Nuremburg are a very great encouragement to the idea of peace. I am not now concerned with that subject. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, again—
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I have been out for a short time. As the noble Viscount has made reference to the fact, I should like to say that I went out for one minute to address a friend. I really think that it is a little excessive that he should have said in my absence (this information has been given to me by my friend) that I am unable to stand this House for one minute longer than I address it. I want to point out that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, was out of the House this afternoon for a considerable time. I would not blame him for that. Surely I have the right to go out and say "How do you do?" to a distinguished friend, without drawing upon myself this really unmerited stricture. I think it is outrageous, my Lords—I do really.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sure if my noble friend had been present, he would have realized that the observation was not intended to be taken seriously, as he apparently has taken it.
LORD VANSITTART: It is all right.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I mentioned his name. I turned round in order to address him, and found that he was not there.
LORD VANSITTART: I was gone for only a minute, and I greatly regret it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If the noble Lord considers that it is offensive, I withdraw it most heartily.
LORD VANSITTART: Thank you.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: In dealing with Nuremburg, I am not now concerned with the question of punishment of those responsible for war outrages. That is no doubt a very important matter. I believe that the dignity and impartiality with which they have been treated by the Court have been an immense advantage to the general conception of the supremacy of law even in international affairs, but beyond that the punishment of those responsible for outrages is not the main purpose for which I am referring to the Nuremburg proceedings. I observe that the Attorney-General, in the early part of the very remarkable speech for the prosecution which he has just delivered, said:
"It is the crime of war, which is at once the parent and the object of the other crimes."
And in the very last sentence of the speech, which is reported in the daily papers to-day, he makes an appeal in these words:
"These are our laws. Let them prevail."
I think that is the essential feature of the Nuremburg proceedings, and it is of enormous importance that judgment is to be given not only on the perpetrators of outrages, but on the broad question of how we are to deal with aggressive war. The broad proposition is this: that aggressive war, undoubtedly, is forbidden internationally; it is essentially illegal, as the Attorney-General says; and all those who contribute to it are aiding and abetting what is in essence an international crime. That indeed was expressly stated in the Charter under which the Court is now sitting. That is to say, we are now in process of laying down, in the most authoritative way we can command, the proposition that aggressive war is an international crime. That is the first proposition we have to establish, and if it be asked, "What is aggressive war?" I think the answer is very simple—aggressive war is any war which cannot be described as defensive.
That takes you only one step further, because you then have to say, "Well then, what is a defensive war?" As to that, I think the first great issue arises. The Germans say that each country is the supreme and inviolable judge of whether the war in which it is engaged is a defensive war or not; that you cannot go behind that decision once it has laid
1066
it down, and that it is conclusive as to a war being an aggressive war or not. Therefore, of course, all the people who are being tried at Nuremburg are guiltless, because the German State had laid down that they were engaged in a defensive war. It is quite obvious, if that be accepted, that there is no hope of any progress towards preventing an aggressive war in the future. The answer, which was made by the Attorney-General, is quite clear: that although it is part of the duty of a State to make a declaration as to a war being defensive or not, in the end the question of whether it is a defensive war or not is a question of fact which ought to be (and so far as Nuremburg is concerned is being) determined by the Court on the whole facts of the case.
Therefore, Nuremburg rests upon these two propositions. In the first place, if war, alleged to be defensive, is not really so, then it is criminal. And the second proposition—and this is one which seems to me most novel and most important—is that anyone who promotes an aggressive war is guilty of a crime and may be personally punished. So far as that is concerned, it is a corollary to it to say he could not plead in justification of what he has done that he was acting on superior orders. He, alone, must take the responsibility of promoting an illegal act and therefore he has been guilty of a crime. There are many people here who know much better than I do about this, but so far as I know that is a novel proposition. Certainly if we take the case of Napoleon, which has been cited as the nearest precedent to that of Hitler, you have to admit, and nobody mow would deny for a moment, that he was guilty of an aggressive war. He was primarily and essentially guilty of it, but he was not even tried. When he abdicated at Fontainebleau, in the first case, he was not tried. It was, indeed, decided that he could not be allowed to remain in control of France, because it was evidently extremely dangerous to the rest of the world so long as he was there, but he was not tried or punished. He was sent to Elba and given the position of a kind of king of that little country. He was given every attribute of comfort, and if he had chosen to remain there he would never have been disturbed by anybody.
As we all know, the one condition made was that an undertaking should be given by him that he would not try to return and take up the old fight with Europe.

1067
As we know, he did return, and he did revive the fight and was again defeated. This time he surrendered himself to a British ship, but even then he was not tried. They relegated him to St. Helena, and although a great deal was said by him and his friends about the severity with which he was treated, he was really treated with no severity. He was treated with only such controls as were essential to prevent his going back to France and again starting up the war in the world. That was what was done in the case of Napoleon. Now we are doing something quite different. We are going to say, and I think perfectly rightly, and I will support it with all the strength I can give, that if these men, among other things, have started an aggressive war and have given their full authority to it, they are responsible for it and they are criminals and must be tried. For that is a crime.
It is quite true it is being said in their defence that it is ex post facto—that it was not then a criminal offence, and you are trying people now for what was not a criminal offence when committed. If they do complain, the answer is that full warning was given to them, both by the Covenant of the League of. Nations and, still more precisely, by the BriandKellogg Pact, that it was an offence to engage in an aggressive war, and if they chose to do so it was with their eyes open to all the risks which were involved in that decision. I cannot help feeling that the precedent which is being now established is of enormous importance, and it does not appear, at any rate in public statements, that the importance is altogether realized yet. Throwing one's mind back over the issues that have arisen even in the last thirty years, I think that if it had been perfectly clear, when Italy invaded and tried to destroy Abyssinia, that those who advocated that crime would be guilty of crime and would be tried and, if convicted, punished, it would have made a very great difference to the policy that was being pursued.
I think this doctrine is going to revolutionize the whole conception of sanctions. At present the only sanction is to fine or deprive of territory the State that was guilty of that aggressive war. That does not hit the criminals as such; it hits the whole population of the State if it hits anybody. It is not, therefore, really an effective deterrent of the advocacy of
1068
aggressive war. If we can once get established and fully recognized in the world that those who engage in this terrible enterprise, which may cost, as the Attorney-General pointed out in his speech, not less than 20,000,000 lives, will be guilty of a crime and will be punished, then we shall set up a new conception of international relations. Everybody will recognize that to engage or promote any war of that kind is a most disreputable and wicked thing, and the whole romantic conception of war will be destroyed, and destroyed, I hope, for ever. That is the point which seems to me to be of greatest importance in connexion with the Nuremburg trials. I will only add this one observation. There is, of course, at present a court temporarily created in order to deal with that particular situation. I do hope that some means will be found of making it a regular part of the international system, whether it be done one way or the other. One can suggest half a dozen ways in which it might be done, but somehow or other there must be set up a permanent criminal court for international offences which can be called in to deal not with the wickedness of this or that country but with the wickedness of this or that individual.
4.50 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I have to thank my noble friend Lord Chorley for allowing me to speak in his place. The noble Viscount who introduced this debate began by saying that it was sometimes necessary to say things even though they might be thought to be indiscreet. I propose not to worry in anything I say about being indiscreet, because I think this country, and indeed the world, is in a position of much greater peril at the present time than is always realized, and if we go on drifting and being indecisive in this matter we may find that the sands have run out and it is too late. If I may say so with respect, I agree with what the noble Viscount said, that what really concerns us is the veto of Russia and the obvious determination of Russia to refuse to co-operate. The noble Viscount put forward a number of reasons which I think he dismissed and substituted a suggestion of his own that it was Russia's isolationism. If I may say so, I very largely agree with his diagnosis on the positive side; I think it is

1069
Russia's isolationism, but I think all the other reasons have something in them.
It is very hard for sensible English people to believe that the fantastic, perverse and incredibly nonsensical doctrines of international Marxism can ever be taken seriously. But I think that to assume that people do not act on them is a very dangerous thing to assume, and to assume that those preposterous and dangerous doctrines have no influence on Russia is also dangerous. I wish. I could assume it, but I cannot. I think they may have some influence, but how much nobody can tell. I think the problem with a Power like Russia is that you have these people imbued with doctrines which they have been taught for many years, and yet they will from time to time lapse into common sense. I think if they are appealed to in the right way those lapses may become more frequent. I think, on the other hand, if they are appealed to on the ideological basis and we try to settle and agree on principles with Russia, then we are doomed. We shall never agree with Russia on that score—at least, I hope not. I think that what we have to do in the situation that confronts us is to give up hope that Russia will suddenly be converted seriously to the principles of liberal internationalism and ask ourselves how far we are going to deal with Russia—a Power which likes bargaining, which is rather good at bargaining and is pretty tough at bargaining as long as principles do not come into it.
May I point out what is happening as the result of Russia's behaviour? Russia by her continued use of the veto is producing exactly the result which she most dreads and about which she makes most fuss. She is driving the world into two blocs, a bloc of America, England, the Western democracies and the Dominions on the one hand, and a bloc of Russia and the Powers subordinate to her on the other. By doing that Russia is making it more difficult than ever to work the United Nations Organization. She is also doing something which this country ought to be very much concerned about, namely, making it impossible for this country to play the part for which I think she is destined, that of a bridge of understanding between Russia and the United States. We do stand between them. Our whole international outlook and our liberalism is much more like that of the
1070
United States, our economic approach is like that of Russia, and we ought to be able to mediate between Russia and America. The continued use of the veto by Russia, however, is making it very hard. It is driving us more and more into line with America, not only on those matters where we are right to agree with her, but partly, as I hope to show, on matters where we ought not to agree with her, and our great rôle has gone. If our great rôle has gone, then we are committed to what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, deprecated, this division of the world into two blocs.
Consider for a moment the effect on U.N.O. not of the veto itself but of the particular use which Russia is making of the veto. U.N.O. is rapidly becoming an organization to prevent international organization, because it looks as though you cannot even get things discussed. As far as one can see, Russia is on the whole holding on to U.N.O. in order to perform that function in it; not in order to unite with other people in doing things, but to enable herself to prevent anything from being done. Yet I think we ought to recognize that there is something to be said for the Russian position. Suppose you start with believing that there is a fundamental, ideological conflict between Russia and all other nations which you describe as capitalist nations; suppose you know, as anybody blessed with the obsession of Marxism does know, that you are always in the right and always perfect; and suppose you also know that all capitalist nations are necessarily wicked; you would then also know, and would not need dogma to convince you of it, that if things are to be settled by vote at the United Nations the odds are that you will be voted down and be in the minority. Can you really willingly say: "I am prepared to be voted down. I am prepared to have the enormous power of atomic energy used against me"? The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, said 'what a difference it would make to know that you would be punished for aggressive war. I think if you are properly imbued with the doctrines with which Russia is imbued you know that you cannot make aggressive war; it must be somebody else's fault. That is the difficulty of dealing with a nation which is ex hypothesi perfect, which says: "We alone are pure and perfect human beings and all other nations are imperfect."

1071
If you read the literature with which Russia supplies us—it comes every day—you will see that whatever Russia does is always perfect, and that what all other nations do is always wrong. That seems to be part of the difficulty. The worst thing that could have happened was the disappointment about the American proposals with regard to the control of atomic energy. I think we must all have been heartened to read the report of the Lilienthal Commission and to see how that was taken up by America. It looked for one moment as though we were going to have this dreadful new weapon controlled in a way which was not too difficult, in a way which gave substantial advantages to Russia and to other nations, in a way which combined the destructive and constructive possibilities of atomic energy, and in a way which, as far as I can gather from asking questions, the scientists both of this country and of America thought was possible. That was just stopped by the veto, and nothing can be done about it.
If we sit down under that, what is going to happen? We shall be doing two things at the same time. There will continue to be a division between Russia and her satellites and the rest of the world, and the question of atomic control will not be solved. I think we must not let that happen; but I do not see how it can be dealt with unless the United States, this country and other countries say, "All right, if we cannot do it with the United Nations, we shall do it in some other way, and we shall do it in a way which is absolutely fair to Russia so that she can come in if she wants to. I think that Russia had some reasonable objections to the report of the Lilienthal Commission as it stood. It had certain ambiguities and certain dangers, and I think Russia would have had a case to argue over it, but I do not think she would ever do that in front of all the nations of the world. I think it is very difficult at the present time for Russia to come and argue in front of the nations of the world in a way which admits that she may be voted down or differed from, or that she may perhaps change her mind.
I was very impressed by a story which illustrates this on a small scale. In Berlin the Kommandatura were considering certain proposals put forward by the British and Americans, and the Russians refused
1072
to consider them. The Russian delegation gave it up, but after six weeks they came back with the American and British proposals to a comma and said, "These are the Russian proposals; they have always been the Russian proposals, and they cannot be changed in any way." What technique do you have to use to grapple with that? It cannot be done, I am sure, by saying that if we cannot make our arrangements in a full international organization, we should do nothing. I can understand everybody's objection to beginning so early to go behind the organization we have just set up, but I really do not see any other alternative. I do earnestly say that to have a United Nations Organization which is a sham, and which only has the effect that if you do use it you do nothing, is really worse than having no United Nations Organization at all. Therefore I think we must somehow get round it.
Here may I say—because I think we ought to face it—this situation has perils for this country if it is left as it is. If we go on seeing the world becoming more and more divided into two opposite parties, Russia and her friends on the one hand, and England, the United States and other countries on the other hand, there are greater perils for this country than for anybody else, because if that happens we shall be regarded as equally guilty with the United States and we shall also be rightly regarded as being infinitely more vulnerable. I think one has got to face that. It need not happen, and I pray that it will not happen, but I think that unless we can somehow stop this drift of the world into two parts, this country, above all countries, will be in a position of very great peril. We are far more vulnerable to new weapons than the United States: we touch Russia in far more places and we cannot, I submit, let this thing happen.
That brings me to the problem of Germany. Before dealing with that properly, may I make quite a small point, which happens to concern my particular personal business? I think everybody must recognize that it is of enormous importance to this country at the present time that we should be represented in Germany by people of the greatest ability that we can get, but one of the things that is happening to the Control Commission is that very many able young men are coming out of it and are not going back because

1073
they get no security. There are at the moment—this is the thing that strikes me in my position—many young men with very great abilities coming back from the war, and competition for the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office is very keen, but these young men will not go out to perform a very important task in Germany because they are told that at the end of seven years they will not be wanted. A young man who has been to the University and who is offered a job which, he is told, in seven years is coming to an end, has got to think of his future. I think we could cure that quite simply by giving security to the young men who might like to go into the Control Commission service. It is of the utmost importance that we should get the very best people we can to perform the very difficult tasks we have got to perform in Germany.
It seems to me that Germany might, under proper circumstances, fill a rôle which I think, in spite of what people say, she has nobly filled in the past, namely, the rôle of being a bridge between Eastern and Western Europe. If we could make Germany do that, it would be a great thing, but we can only do that by giving some hope, some mission and some faith to the people in Western Germany. If we do not do that, then—and this is, I think, a very tragic and dangerous business—Germany will become a weapon which either the Western Powers or the Eastern Powers will suspect the others of forging in order to use against them. I think that is already happening. I think there is no question but that Russia suspects us of allowing what she calls Fascism to grow up in Western Germany—I think the Russians are quite wrong, but they suspect us of that—in order that we may unite Germany against her, and I do not think we are very far from suspecting that Russia's intention is to spread Communism over Europe and to make of Germany a weapon for use against us if the clash comes.
Somebody who has seen a great deal of Germany at the present time describes the modern Germans as being efficient without direction. I think that is very true; I think they are an incredibly efficient nation. In whatever direction you turn them they will go on being efficient. They can be an extraordinarily powerful weapon one way or the other and it seems
1074
to me we must not let that happen. I think the only way in which we can do that is to give up trying to agree on common principles with Russia. The curse of our present situation is that we are supposed to agree. It was, I think, Mr. Stalin who invented democracy as the concept which was to unite Eastern and Western Allies. As I have said to your Lordships before, Russian democracy means precisely the opposite of what democracy means to us. Let us be democratic in our own way and not in the Russian way. Let us be earnest and believe in ourselves and believe in social democracy. I say that knowing that although noble Lords opposite might not like the words they are really prepared to go a long way towards this. Social democracy is something which Europe needs, and it is an alternative to Communism on the one hand and what we may call for the moment American Capitalism on the other. If we could show that this is a real thing and that we believe in it, I think we might do something to make a bridge between Russia and America, with Germany occupying the middle position—but we must be honest about it. I think part of our difficulty follows from the position in which Russia is at the present moment. What Russia says is not what she is really thinking about. People who argue in that sort of way do not give their real grievances; they give their ideological theories instead. There have been grievances and sometimes they are relevant.
I propose now to talk about somewhere very far away about which I happen to know something. It seems to me we are clearly in the wrong in this case and the Russians are right to suspect, us. As far as I can see we are at the moment and have been for some time obediently following American lead in China. There are at the moment two Parties in China. One of them insists on one-Party government and the other welcomes many Parties. The Americans, and this country following, support the first and not the second. One Party has concentration camps, and the other has not. We support the Party which has the concentration camps and not the other. One of them has a Gestapo, a Gestapo which recently sent its men into Hong Kong, and apparently in the face of the Hong Kong Government, took away somebody whom

1075
they suspected of being on the wrong side. The other has not a Gestapo. Following the Americans, we support the Party which has a Gestapo and not the one which has not. One uses Japanese puppet troops and Japanese in support of it, and the other does not. The Americans and we have supported the one which uses the Japanese puppet troops and not the other. That support comes to a good deal. The Americans have, I understand, organized or trained some twenty Chinese divisions of the official Government. It was hoped that that Government was so corrupt and inefficient and so hopeless that it would not be able to impose its will over China. The only reason I can see why America, and we following, take that line is that the first Party, which has the Gestapo and the concentration camps, calls itself anti-Communist, and the second Party calls itself Communist.
Are we to be surprised that Russia with some justification regards with suspicion the kind of line which we take about the Russian Governments in Bulgaria, Rumania and Poland? I think we must be much more realistic and stop worrying about principles and try to be honest. We must try to believe much more than we do in the possibility of this country's principles and actions being a Gospel, and stop acting as if we were ashamed of it. Stop being afraid of what Russians will say. I think we have allowed the Russians to paralyse our actions in Germany. I have come across several things we must not do—perfectly harmless things—because the Russians do not like it. Whatever you do will be wrong. Whatever this country does the Russians will say it is wrong, and you may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. I think we ought to go on and do what we believe. It is only by doing what we believe and by dealing with Russia on every point that we have any opportunity of getting rid of this dangerous position in which we find ourselves.
5.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, the debate opened with a number of very cogent speeches in favour of the organization of a Western pact. I listened to those speeches with particular pleasure, both for their content and also because they were anticipating the points I was
1076
anxious to make, and I hoped they would relieve me of the duty of addressing your Lordships which I had imposed upon myself. Since then the desirability of pursuing the Western pact has been queried by the very great authority of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. I hope that he will not consider it a great impertinence if I venture to stress one point in connexion with the Western pact which many of us feel very keenly. We are very anxious in all sincerity to dissociate ourselves from the proposition that a Western pact is in any sense whatever directed against the Russian States. The primary reason why we are anxious for better understanding in Western Europe is that our common interests demand more neighbourly feelings between ourselves, France, the Low Countries and the other States of Western Europe, whom I hope to mention in a moment.
We are in the position of needing counsel and advice from our Continental neighbours upon the Continental problems. For example, we have listened to the most cogent and interesting arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, on the subject of Germany, but the wisest policy that can be devised by this country in isolation regarding Germany is useless. We cannot pursue any policy regarding Germany at all unless we at least get the concurrence of the French and the American Governments. I think that there is every reason to suppose that, of those two, the French Government will have the strongest views, views to which we shall have to accommodate ourselves.
The other reason why a Western pact is being put forward upon the Continent is that there is still a very real fear of a recrudescence of German power. Your Lordships may have seen in the Press an allusion to a summary of a report by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Belgian Senate. I hope that great attention will be paid to that very authoritative document. Your Lordships may remember that this committee urged strongly that the interests of Belgium, in the military sphere, should be most closely integrated with those of the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that the Chiefs of Staff and the Foreign Office will feel greatly in sympathy with that proposal. But this proposal, as the rest of the document makes clear, was in no sense whatever

1077
based on fear of Russia. It was definitely based on the Belgian desire to avoid a repetition of the experiences of the last two wars.
There is one other matter which might fall within the sphere of Western understanding, which I would like to mention. The problem of Spain is almost certainly insoluble by present methods. Spain, as we have seen, remains unimpressed by, and indeed one might almost say contemptuous of, the proceedings of the United Nations Organization. But I find it difficult to believe that the Spanish people would fail to respond, in some degree, to approaches made by the united Christian west of Europe, which I hope to see. Finally, I would venture to stress and to remind your Lordships of the remark made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the beginning of this Parliamentary Session, when he called the peoples of Europe "our sort of people." That was a very trenchant and highly important remark. He insisted that our right to friendship with "our sort of people" could not be denied by any Power whatever. Since that remark was made, elections have been held in Belgium, in Holland, in France, and in Italy. They have revealed a state of opinion which, in many ways, closely resembles that in this country. We do not have here any representatives of the Christian Parties which have revealed their strength in the elections in those countries, but we do, I hope, share their progressive outlook and their respect for tradition.
I have attempted to put before your Lordships, with that great deference which I naturally feel as a back-bench Peer, the reasons which, I submit, should urge His Majesty's Government to pursue more actively than they have done in the past a policy of Western defence. I find it very difficult to believe that the pursuit of such a policy would in any way increase the suspicion which Russia feels towards us. Certainly it would show one thing, and that is that we have no objection to Russia continuing to make close friends of her immediate neighbours. We do not, in any way, deny the right of Russia to form a common policy with the Slavonic and other peoples on her borders; provided that such an understanding in the East reflects the genuine and unforced co-operation of Eastern Europe, we rather welcome it. What could be
1078
more satisfactory than that the quarrel between Russia and Poland that has so often disturbed the peace of Europe in the past should be healed, so long as it is healed by genuine mutual agreement based on understanding and sympathy?
If the Eastern pact develops on the lines on which, I hope, the Western Europe pact will develop, it is, after all, capable of performing a great deal of good and of doing much to secure peace. In conclusion, I ask is there anything inconsistent in the belief that the United Nations Organization, tending to become a group of Leagues rather than a group of States, will achieve its purpose by those means? Mention has been made of the American League and of the Eastern understanding. There is, in addition, the Arab League and there is every likelihood that the emergent nations of Asia will form their Leagues among themselves. It was often suggested that the League of Nations would have benefited, and would have been strengthened by such regional understandings. I very much hope that the future of the United Nations Organization will be secured by some such means.
5.28 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I propose to confine what I have to say to two special points—the treatment of the South Tyrol and the treatment of refugees and displaced persons. Each of these is a practical question upon which something can be done and has to be done. Each of them is an urgent question relevant to the Conference now sitting in Paris. The action taken, or stopped from being taken, at that Conference may vitally affect both these problems. Each is a special point which, as I shall try to show, involves a question of principle so that, according to the way in which it is decided at Paris, we may look forward to a return to a better world or get deeper and deeper into the mire of the bad world in which we are at present.
The subject of the South Tyrol, as your Lordships know, was very fully discussed in another place on Thursday last, and as some of what I shall have to say must be in criticism of, or in disagreement with, what was said then by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I need hardly preface my remarks by expressing admiration for his work, as so many of your Lordships have already done, and by

1079
expressing sympathy with him and every wish for his happy restoration to full health in the interests of this country and of the world. As the old Latin tag has it: "Amicus Plato, sed magis arnica veritas." Since some of your Lordships may have learned Latin later than my own day, with a different pronunciation, may I be allowed to translate it as, "Plato is a friend, but truth is a dearer friend still." I am sure that no one really forfeits the friendship of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by disagreeing with him.
We all know that in 1919 the South Tyrol was handed over to Italy. Excluding the Trenino it contained about 250,000 inhabitants, of whom less than 3 per cent. were Italians. The territory had never been Italian, and for 600 years it had been part of the Austrian Empire. The only comment I need make upon that transaction is the comment made at the time—in July, 1919—by two of the people who were responsible with others for the transfer. M. Clemenceau, head of the French State, and the Earl of Balfour, who spoke for Britain, said:
"If languages, race, and the wishes of the population had in this case governed the decision … South Tyrol would never have been Italian. Self-determination, however, and nationality were outweighed by strategic considerations."
We all know how that happened, and why it happened. It was in pursuance of the secret treaty of 1915, and I think it is clear that even then those who were responsible for the arrangement felt it to be wrong. It contradicted the fundamental principles of self-determination, of letting each people choose the kind of Government under which they could live. If that was wrong then, why should it be right now to continue that arrangement? That is the question we have to face.
It is true that the present population is rather more Italian; there are relatively more Italians and fewer of the original Tyrolese. That is the result of the policy of Italianization pursued for twenty years. But the areas to which I am referring are still predominantly Austrian—areas where German is spoken. We have to consider the problem in the light of the 1919 population, and not in the light of the present population. If you consider the matter in the light of the present population, you are rewarding the criminal policy of
1080
Italianization which was pursued so ruthlessly in the twenty years between the wars. Let us take into account, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has suggested, all the exiles who would like to return, but who, under the infamous treaty between Hitler and Mussolini, went away. Clearly, the population should not remain under Italian rule for strategic reasons. Nobody knows which way the strategic reasons act. As the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, they were of practically no importance in this matter.
Surely our plan for a better world, if it is to be any good, must encourage economic collaboration across national frontiers. We cannot make sense of it otherwise. And on that principle we should not do a political wrong for an economic reason. Actually, however, on the facts economic arguments are a flimsy pretext for leaving this piece of territory to Italian rule. In the other place some facts and figures were given on this matter by Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre. They were not answered in the debate, and if the Government to-day intend to use any economic argument, I hope that they will say whether those figures are right or wrong. The figures were to the effect that most of the trade goes north across the frontier, and not south to Italy. It was said that about 78 per cent. of the fruit, 98 per cent. of the wine, and 6o per cent. of all other things, goes north over the Brenner Pass.
A great deal has also been made of the hydro-electric power system. That also was dealt with in another place by Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre, but he was not answered. Again I ask His Majesty's Government if they attach importance to this argument, to say if his figures are incorrect. I might mention that they come from an Italian and not from an Austrian source. I could not quite understand the figures, but it appeared that either 5 per cent. or 7 per cent. of all the electric power used by Italy comes from the South Tyrol. If they lose the whole of that, they would still have 95 per cent. of their present hydro-electric power. How could the loss of that power affect the position? But only 32 per cent. of that 5 or 7 per cent. is, in fact, exported to Italy; the rest of it is used locally or for the railways. If Italy lost that 32 per cent. of the 5 or 7 per cent. it would mean that she would be losing only 2 per cent. of all her electric power.

1081
Can that be any argument for continuing a political wrong—if it is a wrong? But in any case there is no reason for Italy to lose this power. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that the Austrian Government would be perfectly willing, and could be pledged in the treaty, to continue the supply of all that has hitherto been supplied.
As that involves transferring this area to Austria, with some treaty condition as to what they shall do, may I refer to the counter-suggestion thrown out by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and also, I think, by my noble friend the Earl of Perth? The suggestion was that if this piece of territory were left with Italy, the matter might be put right by requiring Italy to give an undertaking to grant a large measure of autonomy to the people of the South Tyrol. What a mirage those suggestions have proved to be! Does nobody remember that in 1922, when we agreed that Poland should take territories east of the Curzon Line, they never gave the autonomy promised; and vengeance has descended upon them. All these rules for minority treatment are unenforceable because they are in general terms and it is never clear whether they have been broken or not, and because they intrude upon self-government. On the other hand, the kind of bargain which the Austrian Government would have to make, if they were required to deliver a certain amount of hydro-electric power every year, is based on simple statistical fact which can be checked. It does not interfere with autonomy, and raises no difficulties at all. I would not accept as any sweetening of the pill of giving a wrong decision, a requirement upon the Italian Government to give autonomy to this part of the world. Why should we do the wrong thing, and try to sweeten the pill?
As far as I can see, from what has been said at various times by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and by other speakers on behalf of the Government, the decision which we have to escape is the decision taken by the Foreign Ministers in London in September, 1945. It is true that there have also been references to the Moscow Declaration of 1943, for reestablishing an independent Austria. The Foreign Secretary has referred to that declaration. I am bound to say that he has not of late stressed it. It is true, on the other hand, that one of the other
1082
spokesmen of the Government—Mr. Hector McNeil—in another place has actually treated that Moscow Declaration for setting up an independent Austria as an undertaking given by the Coalition Government, for which he was not responsible. He has actually referred to the decision that the South Tyrol should remain with Italy as an undertaking. Really there is no substance in that whatever. One has only to read—as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs read in another place the other day—the actual Moscow Declaration to see that all it is concerned with, as it says in so many words, is to annul the amalgamation of Germany and Austria. There is no conceivable undertaking in that that the wrong done by Italy should be condoned. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his last speech, hardly dwelt upon that point at all. What he said was that that declaration must be read with the armistice terms for Italy, under which it was understood that she would be rewarded in some way or another for working her passage.
Let me go on to say, in correction of what appeared in some of the papers, that according to the Hansard report the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, so far from saying that there was a stipulation that the Italian boundaries should not be altered, said there was no such stipulation. But if some reward is to be given by the Great Powers to Italy for working her passage, would it not be only decent that the reward should come from their own pockets and not at the expense of a helpless State like Austria? If you stress the rights of Italy and reward to Italy, is that consistent with what is proposed about Trieste and the two parts of Italy which are to go to France? If we are to reward Italy for working her passage, I suggest that the reward should come from ourselves, the people who decide it, and not at the expense of Austria.
Finally, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with his usual courage, said that the decision of September, 1945, was a perfectly free decision of his own; that; he was not forced to it at all. The only reason he gave was that he thought it desirable, if possible, to establish the principle that there should be no change in Austria's frontiers because there might be other changes still more detrimental. In his speech he referred only to vague rumours, such as Czechoslovakia and

1083
Yugoslavia wanting some of the territory. He gave no indication as to what those rumours were; but in any case, according to his own speech, was it not clear it was a mistaken policy? He himself had to say that it is not clear that there will be even an Eastern Austria. Yet somehow or other we appear to be committed to doing this wrong thing about South Tyrol.
I know your Lordships would prefer, as I do, what came later in the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he said that the Tyrolese will have the right to be heard in the Peace Conference in Paris. That, he said, is much better than what happened at Versailles. I also very much prefer, as I think your Lordships do, the approach made by the Lord Chancellor to this problem in a debate in this House in February last, when he said that the Southern Tyrol was being handed over to Italian administration without prejudice to the peace treaty at all. But under that administration some 50,000 or 70,000 Italians have been steadily pouring into the Southern Tyrol. When this matter comes before the Peace Conference in Paris, whether the position will be better or worse than that at Versailles will depend entirely on how open are the minds of the Great Powers and of ourselves upon this issue. The Austrians were not heard in London. Are they really going to be heard in Paris? I should also mention that relative to the Security Council it was stated in another place that while the Great Powers had agreed at Yalta on the question of the veto, it would be perfectly open for the San Francisco Conference to take a different view. But when they came to San Francisco, the Great Powers made it plain that their minds were not open on that matter. Are the minds of the Great Powers really open on this question of the Southern Tyrol? I hope Italy will be willing to make the surrender which involves rejecting Mussolini and all his works in the Southern Tyrol. I hope that our minds will be open. I hope that, if our minds are not open, the smaller Powers who are interested in upholding the rights of small Powers, irrespective of their weakness, will rise against us and stand for justice in this matter.
This is a small thing in one sense, but it is not really small because it raises a great moral principle. I suggest in this
1084
matter that we ought to support Austria just because she is powerless and just because we in Britain have practically no material interest in this matter whatever. If we support her we could not be accused of serving any material interest and we should gain enormously in moral influence throughout the world. If we do not, where do we stand? Let me illustrate this point by a remark which was made to me when I went recently to a very important neutral countrySweden—just at the time when this discussion was going on about Trieste and the Southern Tyrol. They said to me, "It is so striking to us that you in Britain make no trouble about the ethnic principle in Southern Tyrol, but you fight like cats for the ethnic principle in Trieste. It seems to us that you do not worry about the ethnic principle in the Southern Tyrol because it is of no importance to you materially, but you fight for the ethnic principle to keep Yugoslavia and Russia away from the Adriatic, because you fear their power in the Adriatic." That is how it looks to perfectly impartial, neutral and friendly people.
Diplomacy is a practical art. You cannot always get what you want. You very often have to choose. It is very much like the art of punting. In the art of punting, as you all know, you sometimes get into a problem, when your pole sticks in the mud, as to whether you should stick to the punt or stick to the pole. My advice is to stick to the punt. So in diplomacy, particularly after a war in which we have fought together as allies, we sometimes find ourselves faced with a choice. We all want to stick both to principles and to friends, but sometimes we cannot do both. In such a case the right choice is to stick to your principles, even if you depart from your friends, because we know that friends may become enemies; friends may change, but principles do not change. If one does not stick to principles, sooner or later one finds oneself in the muddy water of thieves' bargains and power politics, and that is, I fear, where we are getting in this matter to-day.
I have already taken too long, yet I must, if your Lordships will allow me, say a few words upon this second topic of the refugees and displaced persons. One of the most disastrous effects of this war has been the spreading all over Europe

1085
of people uprooted from their homes, now living in strange countries, in camps, and under all sorts of abnormal conditions. For some of them, fortunately, no question arises except the practical one of getting home again. Many millions of them have reached home again, but for some of them post-war changes in the world, territorial changes and political changes make return impossible or difficult. Of course there is one large group of the Germans, our former enemies. I say nothing about them, but a very large problem arises in connexion with them. There are others who are in a position of doubt as to whether they can return home because of political changes affecting their former homes.
I do not know how big that trouble is, but in a Report of the Sub-Committee on Refugee and Displaced Persons made recently to the United Nations Organization the chairman of that committee speaks of being concerned with something like 3,000,000 people. I have no knowledge myself of the figure as he conceived it—it may be as high—but we do know that according to the U.N.R.R.A. report there were in May last over 800,000 such people in the British, French and American zones in Germany. About 450,000 of them were Poles, 200,000 Balts from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania., and 25,000 Yugoslavs. We know that outside the zones there are many others. There are Balts from the former Baltic States, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, in Sweden and Austria; there are Yugoslavs in Italy and Austria, and there are Poles in Britain, Italy and Austria. Finally, there are the Spanish Republicans in France and elsewhere.
The size of the problem is not, perhaps, important, but it is very important to realize the character of the problem. You can realize that best if you study, as I have studied in the last two or three days, the reports of the very interesting Sub-Committee of the United Nations Organization which dealt with this matter. That sub-committee has been closely divided, by majorities of eight to seven and ten to six, on the clear-cut issue between the countries of origin of the refugees, all of whom were demanding to get the refugees back whether they really wanted to go back or not, and the other people who wanted the principle of asylum adopted for genuine political refugees. That report recommended the establishment
1086
of an international refugee organization to deal with the problem; it has been accepted in substance by the Economic and Social Council, and it will come before the Assembly in September.
The report has laid down the principle, which ought to be widely known, that refugees or displaced persons who have finally and definitely, in complete freedom, after receiving full knowledge of the facts, including adequate information from the Government and country of their origin, expressed valid objections to returning to their country of origin, shall not be compelled to return. With that goes a very sensible assertion that the main object of the new organization should be to bring about the early return of as many people as possible to their own country, to the exclusion of war criminals, quislings and traitors. As your Lordships realize, that report raises the difficult questions: Who is to decide what are valid objections to return? Who is to decide who are war criminals, quislings, or traitors? I suggest that somehow we want to get it established that this is to be determined by an international semi-judicial body and not by the Government of the country which claimed these citizens for itself. These people now torn away from their homes, ought to become wards of the United Nations Organization which asserts a principle of asylum for political refugees, while not doing anything to defend the people who have committed real crimes against humanity. It is no longer, I suggest, a crime against humanity to have fought upon the losing side in any part of Europe.
This problem is urgent and one aspect of it is very urgent. It may arise within the next few weeks if we get a Peace Treaty with Italy, because there are many Yugoslavs in Italy. They arrived there in many ways. Some of them fought against the Germans, and afterwards with the Germans, some of them were supporters of the Royalists, and some were supporters of Mihaelovitch. They are encamped today in Italy. There are many others outside Italy, but it is with regard to Italy which is passing out into independence that the problem arises. I have had a letter from the friends of some of these refugees. They call themselves the Yugoslavs National Committee in this country and their leader, I believe, was formerly a Prime Minister of Yugoslavia.

1087
The letter expresses the fear that these refugees may be handed over by the Italian Government to the Yugoslav Government without any assurance as to how they may be treated. It puts the point that these refugees did not go to Italy to place themselves under the Italian Government but to place themselves under the protection of the Allied troops in Italy. They came at the time of our occupation. Of course there is a different view about these refugees expressed by the Yugoslav Government in that report to the sub-committee. They say that in the majority of camps in Germany, Austria and Italy, the Yugoslav war criminals, quislings and traitors are not treated as such but as political émigrés. I think many of the statements were shown to be mistaken, but I accept the sincerity of the Yugoslav Government belief that some of these refugees are dangers. But they wish to give an amnesty to a great mass of them and they want to get them back to rebuild their country; what they fear is that they will not get them back.
What we have somehow to do, whilst we have still power in regard to Italy and elsewhere, is to assert the principle of amnesty as widely as possible, and the principle of asylum from arbitrary power. If any of the Governments of the countries from which these refugees come want them back for life, brotherhood, and welcome, they should go back. For the rest, the question of whether they go back for punishment, or whether they make new lives in exile because they cannot go back, must be determined not by the Government of the country of origin, not by the Government of Italy or of whatever country in which they happen to be, but by some international organization.
The last stages of the Nuremburg trial are now coming. When the leading miscreants have gone to their just punishment, whatever that may he, could we not then make an end of killing for the crime, not of having made war, but of being on the wrong side? I do not want to say that no one has to be punished who has committed ghastly crimes against humanity, but surely we want, as soon as we can now the formal war is over, to put an end to the killing. We want amnesty for the mass, and asylums for those who cannot have an amnesty. I
1088
have spoken almost wholly of Yugoslavs, and I only want to mention before I sit down that, of course, they are not the only people concerned. There are all the Poles. I think we should give every possible encouragement to the Polish Government to promise terms of amnesty which will enable these fine Poles to go back to their own country so soon as they are certain it is Poland for the Poles and not for anyone else. The Balts are a rather more difficult problem because it is a question of their going back under Soviet rule, and we cannot be quite certain what that rule would mean to them.
Then there are the Spanish refugees, and I only want to mention them in order to make it clear that I have not left them out. I would only say about the Spanish refugees—there are 200,000 of them, at least—that we do not help them by making faces at Franco. On the other hand, it would be a tragedy if they went back to Spain only at the cost of an equally great or even a greater number of people on the other side of the Spanish controversy being driven into exile. However, that is a big question and I do not intend to elaborate on it. I only want to make it clear that I have not forgotten that matter, and I hope your Lordships may at some time have a full discussion on this Spanish problem. I have particularly mentioned the Yugoslavs, because it seems to me that they are the responsibility of the nations which occupied Italy, and we are one of those nations. Theirs is an urgent test case. It is for us to safeguard them for justice. It is for us to press on with the international refugee organization. It is for us to make certain that when we leave Italy we either remove those people to safety for fair judgment or make quite certain that they get fair judgment where they are.
My two main points relate to the South Tyrol and the Yugoslavs in Italy. As I have said, each of them raises a large principle. The South Tyrol raises the principle of whether people shall be free in accordance with the Atlantic Charter to determine the kind of Government under which they will live. That is a principle in which we in Britain believe, even to the extent of acting upon it. As your Lordships know, we are acting upon it. We have acted upon it in the independent Empire, and we are acting on it at this moment in India. Why cannot we act upon it in Austria? The refugees

1089
and displaced persons are in need of asylum from arbitrary powers, and that is one of the strongest of British traditions. We cannot carry that out merely by giving asylum here, but we can by playing our part in the international organization establish the principle that refugees and displaced persons are the wards of the United Nations. If we can get the United Nations to deal with this great human problem of the refugees, and make them useful and happy citizens either in their own countries or in other countries, then the mere fact that the United Nations does that work for humanity will, I believe, be a stepping stone to the effective working of the United Nations Organization. There is nothing which welds people together so much as doing a good job together, and here is one that has to be done. I believe that on the decisions that are taken about the South Tyrol and about the refugees and displaced persons, particularly those in Italy, will depend whether the Paris Conference can, amongst other things, be regarded as a turning away from force to justice, from war to peace, from death to life.
6.5 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we have had a very interesting discussion, and I think a very useful one, because a frank and temperate discussion of these essential problems in my view can do no harm and must almost always do good. In your Lordships' House we are perhaps better placed to have a discussion of that kind than in another place or out on the hustings. The situation in regard to Europe and the world at large has not fundamentally altered since this matter was last discussed in your Lordships' House. At that time I remarked that the crux of the matter was really our relationship with Russia. That was borne out by the speeches that were made on that occasion, and it has been borne out again by the speeches which have been made this afternoon. I prophesied then that our relationship with Russia would remain for a substantial time the crux of foreign politics. That is a prophecy which anybody could make, and I think the odds are a hundred to one that it will come true.
Unfortunately the Foreign Minister has not been able to emulate the Minister of Food by adding the sweet ration as part
1090
of the general food rations, because the cordiality between the Governments has become less; and it seems to me, that the general attitude of the average citizens of this country towards Russia has become much more marked by suspicion. I think that is an unfortunate but in the circumstances perhaps an inevitable thing. The tremendous feeling of admiration and affection which undoubtedly developed in this country as a result of the heroic and successful contribution which the Russians made to the defeat the Nazis will inevitably as time goes by tend to fade away; indeed, it is already doing so. At that time, the Russians built up an enormous credit in the bank of our affections, but for the last twelve months they have drawn on it very heavily and although I think there is still a substantial balance, if there are not rather heavier payings-in over the next month, or at any rate considerably lighter drawings-out, I am afraid that by the end of a year or so the account will be in debit.
That seems the trend of opinion in our own country. I wish it were possible to discover what the opinion of the average Russian citizen is towards this country and towards America. If one may judge by the excerpts in the newspapers and by the Russian broadcasts the Russian Government are attempting to carry through what the psychologists call a "transference" towards this country of the hatred which they built up so success-fully against the Nazi power. If they succeed in that it will obviously be a disaster both for their country and for ours. I sometimes wonder whether these extracts in the Press, quoted from Prauda, the Russian radio and from other sources, are not deliberately picked out bad bits, and whether if one could only get a larger view it would be not so bad. But, even making allowances for that, it must be clear that a great deal of mud-slinging against this country and her Allies is going on in Russia, and unfortunately, as is always the case, the mud is slung back from this side. Then dispute arises as to who started it, and it grows worse and worse.
Owing to the complete censorship which exists it is impossible for us to get over to the mass of the Russian people our policy, what we stand for and what we are trying to do. Being something of a student of history, I should be the last

1091
to suggest that the policy of this country is anything like one hundred per cent. perfect, and no doubt if I were looking at it through impartial Russian eyes (if there are such eyes) I should find a great deal in it which seemed to me to be bad and a good deal in it which seemed to me to be good. The difficulty is that there is no sort of assurance that either the good or the bad in it really gets over to the Russian people so that they can study it for themselves. As a great admirer of the Russians and of what they have done, I have always grieved that they have felt it necessary even to this day to continue what was undoubtedly one of the worst features of the Tsarist regime, namely, this complete censorship. During the time when the Revolution was struggling for its life—and that struggle undoubtedly went on well into the thirties … a great deal could be said for some restriction of civil liberty.
But now that the revolution has certainly made good, now that Russia has emerged victoriously from a contest with the greatest military Power in the world and now that her prestige is as high as it could be, it seems to me that there is no earthly reason why her great leaders—and they are obviously men of outstanding ability—should not be prepared to trust their own people with a much greater degree of information as to what is said and thought in countries other than their own. The more satisfied they are with their own policy and the more satisfied they are that their own views are right, surely the more confidence they should have in allowing their own people to know both the pros and the cons. Within the last few weeks attacks have been launched on perfectly innocent writers in this country—real friends of Russia and of the Russian Revolution—for putting forward points of view which must appear to any impartial person really to be directed in the interests of Russia herself. These people have been attacked in a way which suggests that the Russian leaders are more interested in attacking their friends in this country than they are in criticizing their frank and open opponents. I sometimes wonder whether they work on translations which are so faulty that they do not really understand what is being said by these writers and speakers when they are putting forward these views.
1092
It seems that suspicion is unfortunately inevitable in foreign politics. Every nation is suspicious of its neighbours, no nation is ever willing to trust any other nation up to the hilt, and the situation is obviously always at its worst immediately after a great war. The history of diplomacy suggests that there is a good deal of reason behind these sort of suspicions. Long ago it was said that an Ambassador was one who was sent to lie abroad for his country. Diplomacy has not altered a great deal since the time of Queen Elizabeth, but I think this is a matter which is even more deeply rooted than in the history of diplomacy; it goes right back to the time of primordial man, when the hand of every man was raised against his neighbour and when tribe struggled with tribe, so that instinctively a man's hand went to his weapon and he put himself into a posture of defence. Unfortunately diplomatic history over the last months is not such as to remove these suspicions. I am one of those people who think that suspicion is more important than isolationism, although I agree up to a point with what was said by the noble Viscount in opening this debate.
It seems to me it is always a mistake to think that any one element in these matters is completely dominant. Policy is like a piece of cloth; its texture is made up of all sorts of strands. There can be no doubt that isolationism is a strand, but I think the strand of suspicion is a fuller coloured one. Even in this country, where we have been free of invasion and where we have very seldom really struggled for our lives, we are apt to be very suspicious of our neighbours. If your Lordships will excuse me for reminding you of what was said on the last occasion, Russia is a much invaded country, and Russian foreign politics, as a result, have always been marked by an intense suspiciousness. I do not know that that suspiciousness is really very much more marked now than it has been on a number of occasions in the past. Over the last months we have had event after event which, looked at through the eyes of suspicion, can only loom darkly and threateningly to the Russians. I think the whole thing went wrong with the atom bomb and the secrecy which was maintained over it. A friend of mine who was in Russia throughout that period said that the change in feeling in Moscow was very obvious to anybody.

1093
Nothing has been done to right that situation. We have had the Bikini experiments which, looked at through Russian eyes, must appear to be a demonstration of force—"This is what will happen to you if you do not behave yourselves"—and we have had that most unfortunate episode in Congress, when, in order to persuade Congressmen to vote in favour of the loan to this country, a number of speeches were made saving in effect, "You have got to pay these Britishers this sum of money if you want to have their help when it comes to the fight against Russia." How long do your Lordships think it will take to erase that sort of thing from the minds of the Russian people? I am afraid it will take a very long time. Until we can find some method of eradicating those suspicions, I cannot think that we are really going to get a stable and peaceful situation in which we can build up civilization in Europe and in the world. Unfortunately we have got into power politics again, even more emphatically. We have got systems, almost planetary systems, with satellite Powers revolving round the Great Powers, and while in the world of physical reality it is not possible for Uranus to extract one of Neptune's planets and add it to her group of satellites, unfortunately in the world of foreign politics it is not only possible but Great Powers are continuously attempting to do so; and when they are not trying to do so, everybody suspects that they are, which is almost as bad.
When, in order to save millions of people in Germany from starvation, a perfectly simple pulling down of economic ramparts is proposed and agreed to in principle by the American and the British Governments, it is immediately assumed in Russia that this is an attempt to build up Western Germany against Russia. Unfortunately in politics, and particularly in foreign politics, that assumption, however slightly based, in the twinkling of an eye can become a devilish reality, and before we know where we are this business of building up on one side or the other will actually have taken place. Indeed, it was suggested in your Lordships' House this afternoon that it is actually taking place at this very time. If that is so, then weapons are possibly being built up for future wars.
1094
Throughout this period the Russians have been in a minority in the United Nations Organization on every topic which has been brought up. It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Lindsay that this is due to the fact that they have taken such an unreasonable view of all the matters which have been brought up, but actually what appears to them to be a line-up started at the beginning before it could have been evident to anybody that they were taking an unreasonable view about these matters. People went to these meetings on an ideological basis, unfortunately not to discuss these matters in the way my noble friend suggested they should be discussed, purely as matters of practical politics to be solved as such, but with an ideological background upon which trey were determined to act. In those circumstances it appears to the Russians that there is in fact a line-up among all the other Powers against them, and in those circumstances they obviously say, "We have one weapon in regard to this and that is the veto." How, in these circumstances, can you possibly expect them to surrender the veto? They obviously will not do so, and the more convinced they are that there is a line-up the more frequently will this piece of machinery (which was only intended to be used in the last resort) be used. Those who hope by some effort of sweet reasonableness to persuade the Russians to abandon the veto are obviously expecting the impossible.
It seems to me that if the United Nations Organization is to be a success it must be radically altered in such a way as to persuade the Russians that they are not going to be in a minority on every occasion. On the Council the strength of the Great Powers is recognized by the fact that they are given permanent places. In the Assembly they have no more power than anybody else—each votes as one. That, surely, is a very unreal situation. It means that bargaining is bound to go on. It may not be open bargaining, but in all understandings of a practical character arrived at, the Russians will continually find themselves in a minority. Unless their real power in the world can be recognized, and the real power of the other great States recognized by giving them a voting power which is in some way based on their importance in the world, the United Nations Organization will not be a success.

1095
I have been interested to see that in America, at the Conference held in New Hampshire some months ago, a movement has already started among a group of enlightened and knowledgeable Americans for an alteration in the Charter of the United Nations Organization on these lines. It is obviously a very difficult thing to alter a Charter of this kind, and even if it were so altered it certainly would not give the Russians all that they want. But I think it would be a move in a reasonable direction, and it would show that we were prepared to recognize the real position which Russia holds in the world and in the organization of the United Nations.
I have spoken for some time, but before I close I would like to add a word to what has been said about the Southern Tyrol. The matter has been much debated and the point has been well put to your Lordships this afternoon. I mention it because it seems to me that here we have a real problem which is, so to speak, the acid test of the way in which the whole question of settling Europe is going to be carried out. Is it to be carried bout on the basis of the old Europe, when people were handed over from one Princeling to another like so many cattle, in accordance with economic and financial considerations, or is it to be handled in the way that we should like to regard as that of the new Europe, on a basis of morality and reason, because as has been emphasized this afternoon this is essentially a question of morality. I thought that the Foreign Secretary did less than justice to that side of it in his speech in another place last week.
As one of the greatest of trade union leaders he knows that the trade union movement in this country has been built up on a moral basis, and that over long periods its material resources were marked only by their absence. But for the fact that it had the moral vitality to struggle forward it could not have reached the great position which it occupies to-day in the life of this country. I do not for a moment suggest to your Lordships' House that these great questions can be decided purely on the question of morality or ethics. The interests of nations are involved, and up to a point those interests are bound to be material and economic in character. But if you allow the moral side of these questions to be divorced from
1096
the other side, and if you pursue them entirely on the basis of economics and material matters, then you are driving your ship towards the breakers of destruction. It is impossible to argue this case on the basis of continued Italian domination in the Southern Tyrol and to found any real moral arguments on the side of Italy at all.
I studied the debate in another place very carefully indeed. The arguments which were adduced were entirely arguments of prestige, strategy and economics, and even descended so low as to suggest that because certain members of the S.S. who had been responsible for atrocities had been recruited from the Tyrol, therefore their fellows in the Tyrolean valleys should be punished by their being handed back to Italy. That was the sort of argument which had to be adduced, and I was very sorry to notice that my honorable friend Mr. Macmillan lent himself to that argument. If it be true that these Tyroleans did behave in that way, then those of your Lordships who have stayed with them in their valleys and know their open and honest disposition, must feel that this is some measure of the persecution which they have endured throughout these years during which they have been under Italian domination.
If these decent, honest men have, in fact, behaved in this way, then it just shows how much the iron has entered into their souls and how deep the desire for revenge has been. It shows that a situation has been created in which feelings are so deep and passions so high that these valleys and their gallant people cannot be safely handed back to Italy, however honest and sincere the Italian Government may be in the promises which they have made that a new leaf will be turned, and that these people will be given some measure of self-government and self-control. It will be impossible, in practice, for those promises to be carried out.
The people of the Tyrol are, in effect, a little nation on their own. I am not advocating the building up of Austria for a moment: I am looking at this from the point of view of the Tyroleans themselves. They are people whose history goes right back to the very earliest times of modern European civilization. They have contributed to literature the work of the great lyric poet Walter von der Vogelwiede, and

1097
of their company was Andreas Hofer, one of the great men among fighters for liberty. As I say, they are a little nation almost of themselves. The old Austrian Empire was a very loose-knit sort of affair. It was not a modern unitary State at all. Outlying portions of it had a great measure of autonomy, and among those the Tyroleans stood out. They had this great history, this culture, this economic alignment with the other part of Austria. They feel passionately that they should be re-united with their fellows to the north of the Brenner Pass. I hope that they will be heard at the Peace Conference. I hope that due weight will be attached to their arguments and to the depth of their feeling because if they are handed back to Italy it will inevitably result in the kindling of a flame which may quite easily touch off the powder train of war, or else may lead to the death and final extinction of a gallant and attractive people.
6.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF DARNLEY: My Lords, I assure you that I desire to make only a very brief intervention in your debate to-day. My purpose is to advance a plea that the terms of the Peace Treaty that are about to be entered into will not be such that they will be calculated to invite or provoke revenge in the future. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for speaking again so soon after proposing a Motion on July 10, but perhaps I shall have no other chance. I venture to assert again that the axiom which ought to be applied to the terms of settlement is to put yourself and your own country in the position of the nation that has to accept the terms, and see whether it would have a pacific effect on you or not. Surely, that is another way of declaring for the observance of the second great law of Christianity. I would like to congratulate, if I may, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, on the two proposals which he outlined early in his speech—to leave Spain alone and to band the Tyrol over to Austria. It seems to me that those two proposals are in keeping with this law.
Objections made to my proposals on July 10 were of the general and usual type. They were to the effect that such a process as I suggested was far too good for a bad enemy, and that anyway what I said was only a lot of talk—or, as Viscount Cecil called it, "verbiage." I
1098
always regret very much that I cannot woo the noble Viscount some to my way of thinking. But I have not yet lost hope of doing so. I trust that he does not mind my saying that. He quoted the policy of the Tsar Alexander of Russia, who made a declaration of a desire for Christian behaviour between nations at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The Tsar met with failure, but it seems to me that it was rather like the failure which is sometimes cited in the case of a man who dies under the hands of a Christian Scientist. People forget the millions of others who have died under the hands of ordinary doctors. Against that failure of the Tsar of Russia, I can quote a thousand failures which are exemplified in the wars which have taken place in the last 2,000 years, because humanity has believed in other forms of declaration: that is to say, that peace could be achieved by force, and has, therefore, formed every conceivable permutation and combination of units of force in the world to create it. And they have always failed to produce peace. This failure is surely demonstrated now in the foul mess and muddle that their cumulative efforts have made of the world to-day.
I could also respectfully draw your Lordships' attention to thousands of meetings in the Parliaments of the world, held within the last 2,000 years, for exactly the same purpose as this meeting tonight—that is to say, to condemn the last aggressor, to disclaim general reponsibility, and to form new combinations of up-to-date force to keep him and his imitators in subjection for the future. The failure of these meetings is also surely demonstrated in the world's face to-day. But now there cannot be any more failures, for there is another factor in human existence. For the first 1913 years of the Christian era, War was more of a segregated profession, which did not, to a very large extent, interfere with human existence as a whole. Now, because the scientists' brains have largely been diverted to war-making, it is a very different story.
I see it proclaimed in the Press that 200 atomic bombs would be sufficient to destroy this country. That is stated on very good authority. I see, too, that no less an authority than Sir John Anderson tells us that "chemical and biological weapons as deadly as the atomic bomb, and perhaps more insidious in their effects,

1099
have been developed." And who will say now that any forceful supervision is going to prevent the manufacture in some mountain fastness of Europe, or elsewhere, of weapons of these two kinds, which can be despatched via long-distance rocket, or whatever the means will be at the time of disseminating these latest horrors of mankind, to destroy not only this country, but many others in Europe or elsewhere, and with them the civilization of which they are part and parcel, the morale, the faith and the hope of those of the world's ordinary citizens who may be left alive? A fear such as this, of destroying the gifts of creation on such a scale, I believe to be very wholesome. I am not in the least ashamed of that.
I assert again that the advance of science, allied to the increased bitterness in the human heart, has brought the international problem to a new crisis where only a new system of pacification and neighbourly understanding can avert complete disaster. No combination of forces or supervision can stop the world destroying itself if it so wishes, and if provocative clauses are made now in the peace treaties, some unimaginable form of regenerator with unimaginable weapons will light the final fuse of that grand explosion. I suggest that you cannot get peace by nibbling bits off aggressors, by denouncing them ad libitum, by executing their leaders or by putting restrictive clauses on the activities of their new Governments, whether they deserve them or not. If it is peace you want, these actions will produce martyrs' crowns and revenges of a more horrible nature at some distant date. Have not nations been denouncing each other, judging and executing defeated leaders, and cutting bits from each other's countries, since history began? No doubt many of them deserved it richly but it has not brought peace.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, talked about bringing home the aggressive character of war. How are you to bring that home to anybody? Ask all the Governments who have ever been engaged in a war how many aggressive wars they have entered into. The answer would be very few—not enough to cover a penny stamp. It is a familiar counter to the kind of argument that I bring forward from time to time, that not sufficient denunciations and accusations have
1100
been made against the late enemy. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, brought that up on July 10, and I propose to send him by post a list of the various condemnations of the Germans that I have made, in case he may feel inclined to take that somewhat unwarranted line again.
All of us who are not feeble-minded know and realize what the Germans have done, and all condemn the violence and the exterminative cruelty shown by them and other warring nations, though we do not fill valuable hours and scarce paper with overdoses of our findings. What we do not condemn equally is the system of which these cruel puppets are the progeny—a system of assumed superiority, of competitive selfishness and force, of punishments, restrictions and rape of land which have disfigured so many of the peace treaties of the past. They are the real villains of the piece. It is only by a repeal of this system that peace can be obtained. As I said, practicably I thought, in the middle of my "verbiage" of July 10, a beginning can be made with the peace treaties now about to be signed which should be "void of punitive terms, either showing or inviting revenge." Surely that is a practical proposition. Such an action would have a very far-reaching effect of pacification and regeneration on the damaged and reactionary human fabric of to-day, and by degrees from such a start the minds of the great nations could approach a sympathetic grouping for world maintenance. Then the principle of the executioner, the gaoler and the detective could revert to the lessening nucleus of the mentally afflicted incapables, to whom alone crime is mentally inexplicable. With all the seriousness at my command, I beg of you to take what may be a last chance of applying proved psychological truth towards the establishment of peace in the world, by propounding and exemplifying a principle from which the settlement of subsequent detail must of necessity take a correct course as it arises. Until such a principle is established through the medium of correctly argued and reasoned "verbiage," the much-vaunted "practical propositions" will tend to be faultily adjusted, and will continue to help civilization to a speedy demise.
I will add only one word, in reply to the query of the noble Viscount, Lord

1101
Cranborne, on the Russian attitude. I submit to him that the Russian attitude is isolationist. That attitude is due to sufferings which have been endured in two wars, as wed as in previous history—as the noble Lord, Lord Charley, suggested. It is also due to a determination not to go through it again. That is proved by the formation and extension of defensive zones along the frontiers, with attempts to extend them into neighbours' countries, with much forceful propaganda behind it all. All obstructions by Russia to recent settlements are founded on fears for her own future, possibly aggravated by the atomic rehearsals going on in the Pacific. I suggest that the only cure for this is to start a new international process on the lines that I have suggested, which will gradually infilter into the concrete-surrounded hearts, not only of Russia but of all other nations as well.
6.46 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I hope that at this hour of the night I shall have your sympathy, and that I shall not seem discourteous if I deal rather lightly with some of the very important matters that have been raised in the course of this debate. The matters we have been discussing are of such far-reaching importance, and the area of those topics is so great, that it is not at all surprising that the debate has taken a considerable time. I do not doubt that a debate conducted in this way, with cogent reasoning by people many of whom have had great experience of the subject matters about which they are speaking, and others who have obviously given great thought to those matters, cannot fail to be useful to His Majesty's Government in the difficult days which lie ahead. I am very sorry that I have not been able to have what I generally have when we debate foreign affairs, a discussion with the Foreign Secretary. For reasons which your Lordships know, that has been impossible; but if ever there was a case of a man who has been working too hard it is that of the Foreign Secretary. As we all know, he possesses immense courage, and he was determined to go on when he ought to have eased up. I only hope that he will prove a good and obedient patient—but I have my doubts.
I will deal at once with one topic which was raised during the debate. It is a
1102
rather more familiar one to me than some of the others. It is the question of the Nuremburg trials, and the trials of German prisoners generally. Almost the first thing I had to do when I became Lord Chancellor was to try to settle the treaty under which the Nuremburg Court was constituted. Much work had been done on it but much still remained to be done, and I confess at once that there was no topic to which I mere readily turned my hand and my brain than that of trying to get the treaty effective. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has said. I believe the fact that for the first time we have laid it down plainly that to wage an aggressive war is a crime, is itself a very important step in international law and international relations. We arranged that treaty. We persuaded our Russian friends to agree with us. At first they saw all sorts of difficulties, but we obtained their agreement. Having been out to Nuremburg recently, and having seen the way in which the trial is going, I should like now, before we know the result, and perhaps because we do not know the result, to express my sense of public gratitude to the Judges and to the counsel for the way in which the case has been conducted, in absolute accordance with the very best ideals and traditions of British justice. My Lords, I have no doubt that the course and the conduct of that trial has made a deep impression upon those representatives of foreign nations who have been privileged either to hear it or, still more, to take some part in it. It is a fact that it has taken a very long time. But the subject-matter which is being investigated extended over a long time, and the number of people being tried are many. At any rate, we shall all be able to say that no man who has been tried has not had a full and fair opportunity of putting forward on his own behalf whatever relevant circumstances he wanted to allege.
The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, referred to some other trials. I will confess to him, if it is any consolation to him, that I myself have been rather uneasy about some of the decisions I have read in the newspapers. I think in some senses it is a pity that when these military tribunals give their judgment, they do not give their reasons for the judgment. In the result, I am quite satisfied that, not infrequently, their decisions are entirely misrepresented. I agree with him

1103
that greater publicity would be all to the good. The more the public know about the facts the better it is. When he said that superior orders—I think he did use the phrase—made no difference, he was not using quite an accurate expression, if indeed that is the phrase he used. Superior orders may make a great difference to the degree of guilt or to the appropriateness of the punishment. The true proposition is that superior orders afford no excuse. That is the sound principle, and that is the principle to which I hope we shall adhere.
I come now to consider some of the other topics. Of course it is true, as the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, said, that the fundamental question to-day and in the future is going to be our relationship with Russia. He seemed to meet in advance some criticism of those things being said. I think there is no ground whatever for criticizing, not only what the noble Viscount said, but also what other noble Lords have said. To say the contrary would merely be to bury one's head in the sand. But I am bound to say that, in spite of all the difficulties—which are immense—I do not despair. Why should we despair? After all, the Paris Conference which opened to-day is the result of agreement, and, although we have to go very slowly, taking a precarious foothold, from which we hope to go on to something else, I do point out to your Lordships that a policy which pre-supposes that we have got to have a policy without Russia, leaving Russia on one side, is really almost a counsel of despair. I am most reluctant to see Europe divided into an East and a West permanently. I realize for the time being that you may have to make arrangements in the West, but those arrangements should always be arrangements into which Russia can come.
It is not for me to diagnose the causes of our troubles. It may be isolationism, although I thought the noble Lord, if I may say so, was guilty rather of defining the word" isolationism" in whatever way he liked, like Humpty-Dumpty, I think it was. It may be suspicion. But whatever it is, it is pretty effective. I remember Mr. Molotov once saying that Russia's foreign policy was based on the interests of the people of the Soviet Union, and on those interests alone. Of course, it is true that all foreign policy
1104
is based on the interests of the people. But that does not mean that we interpret foreign policy in what I may call a "beggar-my-neighbour" sense, that we think we can pursue our own interests while completely disregarding the interests of other countries; that we can pursue a mere selfish policy. Of course, that is not so, and I do hope that, as Russia gets to know us better, some of the difficulties which confront us to-day may be solved. I agree with the noble Viscount that the whole organization of the United Nations is in difficulties. We have to see that that organization which is the hope of the world can, and must, survive. But it is difficult.
On one occasion, in the early stages of a debate in your Lordships' House, I tried to pretend that I was not very disappointed because of the doctrine of the veto. Of course, like everybody else, I will say quite frankly what none of you ever doubted, that I dislike the veto intensely. But the veto was the price of getting Russia in. It was Russia in with the veto or Russia out altogether. And so we had the veto, and I must say that the veto has been a thoroughly overworked piece of the institution. Therefore I say, whatever I am going to say now about German policy from the western point of view, it must not be thought that His Majesty's Government, or the Foreign Secretary, intend to be downcast by all the difficulties of to-day, or intend to give up trying to get a happy co-operation between the East and the West.
I now come to the policy which we have to take with regard to Germany in special relationship to the settlement of the western boundaries. Your Lordships will remember that in August, 1945, it was agreed that the Council of Foreign Ministers should prepare a peace settlement for Germany, to be accepted by a German Government, when such a Government is eventually established. When that will be and when the peace treaty will take shape I do not know. It is obvious, from the discussions we had about it in Paris recently, that the divergences of view are very considerable, and there is no point in concealing that fact. On the other hand, our point of view was clearly expressed by Mr. Bevin in Paris on July 10. Our point of view

1105
is this: We approach the problem both from the long-term and short-term point of view, and on the solution of our short-term policy the success of the long-term policy must largely depend. On the short-term policy we base ourselves on the Potsdam Agreement, and contend that during the period of occupation Germany shall be treated as a single economic unit. We regard this provision as fundamental to all economic and all reparation questions. Common policies were also to be established with regard to an import and export programme for Germany as a whole. Further, the Allied controls on the German economy were to ensure the equitable distribution of all essential commodities between the various zones, so as to produce a balanced economy throughout the whole of Germany.
At the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that if it was impossible to secure agreement on the treatment of Germany as an economic whole it would be necessary to re-organize the British zone so as to reduce the burden on the British taxpayer, but that we should wish to co-operate with any other zone on a basis of reciprocity. Mr. Byrnes, for his part, made an offer to the effect that the American zone would co-operate with any other zone that was willing to do so in such a way as to form an economic unity with any other zone so co-operating. That offer was repeated by General McNarney, the American Commander-in-Chief in Germany, at a meeting of the Allied Control Council in Berlin on July 20, and in making this offer the American representatives made it clear that their object was to abolish the division of Germany into airtight compartments and to expedite the treatment of Germany as an economic unit.
The Foreign Secretary, at the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, said that the American offer would be urgently studied by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. After full consideration, His Majesty's Government have decided to accept the American offer in principle so far as the British zone is concerned. The British authorities in Germany have been given authority to discuss details with the American authorities in order to carry this decision into effect. The arrangement to be made would include the establishment of suitable joint
1106
administrations for such matters as agriculture, trade, industry, and finance. In making this announcement I desire to stress that it is now, and always has been, the policy of His Majesty's Government that Germany should, during the period of occupation, be treated as a single economic unit in accordance with the Potsdam decisions. So far from regarding the action I have just announced as being a step towards the division of Germany into two, it is their firm resolve to continue to work towards the realization of the agreement to treat Germany as an economic whole, and it is the hope of His Majesty's Government that the Governments of the other two Occupying Powers will also join in the inter-zonal economic system which is now to be established between the British and American zones, and so help to bring about in full the treatment of Germany as an economic unit.
The question of Western Germany, and this includes the future control of the Ruhr industries as well as the settlement of the western frontiers, cannot be treated in isolation. After all, the future of Western Germany is only part of the German problem and the determination of the western frontiers cannot be reached in advance of the settlement of the overall problem. We must know what the structure of the new Germany is to be, not only in the west, but also in the east. Any settlement reached must be a complete one. So far as the long-term policy is concerned all the Allies are agreed that the complete disarmament and denazification of Germany is essential, and, even more important, that in our settlement we must see to it that future German aggression is made impossible. In this connexion, His Majesty's Government particularly welcomed the United States Draft Treaty for German Disarmament. This Treaty, if accepted by all the Allies, would go very far indeed to guarantee European security from German aggression.
Now I must say a word or two about the Ruhr and the western frontiers. There are clearly two points of view on this. The French Government believe, and this belief was re-affirmed at Paris, that only the political separation of the Ruhr will provide security against German aggression. The Russians at Paris were, however, of a different opinion. M. Molotov spoke in favour of a unified Germany.

1107
We are fully conscious that the Ruhr is a potential arsenal for war. We fully sympathize with France and those countries of Europe who have been victims of Nazi aggression in their demand for security. We remain no less insistent than the French that this arsenal shall not again be used for war. But the resources of the Ruhr, if kept under proper control, can also play a great part in the reconstruction of Europe and their use in this way may well be a better safeguard. The exact means of controlling these resources is a complicated matter requiring long and careful study. We are not prepared, as yet, to make any definite statement. The only point on which we have expressed a firm opinion is that this problem cannot be treated in isolation.
The future Constitution of Germany also requires careful consideration and study, in conjunction with the other Powers concerned. We have not come to any firm conclusion, but generally favour reducing substantially the powers of the central authority as compared with the pre-war system. The recent establishment of a new province comprising the Ruhr area and most of the North Rhine and Westphalia provinces was an administrative action taken by the British authorities in order to bring the whole Ruhr area into one provincial administration, and create a workable and well-balance provincial unit, with adequate agricultural hinterland for the industrial area. This province would be well suited to take its place as one of a number of local administrations in a decentralized German State. We are, of course, anxious to arrive at a reasonable long-term arrangement for Allied occupation of the territory west of the Rhine such as will take account of French security requirements. This would not mean the permanent detachment of this territory from the rest of Germany. So far as the Saar is concerned, we are ready, at the proper time, and as part of the general settlement of the frontiers of Germany, to support France in her proposal concerning the union of the Saar in the French economic system.
One word more about something that has been mentioned in the course of this debate. In our understanding with France, there have been some outstanding points. French statesmen have thought that until these outstanding points were
1108
disposed of, we could not get into closer and more cordial relationship. His Majesty's Government have said many times that we would welcome an alliance with France. I cannot believe that there could be anyone who could see in an alliance between this country and France any danger to others or threat to the peace of the world. I take care to choose my words, because obviously what I say is a matter of importance. I come now to two other matters with which I want to deal. I want to deal with them very briefly. First, I want to say a word or two about the South. Tyrol. I cannot find what I was going to say, so I shall have to reproduce it as nearly as I can. The matter has been very fully discussed, and I will undertake that the observations—and I may say weighty observations—which your Lordships have made are fully brought to the attention of His Majesty's Government. Your Lordships must, however, remember that foreign policy is not conducted by us alone. It is a problem in these matters to get, so far as one can get, an agreement. It would not be right, on the one hand, that we should be accused by everybody of not being accommodating; on the other hand, I quite agree that it would be wrong for us to give away essential points. This matter was discussed very recently in another place, and I do not think I can usefully add to what was said there. I say again that the whole matter has received and will continue to receive the attention of His Majesty's Government.
I think it was last September, at a meeting of the Foreign Ministers in London, that it was decided that the Austro-Italian frontier should remain unchanged, subject to minor rectifications that might be made in favour of Austria. It was when this particular rectification was suggested that Mr. Molotov wanted to reject it out of hand as not being, whatever else it was, a minor rectification. We suggested that the best method of approach here, and the most hopeful method of approach, was for the Italian people and the Austrian people to get together to see if they could hammer out a possible solution. We still feel that that may be the best method. I would like to say, however, in view of the specific question that has been asked, that we have no objection whatever to the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, that there should be a very

1109
large measure of local autonomy, although, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has said that that really does not amount to very much if you look at past experience. Whatever may be the final solution of that difficult question of the South Tyrol, I should like to recall that the four Powers occupying Austria signed a new Control Agreement for Austria on June 28 last, which included a statement that among the primary tasks of the Allied Commission for Austria one was
"to maintain the independent existence and integrity of the Austrian State and, pending the final definition of its frontiers, to ensure respect for them as they were on December 31, 1937."
His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to this provision of the Agreement and have no reason to doubt that it will be implemented. We are keenly interested in the maintenance of the integrity of Austria, both now and in the future, and feel sympathy for her in the ordeal which she is now undergoing.
With regard to Yugoslavia, I am afraid I am in the same position. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, asked me about the Yugoslav refugees in Italy. So long as His Majesty's Government retain responsibility for these Yugoslavs and other political refugees in Italy, they would not for one moment contemplate repatriating them against their will, except in the case of quislings and war criminals whose surrender had been demanded and against whom prima facie evidence of guilt of a kind satisfactory to His Majesty's Government has been produced. To that, of course, the noble Lord would not object. Obviously he has not raised this question to protect the war criminals or quislings. We should, so long as we are responsible, lose no opportunity of bringing to the notice of the refugees any promises or conditions which had been stipulated by the Governments of their countries of origin which might have the effect of reassuring them and inducing them to return. When we go out and the Italian Government are there, we cannot exercise the same degree of control as when we are there; but your Lordships will remember that the United Nations did pass a resolution stating in quite plain terms that no refugee ought to be obliged to go back against his will at the behest of the power of which he is a national, merely because they demand it. His Majesty's Government
1110
were not seeking in any way to protect quislings or war criminals and continued to lend what influence they could to protect the refugees from being sent back against their will to the country of their origin merely because they are refugees.
In a few moments I have endeavoured to deal with a vast canvas. I cannot say more than this. This discussion, I think, has been a most useful and a most valuable one. I will promise that everything that has been said in this debate shall be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, and I thank your Lordships on all sides of the House for the tone, the temper and, if it is not impertinent of me to say so, the discretion which have been shown throughout the debate with regard to what is evidently a delicate and a difficult situation.
7.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, we have had a long and full debate and I really do not think your Lordships require any further extensive observations from me. I should like, however, to thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, most warmly for his reply, which was very full and very informative. I must say that the noble and learned Lord was able to say far more than I thought it would be possible for him to say. I am glad that he thought the debate has been not unhelpful. As the noble and learned Lord knows, and as the Government know, our object was certainly not to embarrass the Government or the Prime Minister in the conduct of their affairs. What we meant to do—and I think to a certain extent we have succeeded—was to try, by an exchange of views, to clarify the situation. To me, at any rate, the process has been extremely interesting and very educative. The little fly I flew over the House, the explanation of why the Russians do what they do, seems to have risen some very large and eloquent fish. Certainly I think the rather crude ideas which I put forward at the beginning of the debate have been amplified and improved upon in the course of the debate. I was immensely struck with what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said about policy being an affair of many strands. Of course, that is absolutely true, and it would be absurd for me to suggest that the only reason behind Russian policy is isolationism. Suspicion and these other

1111
things obviously play a very full part. My object was to put forward one explanation which I thought had not been so widely given as some of the others in the past.
The only point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, about which was doubtful was his suggestion that the Charter of the United Nations should be altered to give Russia more votes. I think any attempt to give great nations more votes would arouse the utmost suspicion among all the smaller nations. We are all anxious that the great nations should have the fullest powers, and indeed they have a great deal more power than the smaller nations, but I think to take a step which would give them more votes than the smaller nations would be regarded by the smaller nations as retrograde.
May I say one or two words about what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor? I feel he slightly misunderstood what I said and what other noble Lords said. I was under the impression that he thought I was in favour of the policy of going ahead apart from Russia. That was certainly not my intention. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, that it is a last resort and a very undesirable resort, but I do not think we ought to lose sight of the fact that it may one day be necessary. I think that if the Russians felt that whatever they did we would never go ahead without them, and that they could hold up the whole progress of diplomacy and improvement in relations between nations, nothing but harm would result. I am not, however, advocating that as an ideal course but only as a last resort.
I would like to say one word about what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said about Germany. I think we ought to be extremely grateful to him for having given us so full a statement. He went a long way and I think his declaration was extremely meaty and will want a good deal more consideration than most of us have been able to give to it up to now. At the same time we are all, I think, glad to hear that the Government have found it possible to accept the American proposals. That is all to the good and it is a very definite step in the right direction. As I expected,
1112
he was not quite so definite about the political future and I do not intend to press him this evening. I thought that what he did say, so far as it went, was encouraging. He gave a picture of the conception which was in the mind of the Government and which I certainly think is a move towards the sort of views we have expressed. I felt there was still rather too much emphasis upon the unified political whole, but that is a personal view which may not be held by other people.
Of course, what he said about France will be warmly welcomed by everybody in this House, in whatever part they sit. There is no doubt that close relations between us and France must be one of the fundamental planks of British foreign policy at all times. Most of us regretted that greater progress had not been made since the end of the war to put this upon a proper and enduring foundation. I have no doubt that what the Lord Chancellor has said will be read with interest and approval on both sides of the Channel and I hope it will lead to some definite action.
I had one or two remarks which I wished to make in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, with whom I have crossed swords before, but I see that he has been unfortunately obliged to leave the House. The views of the noble Earl get nothing but sympathy in this House; his objective is exactly the same as all our objectives, but I cannot help feeling that if he were perhaps to be appointed to some office in the Foreign Office, in a short time he would find that things were not quite so easy. That is perhaps unfair to him, but it always seems to me that the noble Earl sits in his library or in his study and he sees it all so dearly, but when you are down in the traffic it looks much more difficult.
I have nothing more to say except again to thank the Government for what has been said on their behalf, and to say, on behalf of all your Lordships, how much we hope that the Foreign Secretary will have a very rapid and complete recovery. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with-drawn.
7.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I have raised the question of the western

1113
boundaries of Germany on several occasions during the last nine months and I have never until to-day received an answer that gave me any real indication of the Government's policy. I want to thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to-day, for having lifted at least a corner of the curtain and for having given us a glimpse inside. I hope that on the next occasion he will be able to improve upon that. In the circumstances I will not move my Motion.
7.25 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, there are a number of points which were raised in speeches subsequent to mine and in the reply of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on which I might have wished to comment, but I would on no account dream of doing so at this late hour. I feel I have already exhausted my ration of your Lordships' time. The only comment I would make is to echo the wish that the Foreign Secretary will very speedily recover from his illness. I regard his absence even for a week from that Conference as being most unfortunate. I wish him a speedy recovery and then good luck. I also do not move my Motion.

TRADE UNIONISTS TRIAL IN CYPRUS.
7.26 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether their attention has been called to an article in Pravda, broadcast from Moscow, of which a translation appeared in the Manchester Guardian on March 22, 1946, purporting amongst other things to describe a trial and condemnation in Cyprus of 18 trade union leaders, in regard to whom it was declared by the prosecution that, under the law of Cyprus, the holding of Marxist theory and possession of Marxist literature are crimes; whether the law of Cyprus was correctly stated
1114
by the prosecutor; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in the matter.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the article in question, and for the opportunity of correcting any misapprehensions which there may be. These individuals were convicted on a charge of being members of an unlawful association, in that they were encouraging by propaganda the overthrow of the Government of Cyprus by violence. The advocacy of Marxist theory and the possession of Marxist books are not, as such, offences under the Cyprus law. I understand that, during the course of the trial, a statement to the contrary was made by the prosecution: I am informed, however, that the intention was to convey that Marxist literature as interpreted by the accused and propagated in their documents constituted an offence under the provisions of the Cyprus law. I am advised that the Cyprus law relating to seditious propaganda is similar to the law of England. His Majesty's Government do not, therefore, propose to take any action in the matter.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount for his answer, may I ask whether that means that the statement of Cyprus law as contained in this report is a figment of the imagination either of the prosecutor or of the person making the report, and that the condemnation of these eighteen persons was for an entirely different crime than that which is set out in my question?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The conviction of the persons concerned was as I have described in my answer. The statement as to the law of Cyprus being similar to the law of England is correct and any other statement to the contrary is incorrect.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.